Compression is all you need: Modeling Mathematics

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly able to solve advanced mathematical problems, including many that have been open for decades. This opens the door to expansion of mathematical knowledge at unprecedented scale. Yet, while LLMs may be able to conjecture and prove more and more theorems, it remains open whether this new mathematical knowledge is interesting or useful. We define intrinsic interestingness of a theorem as the ratio between the length of its proof and the length of its statement. We show that this correlates strongly with an extrinsic measure of the downstream utility of a theorem. We identify the difficulty of a proof conditioned on a set of premises as a useful primitive for computing these metrics, and train a 27B model that predicts proof difficulty more accurately than frontier general-purpose models. Optimizing for our metric creates a model capable of producing more interesting theorems, while also reducing substantial or full overlap with Mathlib from 91.9% to 30.6%, showcasing the creation of more out-of-distribution math. We show that our system can generate candidate theorems, select the most interesting among them, and iteratively build on a self-expanding mathematical library. These metrics provide a practical and quantifiable signal for ranking conjectures and guiding proof search within formal mathematical libraries. Our framework provides a path towards self-expanding, machine-verified mathematical libraries that can choose worthwhile statements without relying on human-supplied targets.

Mathematical knowledge is organized around statements and their dependencies, but this structure is exposed unevenly: informal papers cite mostly at the document level, while formal libraries record fine-grained dependencies over a much smaller body of mathematics. We introduce TheoremGraph, a unified statement-level dependency graph spanning both informal and formal mathematics. On the informal side, we parse 11.7M theorem-like environments from mathematics arXiv and recover 18.3M candidate directed dependencies, each labeled by the extractor that proposed it so downstream users can trade coverage for precision. On the formal side, we release LeanGraph, a Lean 4 elaborator-level extractor producing 388,105 declaration nodes and 11.3M typed edges across 25 Lean projects. We bridge the two graphs by embedding generated natural-language slogans into a shared semantic space, linking related statements across papers and across the informal/formal divide; an LLM judge affirms 47,952 such matches above a 0.8 cosine floor, with the judge-acceptance rate rising from 48% across the floor to 87% in the >=0.9 tier. On formal concept retrieval, our name-and-signature representation with graph expansion comes within 0.5pp of LeanSearch v2's reranked Recall@10 (0.775 vs. 0.780) without an LM reranker. We release the dataset, extractors, HTTP API, and MCP interface as infrastructure for mathematical search, attribution, and retrieval-augmented reasoning, available at theoremsearch.com and huggingface.co/datasets/uw-math-ai/theorem-matching.

The frontier of mathematics is defined by problems whose solutions are not yet known. However, whether language models can meaningfully engage with such problems without human intervention remains unclear. A major obstacle is the lack of large-scale research-level math datasets. To this end, we introduce ResearchMath-14k, a set of $14{,}056$ problems curated from academic sources via a multi-agent pipeline. ResearchMath-14k spans 11 mathematical domains and ranks above existing math datasets on knowledge, novelty, and procedural difficulty. To our knowledge, it is the largest research-level mathematical problem set available for training. We additionally generate $220$K teacher trajectories through targeted prompting, followed by behavioral filtering. Notably, however, generating correct trajectories is nontrivial at this level, and two LLM judges label only $3.7\%$ and $4.3\%$ of sampled ResearchMath training trajectories as correct. Nevertheless, across three model families, full-parameter training on ResearchMath improves performance on graduate- and research-level mathematics benchmarks by $2.1$ points over the starting checkpoints. In comparison, training on existing datasets such as DASD and Nemotron-SFT-Math-v4 changes performance by $0.0$ and $-0.5$ points, respectively. Notably, mixing DASD with ResearchMath yields higher scores than token-matched DASD alone on benchmarks covering olympiad short-form ($+2.0$), graduate- and research-level short-form ($+0.8$), graduate- and research-level symbolic ($+2.6$), and proof evaluation ($+5.7$). Further analysis suggests that research-level mathematical content and greater reasoning diversity may help explain why ResearchMath provides complementary supervision to contemporary datasets. We make ResearchMath-14k publicly available for future works on research-level mathematical reasoning.