Accurate numerical eigenvalues are often difficult to certify, especially in singular or non-normal settings. This article reports a human--AI collaboration on two such computations. For a singular self-adjoint Schrödinger operator, a verified zero count and Dirichlet--Neumann bracketing certify the complete negative spectrum to ten decimal places. For a delicate non-normal atom--molecule benchmark, a previously unresolved resonance pair is separated, with each member enclosed to ten digits. The second result is achieved not by increasing the precision of one-way shooting, but by reformulating the problem as a global matching system for projective solution lines. The infinite tail is encoded as uncertainty in the terminal projective data, and a componentwise, tail-robust Krawczyk--Brouwer inclusion supplies the certificate. This gives a reusable architecture for analytic boundary-value systems with ill-conditioned propagation and uncertain asymptotic data. The collaboration also exposes the strengths and limits of AI assistance. AI rapidly produced accurate candidates and plausible proof strategies, but several failed, including one apparently complete tail argument that omitted the componentwise check required by a nonuniform polydisc. Validated computation is a stringent test of AI-assisted mathematics: the output is not merely a number, but a number with a proof. These examples show why the proof object matters, and why human mathematical judgment remained decisive. More broadly, as AI makes code, exposition, and plausible numerical claims inexpensive, standards for verification, attribution, peer review, and training must adapt. The implications are unsettling; the opportunity is extraordinary.
We assess 18 chapter-specific reviews of the ten mathematical results announced by OpenAI on 1 August 2026, alongside review standards, Lean formalizations, subsequent research, and mathematical references. The article audits this review record without claiming a complete reconstruction of all ten proofs. No confirmed substantive mathematical error in a principal result remains in the examined assessments, although review depth varies and some dependencies remain partly checked. Chapter 8 presents the strongest reservation: a specialist review requests major revision of compressed analytic arguments. In Chapter 6, an apparent polarity error was withdrawn after an overbar lost during PDF extraction was recovered from the typeset source. Subsequent research independently reuses the Chapter 3 proof mechanism and confirms that Connes's rigidity conjecture is false, without independently reproducing Chapter 4's stronger infinite-family result. Among the cited follow-ups, Chapter 7 receives the strongest direct theorem-level corroboration through a stronger hardness theorem. Related equality results in Chapter 8 do not verify the analytic inequality proof. Some follow-ups disclose material AI assistance. We argue that confidence should combine formal checking, human reconstruction, independent mathematical use, and a public record supporting correction of both proofs and reviews.
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.
Erik Y. Wang, Sumeet R. Motwani, James V. Roggeveen +9
The Riemann Hypothesis remains one of the central unsolved problems in mathematics. Rather than claiming proof, we investigate whether a verifiable AI-assisted reasoning system can produce reliable, formally checked partial progress while explicitly identifying the remaining mathematical obstructions. We apply the Verifiable Growing Physical Transformer with Recursive Self-Improvement (VGPT-RSI) to two RH-adjacent certification tasks. First, we construct and verify a finite RH-boundary certificate for inequality on a parameterized safe lower curve over a region. The numerical boundary curve is converted into a certificate-backed lower curve, audited using outward-rounded interval arithmetic and Arb/FLINT ball arithmetic, and then checked in Rocq/CoqInterval for the parameterized theorem. Second, we initiate a formal Lagarias-route certificate. Lagarias criterion states that RH is equivalent to the global inequality. We formalize the finite quantity and produce a Coq-checked finite certificate. The final system identifies the exact unresolved mathematical bottlenecks: formalizing the Lagarias equivalence, proving the global tail theorem beyond any finite cutoff, and potentially reducing counterexamples to colossally abundant or related extremal integers. These results demonstrate that VGPT-RSI can produce certified RH-adjacent formal progress, organize proof dependencies, and avoid overclaiming when the remaining obstruction is genuinely mathematical.