The paper introduces HorizonMath, a benchmark of 113 largely unsolved mathematical problems across eight domains, paired with an open-source framework for automated verification. It focuses on the generator‑verifier gap, targeting problems that are hard to discover but easy to verify computationally, thereby avoiding costly formal proof verification or manual review. Using this framework, the authors found six novel solutions—three each from GPT‑5.4 Pro and GPT‑5.6 Sol—demonstrating that current models can contribute to mathematical research, while most state‑of‑the‑art models score below 10%.
By Erik Y. Wang, Sumeet R. Motwani, James V. Roggeveen, Eliot Hodges, Dulhan Jayalath, Charles London, Kalyan Ramakrishnan, Jakob Foerster, Cheng Zhang, Flaviu Cipcigan, Philip Torr, Alessandro Abate
The paper introduces the AI Mathematician (AIM) framework, which leverages Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) to tackle frontier mathematical research. AIM addresses the complexity and procedural rigor of research problems through an exploration mechanism for longer solution paths and a pessimistic reasonable verification method for reliability. Early experiments show AIM can autonomously construct significant proof components and uncover non‑trivial insights across real‑world mathematical topics.
By Yuanhang Liu, Yanxing Huang, Yanqiao Wang, Peng Li, Yang Liu
arXiv:2607. 14178v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in Large Language Models have fueled autonomous AI agents capable of tackling complex scientific tasks, yet existing automated research systems remain predominantly focused on empirically driven domains with quantitative benchmarks, leaving theory-driven discovery, particularly in mathematically grounded disciplines requiring rigorous proofs and synthesis of domain knowledge, largely underexplored.
By Yutong He, Daibo Li, Guohong Li, Jiahe Geng, Zhengyang Huang, Can Ren, Zekun Zhang, Yifan Liu, Shuchen Zhu, Hengrui Zhang, Boao Kong, Ming Sun, Shu Li, Chenyi Li, Jiang Hu, Kun Yuan, Zaiwen Wen, Pingwen Zhang
The article compares how AI systems and human mathematicians approach 11 long-standing mathematical problems. It finds that AI reports focus more on solving the problem and linking ideas across fields, while human papers emphasize method explanation, assumptions, limitations, and future questions. Both approaches show similar levels of generality, but differ in their research profiles.
By Yang Ding
arXiv:2607. 28632v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Major mathematical conjectures still depend heavily on expert intuition, so a unified method for the systematic generation and validation of conjectures with substantial mathematical potential remains unavailable.
By Alizer Wong, Zixin Zeng, Yi Tan, Wenyuan Li, Xuhang Chen, Xingru Lai, Yang Shi, Liangsi Lu, Yanhui Chen
Automatically constructing well-specified and valuable mathematical conjectures remains a central challenge in AI-assisted mathematical discovery. Many existing open problems and conjectures are often too broad, underspecified, or difficult to connect to plausible proof or refutation strategies.