First Proof Second Batch

AI systems have begun to report solutions, disproofs, and substantive advances on long-standing mathematical problems, raising questions about whether they approach research in the same way as mathematicians. This study compares public AI research accounts with the human literature on 11 such problems. The human corpus contains 58 papers that directly addressed the same mathematical targets later reported by AI sources as resolved, disproved, or substantially advanced; 31 within-problem comparisons were constructed from these materials. Six validated text-based measures capture problem resolution, method articulation, uncertainty and boundary specification, successor-question generation, generality, and cross-disciplinary integration. AI accounts place greater emphasis on resolving the focal problem and connecting ideas across fields. Human papers devote significantly more attention to explaining methods, specifying assumptions and limitations, and identifying questions for subsequent research. No precise difference is detected in generality. The estimated directions remain unchanged when each mathematical problem is removed in turn. The findings reveal two distinct research profiles: AI accounts concentrate on closing and recombining problems, whereas mathematical papers more extensively document the procedures, limits, and research opportunities through which results become cumulative knowledge. Evaluating research AI therefore requires attention to the organization of inquiry, not only whether a target is solved.

Recent AI systems have achieved gold-medal-level performance on the International Mathematical Olympiad, demonstrating remarkable proficiency at competition-style problem solving. However, competition mathematics represents only a narrow slice of mathematical reasoning: problems are drawn from limited domains, require minimal advanced machinery, and can often reward insightful tricks over deep theoretical knowledge. We introduce Riemann-Bench, a private benchmark of expert-curated problems designed to evaluate AI systems on research-level mathematics that goes far beyond the olympiad frontier. Problems are authored by Ivy League mathematics professors, graduate students, and PhD-holding IMO medalists, and routinely took their authors weeks to solve independently. Each problem undergoes double-blind verification by two independent domain experts who must solve the problem from scratch, and yields a unique, closed-form solution assessed by programmatic verifiers. We evaluate frontier models as unconstrained research agents, with full access to coding tools, search, and open-ended reasoning, using an unbiased statistical estimator computed over 100 independent runs per problem. Our results reveal that all frontier models currently score below 10%, exposing a substantial gap between olympiad-level problem solving and genuine research-level mathematical reasoning. By keeping the benchmark fully private, we ensure that measured performance reflects authentic mathematical capability rather than memorization of training data.

The frontier of mathematics is defined by problems whose solutions are not yet known, yet it remains unclear whether language models can meaningfully engage with such problems without human intervention. 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, making it the largest collection of research-level mathematical problems to date. We further generate ResearchMath-Reasoning, $220$K teacher trajectories from two open models, where we observe recurring avoidance behaviors such as non-attempts and fabricated references. Interestingly, across eight open-weight models, newer generations produce $5.6\times$ more references and $5.0\times$ more fake references per trace. After agentic filtering of ResearchMath-Reasoning, fine-tuning Qwen3 models from 4B to 30B parameters improves over base models by $9.2$ points on average. This shows that filtered open-problem attempts can provide useful supervision even without fully correct reasoning traces. We make ResearchMath-14k publicly available for future works on research-level mathematical reasoning.