Lower Bounds for Advection-Diffusion Equations: An Exploration with AI-Generated Proofs

We present QED, an open-source multi-agent system that turns human-provided research questions into complete mathematical proofs without further human guidance. Its pipeline is designed to overcome common failures of single-query proof generation by separating planning, proving, and verification: a decomposition agent structures the proof search, prover agents generate candidate arguments, and verifier agents check correctness. In collaboration with domain experts, we evaluated QED on 18 research-level projects of varying difficulty. QED produced five original works across algebraic geometry, fluid PDEs, probability, and inverse problems. Expert assessments regard these works as solid specialized research contributions, with three comparable in difficulty and scope to work commonly published in established specialist mathematics venues. QED is released at https://github.com/proofQED/QED.

We formalize a research result in the Lean 4 proof assistant by having a mathematician direct an AI system, and frame the activity as a formalization game. The objective is to turn a LaTeX document into Lean. The game is won when the development compiles, contains no sorry, and a machine check shows the target theorems rest on Lean's foundational axioms alone. Reuse is a second check, by a definition we introduce: whether the development yields a self-contained layer of general mathematics the wider library could absorb. The case study is a complete, axiom-clean formalization of well-posedness for the nonlinear Vlasov equation via Dobrushin's mean-field route -- existence, uniqueness, the stability estimate and mean-field limit, and a short-window superposition principle (weak solutions are Lagrangian). The human's role was to direct, not to write proofs: to scope the definitions, steer the decompositions, and triage the library's gaps; the AI agent executed. The formalization certifies the proof of each statement as written; whether the written statement is the intended theorem stays the mathematician's judgment. The optimal-transport machinery that fell out of the build (in particular, properties of the Wasserstein-1 metric and the Kantorovich-Rubinstein duality theorem) separates into a self-contained layer that compiles against Mathlib alone: about a sixth of the development (49 of 299 declarations), behind a 22-declaration interface with no reverse dependency. The headline theorems ran in about a week, the full development in about a month. We report the quantitative claims as observations of one game, not as general laws. The game's rules name no particular system, so the methodological framing is meant to outlast the tools of any one run.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) saturate elementary benchmarks, the research frontier has shifted from generation to the reliability of automated evaluation. We demonstrate that standard "LLM-as-a-Judge" protocols suffer from a systematic Alignment Gap when applied to upper-undergraduate to early graduate level mathematics. To quantify this, we introduce QEDBench, the first large-scale dual-rubric alignment benchmark to systematically measure alignment with human experts on university-level math proofs by contrasting course-specific rubrics against expert common knowledge criteria. By deploying a dual-evaluation matrix (7 judges x 5 solvers) against 1,000+ hours of human evaluation, we reveal that certain frontier evaluators like Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3, Qwen 2.5 Max, and Llama 4 Maverick exhibit significant positive bias (up to +0.18, +0.20, +0.30, +0.36 mean score inflation, respectively). Furthermore, we uncover a critical reasoning gap in the discrete domain: while Gemini 3.0 Pro achieves state-of-the-art performance (0.91 average human evaluation score), other reasoning models like GPT-5 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.5 see their performance significantly degrade in discrete domains. Specifically, their average human evaluation scores drop to 0.72 and 0.63 in Discrete Math, and to 0.74 and 0.50 in Graph Theory. In addition to these research results, we also release QEDBench as a public benchmark for evaluating and improving AI judges. Our benchmark is publicly published at https://github.com/qqliu/Yale-QEDBench.