We introduce the AI co-mathematician, a workbench for mathematicians to interactively leverage AI agents to pursue open-ended research. The AI co-mathematician is optimized to provide holistic support for the exploratory and iterative reality of mathematical workflows, including ideation, literature search, computational exploration, theorem proving and theory building. By providing an asynchronous, stateful workspace that manages uncertainty, refines user intent, tracks failed hypotheses, and outputs native mathematical artifacts, the system mirrors human collaborative workflows. In early tests, the AI co-mathematician helped researchers solve open problems, identify new research directions, and uncover overlooked literature references. Besides demonstrating a highly interactive paradigm for AI-assisted mathematical discovery, the AI co-mathematician also achieves state of the art results on hard problem-solving benchmarks, including scoring 48% on FrontierMath Tier 4, a new high score among all AI systems evaluated.
AI agents are increasingly used in mathematics research, but it is often unclear how to use them effectively. Towards this, we present an extensive case study of how AI was used to improve bounds on the Grothendieck constant KG, which captures the hardness between combinatorial problems and their continuous relaxations. Specifically, while the precise value of KG is not known, we recently tightened the best known bounds to
116π≤KG≤2log(1+2)π−10−4.
Crucially, these improvements were achieved using an AI research system that could arrive at insights deemed novel by domain experts. We give a detailed discussion of our experience using AI for mathematics research, particularly touching upon its strengths and weaknesses, as well as our experience with creating ideal conditions for AI to arrive at breakthrough insights.
Recent advances in large language models and agentic AI systems have enabled significant progress in mathematical discovery, from solving competition problems to tackling research-level conjectures. However, open problems in computational mathematics have received comparatively less attention: research in this area often requires not only proofs but also numerical experimentation, adversarial constructions, and algorithm design. In this paper, we introduce an agentic research system, Iteris, designed for open problems in computational mathematics. We apply Iteris to two open problems from a recent Simons Workshop collection (arXiv:2602.05394). In these case studies, Iteris generated numerical evidence, constructions, and proof drafts that led, after expert review and correction, to verified results. The first result is a phase diagram for the asymptotic comparison between conjugate gradient and randomized coordinate descent on power-law spectra; the second is a counterexample showing that QR factorization with column pivoting can fail to select well-conditioned submatrices even under low coherence. These case studies suggest that agentic AI systems can participate meaningfully in research workflows for open problems in computational mathematics, while human validation remains essential.
Existing LLM-based theorem provers have achieved impressive results on formal mathematics benchmarks, yet they remain confined to acting as autonomous agents that prove a stated proposition. In this paper, we propose MathCoPilot, a human-in-the-loop system that embodies a new human--AI symbiotic paradigm for mathematical research, in which the mathematician steers the high-level mathematical direction while AI agents carry out the detailed formalization and proof work under continuous human guidance. MathCoPilot unifies three core capabilities: (1) an interactive workbench where the mathematician and AI agents collaborate through a living proof blueprint that decomposes a proof into navigable steps the human can directly inspect, direct, and refine; (2) automated proving skill orchestration with adaptive knowledge base search and Lean-integrated iterative verification; and (3) topic-driven paper retrieval and automated formalization into a verified Lean knowledge base. Using MathCoPilot, we systematically compare four state-of-the-art LLMs, including Gemini3.1Pro, GPT-5.4, and ClaudeOpus4.7, on a FormalMATH subset and on two real PDE theorems requiring deep domain expertise, evaluating their ability to produce verified Lean~4 proofs and to identify errors in deliberately incorrect proofs. Our results show that while current models can handle undergraduate-level problems with high success rates under favorable autoformalization conditions, substantial challenges remain for domain-specific theorems requiring genuine mathematical understanding.