Flood and Harvest: The Provable Necessity of Trivia for Generating Valuable Mathematics via the Lens of Language Generation in the Limit

Mathematical reasoning has long served as a stringent test of machine intelligence; over the past decade, it has moved from a niche problem within NLP to one of the most consequential AI frontiers. This survey provides a unified account of the field's evolution, from early rule-based math word problem (MWP) solvers and template-driven geometry systems, through neural expression generation and LLM prompting, to contemporary reasoning models, multi-agent systems, neuro-symbolic theorem provers, and verified discovery workflows. We organize the landscape along four axes: (i) informal reasoning over text and diagrams, spanning MWP solving, multimodal geometry, and VLMs; (ii) formal reasoning in proof assistants, including autoformalization, tactic prediction, compiler-guided repair, and proof search; (iii) mathematical discovery, where systems propose constructions, improve bounds, or assist attacks on open problems; and (iv) the inference and training-time techniques, including CoT prompting, tool use, process reward models, and RLVR, that increasingly connect generation with verification. We catalog major benchmarks across grade-school arithmetic, competition mathematics, geometry, formal proving, multimodal and multilingual reasoning, and expert evaluation, and we examine benchmark saturation, contamination, reporting mismatches, and the distinction between pass@1, majority voting, and verifier-assisted pass@$k$. We critically assess failure modes: brittleness under perturbation, reward hacking, multimodal grounding failures, fragile formalization, and the energy cost of reasoning-scale inference. Drawing on recent perspectives from working mathematicians, we identify future directions centered on verified-discovery workflows, reasoning efficiency, and infrastructure to make AI-assisted formalization broadly usable. Companion materials: https://github.com/Starscream-11813/awesome-AI4Math.

Can AI make progress on important, unsolved mathematical problems? Large language models are now capable of sophisticated mathematical and scientific reasoning, but whether they can perform novel research is still widely debated and underexplored. We introduce HorizonMath, a benchmark of 113 predominantly unsolved problems spanning eight domains in mathematics and the mathematical sciences, paired with an open-source evaluation framework for automated verification. Our benchmark targets the generator-verifier gap: problems where discovery is hard and requires meaningful mathematical insight, but verification is computationally straightforward. This contrasts with most existing research-level benchmarks, which instead rely on formal proof verification or manual review, both of which are expensive to scale. Because these solutions are unknown, HorizonMath is resistant to data contamination, and most state-of-the-art models score under 10%. Using this framework, we identify six novel solutions to research problems that either resolve previously open questions or improve on the best-known published results, with GPT-5.4 Pro and GPT-5.6 Sol each discovering three of these solutions. Across seven frontier model families, reasoning efficiency and behavior also vary substantially. We release HorizonMath as an open challenge and a growing community resource, where each verified solution is a candidate contribution to the mathematical literature.

Lean is increasingly used to judge natural-language mathematical answers, but its signal is partial: many answers never formalize, and a failed proof may reflect an ill-typed statement or a missing library fact, not a wrong answer. On MATH-500 we show this signal is (i) sharply coverage-dependent, that is the proof-winning answer is correct 96% of the time at high proved coverage but 20% at low, and (ii) sparse and often unfaithful: a 7B autoformalizer proves a class for only 28% of problems, and a manual audit finds only approximately 43% of those proofs faithful. We propose COVCAL, a selector over Lean-trace diagnostics that certifies a finite-sample selective-risk bound on accepted answers or abstains, under two regimes (a conservative Bonferroni bound and a tighter dev-then-cal rule). Feasibility depends on autoformalization coverage: with the 7B formalizer the signal is too sparse and Bonferroni abstains on all 20 bootstrap partitions, whereas a prover-specialized formalizer reaches 79% coverage and flips it to feasible on 17 of 20, accepting approximately 48% of problems at 0.98 accepted accuracy. Since self-consistency alone is already 91% accurate, our contribution is a precise account of when, and with which formalizer, a partial formal signal can be trusted under risk control.