Math Problems

Large language models solve grade-school math word problems with high accuracy, yet a single irrelevant clause inserted into the problem can collapse it. We reconcile these observations with a mechanistic account. We show that the model's internal computation decomposes into a four-stage sequential pipeline, Schema Abstraction, Operation Planning, Operand Binding, and Computation, each stage producing a distinct intermediate representation in an identifiable band of layers. Using the same scaffold to diagnose distractor-induced failure, we localize the corruption to a single stage, Operation Planning, implemented by a set of attention heads whose causal role we validate bidirectionally. In short, we provide a mechanistic interpretation of math word problem reasoning in LLMs, and their failure when distracted.

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.

Confidence estimation for large language models (LLMs) aims to estimate the probability that a generated answer is correct, while calibration aligns these estimates with empirical accuracy. Prior work has shown that token probabilities are often overconfident, we investigate whether these readily available signals can nevertheless provide well-calibrated confidence estimation for mathematical question answering. We compare single-pass estimators, which reuse token probabilities from the original generation, with multi-pass estimators, which obtain additional confidence signals through verification or stochastic forward passes. While individual token probabilities can be highly saturated, we find that aggregating token probabilities over the full sequence captures small but consistent differences between correct and incorrect generations, yielding more informative confidence estimates. Multi-pass methods can yield calibrated confidence estimates. We study two such approaches: self-verification through re-prompting, including a lower-cost in-situ variant, and Monte Carlo Dropout, which derives confidence from variation across stochastic forward passes. We further evaluate two post-hoc calibration methods, Platt scaling and isotonic regression, both of which substantially reduce in-domain calibration error. However, their data efficiency varies with dataset difficulty, and the calibration mappings often transfer asymmetrically across datasets and models.

Today, we improve models by training and evaluating them on problems at the frontier of their abilities. Creating such problems is itself a demanding task, requiring the ability to probe model limits and generalize beyond existing question distributions. It also means placing problems at a precise difficulty level, which requires understanding what it takes to solve them. In short, generating problems calibrated to a model's current frontier demands capability beyond it, an increasingly burdensome constraint as models improve. Our key insight is that we can leverage this constraint to our advantage: a model that can generate problems consistently calibrated to a given frontier must possess capability beyond it. Accordingly, we present Ask-E, an environment that benchmarks and trains models on their ability to write questions at a given skill level, rather than answer them. Concretely, we define target skill levels as ranges bounded by the capabilities of two existing language models. A generated question is successfully calibrated if exactly one of the two models can solve it, placing it precisely within the target range and differentiating the capabilities of these models. Ask-E serves both as a benchmark and a training environment, where models generate problems calibrated to a variety of skill levels. We find that even frontier models achieve below 50% calibration on the benchmark, leaving significant headroom to measure future progress. We also show that training on this environment leads to improvements across a number of downstream math benchmarks even with no new math data, no interaction with stronger models, and no correctness-based reward.

Large language models can derive a plausible mathematical object yet still violate explicit requirements--for example, by omitting a modular reduction, returning a non-integer, or using the wrong encoded answer form. We introduce Constraint-First Reasoning (CFR), a training-free two-stage prompting protocol: Stage 1 extracts and summarizes constraints entailed by the problem, and Stage 2 solves while checking intermediate and final results against that summary. Routed-CFR activates the two-stage protocol only when a text-only regex router detects restrictive cues; otherwise it uses direct chain-of-thought (CoT). Across AIME, CMIMC, BRUMO, and AIMO_AMC, the method improves direct CoT on multiple backbones. We further report convention-controlled routing experiments, matched prompting baselines, problem-level paired tests, decoding robustness, constraint-quality audits, total-token accounting, and an OlympiadBench evaluation. These analyses position CFR as a targeted test-time intervention whose benefit depends on recoverable constraints and reliable Stage 1 extraction, rather than as a general-purpose replacement for mathematical reasoning.

Teaching a language model a skill it has not mastered is obstructed by three recurring difficulties: training data is scarce, ground-truth reasoning traces are usually unavailable, and models often exhibit an apparent ceiling beyond which additional data yields no further improvement. We study these difficulties in a controlled setting, fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Math-7B on competition mathematics (AIME), a task on which it initially solves only 5.6% of problems (pass@1). To address data scarcity, we introduce Question-begets-Question (QbQ), a scalable procedure in which a teacher transforms existing problems into diverse variants that probe the same underlying skills; to model the absence of oracle reasoning, we train exclusively via reinforcement learning on problem statements and final answers, never on teacher reasoning traces. Static training on such data, however, plateaus well short of the task: real-plus-synthetic augmentation and non-curriculum QbQ generated synthetic data training cap pass@1 at 12.5% and 14.5% respectively, despite large increases in data. Our central finding is that this ceiling is not intrinsic to the model. We propose a self-evolving curriculum that, each round, evaluates the current checkpoint, seeds QbQ from the problems it can mostly get right, and trains on the resulting variants; under an identical data budget, this breaks the ceiling and lifts pass@1 to 16.5% with no sign of saturation after 20 rounds. Counterintuitively, we find that models improve when trained on variants of problems they can mostly get right, and that models trained this way go on to solve harder problems never seen during training.

The Word Problem has been a subject of intensive mathematical study for over a century, initially driving advances in combinatorial group theory and more recently emerging as a foundational hardness assumption in post-quantum cryptography (PQC). While generally undecidable, several families of infinite non-abelian groups exhibit solvable or algorithmically fast word problems, making them attractive platforms for cryptographic design. This paper introduces WPNet, a novel Graph Neural Network architecture capable of solving the Word Problem heuristically, which is demonstrated on the Baumslag-Solitar group $BS(1,2)$ and on an Artin group. By mapping unreduced words to dynamic graph structures, the model learns to cluster algebraically equivalent elements in a continuous embedding space, effectively identifying the geodesic representative of a word without executing discrete reduction steps. As an application, a model variant is developed that can predict the geodesic length of an unreduced word in both groups. To demonstrate the cryptographic severity of this structural leakage, WPNet is successfully deployed against the Wagner-Magyarik public-key cryptosystem.

Language-model benchmarks collapse two distinct measurement questions into a single accuracy score: whether a response reached an evaluable state, and whether its answer was judged correct. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that separates scorer-independent execution evidence, including termination, answer exposure, parseability, and completion length, from scorer-dependent correctness. Across 2,550 outputs from five fixed Qwen and DeepSeek configurations on MATH and ARC-Challenge, matched 2,048-token limits produce sharply different execution mixtures: 49 of 450 Qwen MATH outputs terminate without a final answer, compared with 5 of 300 DeepSeek MATH outputs and none of the 750 ARC outputs. Among the same 300 DeepSeek MATH question-model pairs, no missing-final length termination is observed at 8,192 tokens. A coverage-audited targeted verification study further shows that candidate-selection and aggregation policies can substantially alter comparative accuracy estimates. These results demonstrate that accuracy conflates execution case mix with verification policy. Evaluations of test-time methods should therefore report pre-intervention execution states, verification coverage, and scorer provenance alongside accuracy.

Instruction tuning has become the standard method for adapting large language models to follow human intent, yet existing instruction datasets are dominated by English-language general-knowledge tasks and lack coverage of specialized pedagogical domains. This paper presents IKS-Instruct, a dataset of 24,795 instruction-response pairs for teaching language models to deliver educational content grounded in Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS). The dataset spans seven languages (English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam), covers 41 pedagogical techniques from the Vedic oral and mathematical traditions, and is aligned with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) curriculum for classes 6 through 12. The pairs are derived from six source types: classical text corpora (Bhagavad Gita, Thirukkural, Sangam literature, Vedic texts), curriculum-aligned pedagogical templates, Vedic mathematical sutra demonstrations, bilingual instruction pairs, technique-grounded multi-turn dialogues, and cross-tradition comparative analyses. Quality is assessed through a multi-judge evaluation framework in which independent language models score responses on 12 dimensions including technique fidelity, pedagogical quality, factual accuracy, and IKS cultural depth. Under a uniform five-judge external panel (median aggregation over 1,201 stratified items), the strongest IKS-Instruct fine-tune of a compact 7B model reaches a median judge score of 6.39, within 0.15 of a strong general-purpose reference model (Nemotron-Nano at 6.54) at a fraction of its deployment cost, while the base model without IKS fine-tuning scores near zero on the IKS-specific dimensions. Model quality does not increase monotonically with data curation, a result we report together with the corresponding data-quality gains.

Mathematical Word Problems (MWPs) are an important benchmark for evaluating natural language understanding and quantitative reasoning. Despite recent progress in high resource languages, Bengali remains underexplored due to the limited availability of large scale annotated datasets. In this work, we introduce PatiGonit22K, an expanded Bengali MWP dataset containing 22,441 problems, developed by extending the original PatiGonit dataset with a substantially larger collection of complex mathematical problems. The dataset includes both simple and multi operation equations, providing a balanced benchmark for evaluating mathematical reasoning across different difficulty levels. Each problem is carefully translated, annotated, culturally adapted, and verified to ensure linguistic consistency and mathematical correctness. By increasing both the scale and complexity of Bengali MWPs, PatiGonit22K provides a more comprehensive resource for future research on mathematical reasoning and educational NLP applications in low resource languages.

VectorizationLLM is a specialized Large Language Model based on Google open-weight LLMs. The model is designed to assist students to learn smart vectorization, time/wave vector analysis, piecewise functions, Fourier analysis, and differential equations in MATLAB. The course application is CTEC 247: Applied Computational Analysis II by the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Technology at New York Institute of Technology Old Westbury. The LLM model is designed to be an instructive assistant, providing detailed explanations of concepts with examples from in-class notes without providing direct answers to questions. The model is designed with a RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) knowledge base and system prompt architecture. Examples in both code, text, and images are provided in the LLM responses.

To help evaluate the mathematical skills of current AI systems, we present a set of formulas for fundamental mathematical constants. These problems are attractive for AI evaluation because they are concrete and can be checked numerically to arbitrary precision, yet proving them may require non-obvious mathematics. Mathematical constants such as $π$, $e$, Catalan's constant, and special values of the Riemann zeta function have fascinated mathematicians for centuries. The search for formulas evaluating mathematical constants has produced some of the most beautiful mathematics in the field, especially in cases that yield irrationality proofs or fast convergence rates. Ramanujan's legacy is emblematic of this tradition. The list we provide contains two types of problems: formulas whose proofs are known to the authors but will remain encrypted for a short initial period; and formulas that are not yet proven. We are curious to see the achievements of AI in both cases.

Mathswitch is an open-source project that imports mathematical concept records from sources such as Wikidata, Wikipedia, MathWorld, Encyclopedia of Mathematics, nLab, ProofWiki, and Agda-Unimath, and links records that refer to the same concept. It does not reorganize or redefine the imported content; each source retains its own structure. The current focus is on importing concept data from Wikidata and the resources it links to, with plans to expand to further sources and better concept linking. Because the concept set is approximated through queries over Wikidata's collaboratively edited graph, the imported data is noisy: some items are non-mathematical, while others are ambiguous. In this paper, we test whether a voting ensemble of LLM judges can filter this noise. We evaluate it on Wikidata items with known MathWorld identifiers as a positive control, and examine how classification changes when database identifiers are removed from context. We then inspect the cases where the judges disagree with MathWorld and group these disagreements into three categories (degenerate descriptions, narrow scope bias, and editorial-scope mismatches) that suggest different remediation strategies.

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 study how the effort and success probability of frontier AI systems scale with human difficulty on problems from Project Euler, an online platform of computational mathematics problems. Our dataset, from the MathArena benchmark, consists of 3840 attempts across 50 problems and 26 model configurations, with problem difficulty measured by the site's public human solve times. Motivated by a proposal of Timothy Gowers, we test a power-law relation $t_{\text{machine}} = a \cdot t_{\text{human}}^b$ between generated-token cost per successful answer and human time, and find $b < 1$ for 20 of the 25 models with usable fits, including the strongest base models; this operationalization therefore does not support an earlier prediction that machines scale worse than humans with difficulty. We also investigate whether success probability on the tested problems can be modeled by a simple exponential decay $p_{\text{success}} = e^{c t_{\text{human}}}$, predicting a linear relation between $\log p_{\text{success}}$ and $t_{\text{human}}$. Using a binning approach for data aggregation we find moderate empirical support (median bin-level $R^2 = 0.92$ across the 22 best-covered configurations) for this model. Following METR, we also fit logistic success curves and extract 50% task-length horizons $h_{50}$; the strongest configurations in our 20 April 2026 snapshot reach roughly $2.5$--$4.3$ hours on our fastest-five human baseline, with a log-linear fit through the state-of-the-art frontier giving a descriptive doubling time of about $75$~days for the SOTA $h_{50}$.

We present a dependent-type-based prover designed around the way LLMs (and humans) tend to write mathematics, complementing existing systems such as Lean and Rocq. Its core design choices are a surface that imitates mathematical natural language and a rule-driven automation layer that closes the routine steps a textbook would omit, so that an accepted proof can be re-emitted as a checked Lean file. Early experiments suggest that, even without any prover-specific training data, LLMs can learn to use it effectively on the miniF2F benchmark. Lean output excerpts: https://github.com/xiyuzhai-husky-lang/visored/

This work investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate mathematical equations from scientific texts. Prior work faces challenges in unstructured grounding, multi-equation dependency, and humanaligned evaluation. To this end, we construct a dataset of AI research papers, pairing contextual passages with ground-truth equations and variable descriptions. We develop an explainable equation generation workflow and evaluate it across diverse open- and closed-source LLM backbones. We introduce an evaluation protocol combining automatic metrics, LLM-based rubrics, and human judgments to assess accuracy, explainability, and human-LLM alignment. Results indicate that LLMs perform moderately on lexical- and syntactic-based similarity, while struggling with semantic accuracy. Comparisons between LLM-based evaluations and human judgments reveal limited alignment, highlighting challenges in using LLMs to assess equation quality. These findings offer insights for improving equation generation models and developing more reliable evaluation methods for scientific text. We provide code and data for reproducibility.

AI systems coupled to proof assistants now generate formal mathematics at scale, and the gap between what a checker can verify and what a mathematician would value has become the binding constraint. We model the generation of valuable mathematics as nested language generation in the limit: a verifiable formal language $F$, accessed through a membership oracle (the proof checker), contains an unknown valuable language $H \in \mathcal{H}$ revealed only through an adversarial enumeration of a core $C \subseteq H$ of exact density $α$ (the literature). Every output is valuable ($\in H$), trivial ($\in F \setminus H$), or a hallucination ($\notin F$). We settle four questions. First, the verifier is not taste: the collections admitting generation with breadth are exactly those of the oracle-free model, characterized fiber-wise by Angluin's condition. Second, the verifier does buy sound coverage, covering all unseen valuable statements while asserting only valid ones: possible with it, impossible without it; it relocates unavoidable errors from false to trivial. Third, and centrally, a sharp dichotomy on the tight family: generators emitting finitely many trivia achieve optimal coverage $α/2$, while any infinite trivia allowance, even at vanishing rate, jumps the optimum to $1-α/2$ (both tight, for cores presented as the candidate intersection), and one generator attains both ends. The transition is in trivia count, not rate; the gap $1-α$ is the unrecorded mass. Fourth, both regimes instantiate in a compression model of mathematics. A perfect verifier cannot substitute for taste: the unbounded stream of correct-but-worthless statements is not an engineering accident but a provable necessity, since covering unrecorded valuable mathematics requires an infinite, but asymptotically negligible, stream of certified trivia.

Sharing mathematical content in online forums remains a significant friction point for students and educators: writing raw LATEX is error-prone, standalone optical character recognition tools require platform switching, and current forum software offers no integrated path from a photograph of a formula to a rendered post. We present a unified system that eliminates this friction by embedding an image to LATEX conversion pipeline directly inside a forum posting interface. A user uploads or captures an image of a mathematical expression; the system routes it through the Mathpix OCR API, detects whether the returned output is LATEX or plain text containing inline math, applies the appropriate delimiter normalisation, and renders a live preview in either LATEX or Markdown mode before the post is committed to the database. The architecture is organized in three loosely coupled layers: image processing, rendering, and storage, and supports both desktop and mobile clients. A provisional US patent application has been filed covering the core methods. We describe the full system design, each component in detail, the data schema, and the key technical innovations, and we position the work against existing standalone tools and forum platforms to demonstrate the practical gap it closes. Beyond immediate usability, we argue that a deployed platform of this kind constitutes a continuously growing, community-validated dataset of mathematical problems and step-by-step solutions, a resource that can be used to train and benchmark AI systems for accurate mathematical reasoning

Large language models are increasingly used to adapt math word problems for personalized learning at scale, but it remains an open question whether those adaptations are consistent across models, preserve cultural diversity at scale, and reveal which cultural entities models treat as most salient. We analyze how Claude Opus 4, GPT-4.1, and Gemini 2.5 Pro adapt 60 English math word problems into Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi (India), Urdu, Sindhi (Pakistan), Italian, and Sicilian (Italy), a language set spanning the full resource spectrum, from high-resource Italian and Hindi to under-studied Sindhi, Sicilian, and Punjabi. We annotate 6,489 entity transformations, coding whether models preserve, localize, generalize, omit, or change entities such as names, foods, and places. Models agree on transformation type in 62.5% of cases and on specific substitutions in only 33.5%, meaning model choice directly shapes which cultural world students encounter. All 21 language-model combinations show entropy collapse, with adaptation compressing rather than expanding cultural diversity. Models prioritize surface markers such as names, foods, and currencies while preserving deeper structural features such as grade-level systems that embed culturally specific assumptions. Despite prompts specifying target countries, models misattribute regional context by using Bangladeshi taka for Indian Bengali students and produce cross-cultural contamination, such as adapting egg hunts as Eid activities. Some failures are visible in individual translations. Others, including diversity collapse, systematic preference for surface markers, and consistent regional misattribution, emerge only through corpus-level analysis. The surface plausibility that makes adapted problems look correct is precisely what makes deeper failures easy to overlook.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) often solve a task when all instructions are given in a single prompt, but fail when the same information is revealed gradually across turns. When a clean FULL prompt and a RAW-SHARDED conversation contain the same complete user evidence, the model should still arrive at the same answer. We argue that a key reason for this gap is self-anchored drift: responses produced under partial information introduce unsupported assumptions, and those assumptions later distort the final answer. To reduce this effect, we propose Canonical-Context On-Policy Distillation (CCOPD). During training, the same base model is used in two roles: a frozen teacher conditioned on the clean FULL prompt and a trainable student that receives the same evidence incrementally through a multi-turn conversation; CCOPD aligns the student's behavior on its own trajectories with the teacher's canonical full-context behavior. Trained only on math problem conversations, CCOPD yields a 32% average relative improvement in RAW-SHARDED performance over the original base model across math and five zero-shot out-of-domain task families, while largely preserving full-context performance. Further analyses suggest that CCOPD strengthens grounding in user evidence and reduces sensitivity to contamination from earlier assistant turns.

We present AutoformBot, a multi-agent system for building an Autoformalized Textbook Library At Scale (Atlas) in Lean 4. AutoformBot orchestrates thousands of LLM agents, equipped with formal verification tools, dependency-aware task scheduling, and collaborative version control, to translate informal textbook prose into machine-checked definitions and proofs. We apply our methods to a corpus of 26 open-access textbooks spanning analysis, algebra, topology, combinatorics, and probability, producing Atlas: a verified library of over 45,000 Lean 4 declarations and 500 thousand lines of code. We release two artifacts: (i) AutoformBot, the open-source multi-agent framework; and (ii) Atlas, the resulting formal library. Our results suggest that autoformalizing the core content of graduate-level mathematics at scale is now economically and technically feasible. This opens the door to the automated verification of both human- and machine-generated mathematics at a research level.

This book provides a compact, derivation-oriented introduction to the mathematical foundations of modern generative artificial intelligence. Rather than surveying every recent architecture or implementation detail, it develops a coherent route through the ideas connecting major families of generative models, from PCA, probabilistic PCA, variational autoencoders, and diffusion models to normalising flows, autoregressive factorisations, GANs, Wasserstein GANs, and energy-based models. The aim is to make the structure of generative modelling more accessible without removing the mathematical substance needed to understand how these models are derived and related. The book is intended as a foundation-building primer for mathematically curious researchers, practitioners, and students.

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.

Mathematical reasoning benchmarks are vital for evaluating large language models (LLMs), but many are static and repeatedly exposed through public evaluation and training pipelines, making it difficult to separate genuine reasoning from memorization. Meanwhile, manually constructing new math problems with reliable answers remains costly. We introduce ReverseMath, a scalable method for generating new math problems through answer inversion. Given a problem and its answer, ReverseMath masks a numerical value in the original problem, treats the original answer as a known condition, and rewrites the problem so that the masked value becomes the new answer. The generated problem reverses the original input-output relation, making its answer known by construction. We study ReverseMath for both evaluation and training. For evaluation, paired original/reversed problems reveal substantial behavioral shifts: models sometimes fail on reversed problems and even incorrectly output the original answer, suggesting memorization-like behavior. For training, ReverseMath provides automatically labeled reversed problems as data augmentation for reinforcement learning (RL). Experiments show that including ReverseMath-generated data improves mathematical reasoning performance across multiple benchmarks, demonstrating its value as both an analysis tool and a scalable source of verifiable training data.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve impressive accuracy on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet their performance drops when problems are modified with simple changes like different names or numbers. Code execution methods, which let models generate and run Python code instead of reasoning in natural language, have been proposed as a solution, but their effect on reasoning robustness (the ability to maintain accuracy across problem variations) has not been systematically tested. This study evaluates three approaches on 1,000 problems from the GSM-Symbolic dataset: pure reasoning using chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, single-shot code execution using Program-Aided Language models (PAL), and iterative code execution using Step-by-Step Coding (SBSC). All three were run on paired original and modified problems using Claude Haiku 4.5. CoT was the most robust method, with an accuracy drop of 1.3 percentage points and 1.8% of problems breaking under perturbation. PAL was the least robust at 1.7 percentage points and 3.1% broke, with SBSC falling in between. Although these differences were not statistically significant ($p = .096$), the directional trend was consistent across all measures, suggesting that code execution, whether single-shot or iterative, does not improve reasoning robustness on grade-school-level problem variations.

This paper studies reinforcement learning for high-frequency trading on limit order books by pairing an Order-Flow-based state model with policy-gradient methods. Instead of value-based RL techniques like tabular Q-learning, our approach deploys policy-based methods like vanilla PPO and DeepSeekMath-inspired variants like GRPO and GSPO, that use group-normalized updates and downside-aware shaping. On backtests with financial assets AMZN, AAPL, and GOOG under a simplified backtesting setup based on spread-scaled rewards, these new policies improve net average PnL, profitability, and drawdown over the Q-Learning baseline. Our results show that (1) Order-Flow signals are an adequate state for policy RL and (2) group-aware PPO surrogates are preferable over value-based baselines.

We study the symmetric polynomial $\prod_{α\in A_{n,d}}\bigl(1+α_1 x_1+\cdots+α_n x_n\bigr)$ where $A_{n,d}:=\{α\in\mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}^n:|α|=d\}$, which is the total Chern class of $\mathrm{Sym}^d(\mathbb{C}^n)$, viewed as a torus representation whose Chern roots are the weights $α_1 x_1+\cdots+α_n x_n$ for $α\in A_{n,d}$. Its homogeneous degree-$k$ part $c_k(n,d)$ is the $k$-th Chern class of $\mathrm{Sym}^d(\mathbb{C}^n)$. These Chern classes, together with their coefficients in various symmetric function bases, play a central role in enumerative geometry. Despite their simple definition, general closed formulas for their coefficients are subtle, and many structural properties of these classes have remained poorly understood. In this paper we prove several conjectures concerning their structure, establish explicit formulas, and study log-concavity properties for both the Chern classes and their $K$-theoretic analogue. In rank two, passing to the Schur basis and expanding the Schur coefficients in the binomial basis of $d$, we uncover a new binomial log-concavity phenomenon and prove refined positivity results. The paper demonstrates a novel methodology: we combine several AI systems with human mathematical insight in a coordinated workflow, deploying each tool according to its strengths in experimental discovery, conjecture formation, symbolic proof construction, and verification. To our knowledge, this is one of the first detailed case studies of orchestrating multiple AI tools to make substantial progress on a coherent mathematical research project.

How much have students' ordinary learning processes shifted in response to generative AI, and how does that affect their durable learning outcomes? Self-report surveys show little change, while small-scale behavioral studies report widespread AI use without the scale or duration to measure learning consequences. We address both questions using a ten-year panel of $3.2$ million ALEKS learning interactions for investigating time-on-task, complemented by ALEKS PPL placement-assessment data for examining proctoring and learning outcomes, with a quasi-experimental design exploiting variation in tasks that are more susceptible to AI (text-based word problems) and less susceptible to AI (interactive graph-based problems). Learning time on AI-susceptible problems declines $2.8\%$ per quarter among college students after ChatGPT's release, cumulating to $26.9\%$ over eleven quarters; high-schoolers show $31.3\%$, middle-schoolers $9.0\%$, and Grade 5 students no detectable change. Among college students, the post-ChatGPT divergence vanishes entirely under proctoring, ruling out broad efficiency gains as the likely explanation. Logistic fixed-effects models on randomly assigned proctored retention items yield a $25\%$ cumulative decline in odds of correct response; the same estimator on non-proctored assessment produces a large opposite-signed increase -- inconsistent with any platform, cohort, or curriculum explanation. These results are among the first large-scale behavioral and outcome evidence that generative AI has altered how students study and the knowledge they build -- the population-level indicator of \emph{cognitive surrender}, with direct implications for educational research, assessment governance, and AI policy.

Large language models (LLMs) have increasingly leveraged tool invocation to enhance their reasoning capabilities. However, existing approaches typically tightly couple tool invocation with immediate execution. Such immediate tool interaction may disrupt the reasoning coherence of LLMs and constrain their expressivity, ultimately degrading reasoning performance. To this end, for the first time, we propose and formalize the problem of decoupling tool invocation from execution during reasoning, and introduce delayed execution with explicit control to enhance tool-integrated reasoning (TIR). Furthermore, we propose a hierarchical control framework and theoretically derive a surrogate loss that enables an implicitly hierarchical policy to learn behavior equivalent to that of an explicit hierarchical policy, leading to the proposed IH-GRPO algorithm. Extensive experiments on IH-GRPO achieve absolute improvements of 1.87%, 2.16%, and 2.53% on Qwen3-1.7B, Qwen3-4B, and Qwen3-8B across six out-of-domain mathematical reasoning benchmarks over the strongest baseline method, while also yielding consistent performance gains in other domains. Our code is available at https://github.com/Lumina04/IH-GRPO-01.

We consider whether off-policy experience from a smaller, weaker model can elicit capability in a stronger learner that on-policy RL fine-tuning (e.g., GRPO) does not reach. We find that injecting mathematically wrong drafts from a smaller but more domain-trained model -- mismatched to the current problem -- into a stronger learner's GRPO context consistently outperforms standard on-policy GRPO on held-out MATH-500 and out-of-distribution AIME 2025/2026. Concretely, we use Mathstral-7B as the learner, Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B as the draft model, 8.8K Level 3--5 MATH problems (with MATH-500 held out), and train with Dr. GRPO. Mismatch is an active ingredient: shuffling drafts to mismatched problems while holding everything else constant yields $+1.62$pp on MATH-500 (greedy pass@1) over the matched-wrong variant ($n=10$ seeds, $p=0.0015$, Welch's $t$). In fact, the mismatched-wrong variant leads all other variants we tested on MATH-500 across both greedy pass@1 and sampling pass@$k$. On out-of-distribution AIME 2025 and 2026, the mismatched-wrong variant uniquely lifts pass@$k$ above both Mathstral-7B (in its native [INST] format) and the Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B draft model at every sample budget from $k=1$ to $k=1024$ across 2 seeds ($+14.2$pp on 2025 and $+9.0$pp on 2026 at pass@1024 over Mathstral-7B), and at pass@1024 also leads no-draft, matched-wrong, and mismatched-correct variants on both years. All variants use the same prompt with no draft injection at test time. The recipe -- trained on a single GPU with no SFT, no reward models, no synthesized data, and no produce-critique-revise inner loop -- reaches 71.98% MATH-500 on Mathstral-7B-v0.1, the highest published result on this model to our knowledge, surpassing the heavier WizardMath pipeline at 70.9% on full MATH (SFT + PPO with process/instruction reward models).

We report on the ongoing development of arXiv's HTML Papers offering, available on every new TeX/LaTeX submission since its initial release in 2023. The main highlights from 2025 and early 2026 are: (i) community-driven improvements to HTML fidelity and service health, with roughly half of 6,000 user reports resolved; (ii) corpus-scale conversion work aimed at 90% error-free HTML (currently 75%); (iii) initial MathML 4 Intent annotations for accessible speech output; (iv) an in-progress Rust port of LaTeXML, reducing compute costs and enabling faster previews on submission. The arXiv HTML Papers project remains experimental, but is gradually maturing as we better understand the needs of arXiv's readers and the technical opportunities presented by new standards and by advances in programming languages and AI.

Mathematical problem solving remains a challenging test of reasoning for large language and multimodal models, yet existing benchmarks are limited in size, language coverage, and task diversity. We introduce MathNet, a high-quality, large-scale, multimodal, and multilingual dataset of Olympiad-level math problems together with a benchmark for evaluating mathematical reasoning in generative models and mathematical retrieval in embedding-based systems. MathNet spans 47 countries, 17 languages, and two decades of competitions, comprising 30,676 expert-authored problems with solutions across diverse domains. In addition to the core dataset, we construct a retrieval benchmark consisting of mathematically equivalent and structurally similar problem pairs curated by human experts. MathNet supports three tasks: (i) Problem Solving, (ii) Math-Aware Retrieval, and (iii) Retrieval-Augmented Problem Solving. Experimental results show that even state-of-the-art reasoning models (78.4% for Gemini-3.1-Pro and 69.3% for GPT-5) remain challenged, while embedding models struggle to retrieve equivalent problems. We further show that retrieval-augmented generation performance is highly sensitive to retrieval quality; for example, DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale achieves gains of up to 12%, obtaining the highest scores on the benchmark. MathNet provides the largest high-quality Olympiad dataset together with the first benchmark for evaluating mathematical problem retrieval, and we publicly release both the dataset and benchmark at https://mathnet.mit.edu.

Retrieving mathematical knowledge is a central task in both human-driven research, such as determining whether a result already exists, finding related results, and identifying historical origins, and in emerging AI systems for mathematics, where reliable grounding is essential. However, the scale and structure of the mathematical literature pose significant challenges: results are distributed across millions of documents, and individual statements are often difficult to interpret in isolation due to their dependence on prior definitions and theorems. In this paper, we introduce Matlas, a semantic search engine for mathematical statements. Matlas is built on a large-scale corpus of 8.07 million statements extracted from 435K peer-reviewed papers spanning 1826 to 2025, drawn from a curated set of 180 journals selected using an ICM citation-based criterion, together with 1.9K textbooks. From these sources, we extract mathematical statements together with their dependencies, construct document-level dependency graphs, and recursively unfold statements in topological order to produce more self-contained representations. On top of this corpus, we develop a semantic retrieval system that enables efficient search for mathematical results using natural language queries. We hope that Matlas can improve the efficiency of theorem retrieval for mathematicians and provide a structured source of grounding for AI systems tackling research-level mathematical problems, and serve as part of the infrastructure for mathematical knowledge retrieval.

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.

Recent research points toward LLMs being manipulated through adversarial and seemingly benign inputs, resulting in harmful, biased, or policy-violating outputs. In this paper, we study an underexplored issue concerning harmful and toxic mathematical word problems. We show that math questions, particularly those framed as natural language narratives, can serve as a subtle medium for propagating biased, unethical, or psychologically harmful content, with heightened risks in educational settings involving children. To support a systematic study of this phenomenon, we introduce ToxicGSM, a dataset of 1.9k arithmetic problems in which harmful or sensitive context is embedded while preserving mathematically well-defined reasoning tasks. Using this dataset, we audit the behaviour of existing LLMs and analyse the trade-offs between safety enforcement and mathematical correctness. We further propose SafeMath -- a safety alignment technique that reduces harmful outputs while maintaining, and in some cases improving, mathematical reasoning performance. Our results highlight the importance of disentangling linguistic harm from math reasoning and demonstrate that effective safety alignment need not come at the cost of accuracy.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting is widely adopted for mathematical problem solving, including in low-resource languages, yet its behavior under irrelevant context remains underexplored. To systematically study this challenge, we introduce DISTRACTMATH-BN, a Bangla benchmark that augments MGSM and MSVAMP with semantically coherent but computationally irrelevant information. Evaluating seven models ranging from 3B to 12B parameters, we observe substantial performance degradation under distractors: standard models drop by up to 41 points, while reasoning-specialized models decline by 14 to 20 points despite consuming five times more tokens. We propose †DAGGER, which reformulates mathematical problem solving as executable computational graph generation with explicit modeling of distractor nodes. Fine-tuning Gemma-3 models using supervised fine-tuning followed by Group Relative Policy Optimization achieves comparable weighted accuracy on augmented benchmarks while using 89 percent fewer tokens than reasoning models. Importantly, this robustness emerges without explicit training on distractor-augmented examples. Our results suggest that enforcing structured intermediate representations improves robustness and inference efficiency in mathematical reasoning compared to free-form approaches, particularly in noisy, low-resource settings.

Automatic verification is a critical component in building math-solving agents and reinforcement learning, yet it often falls short in generalizability, performance, and cost-efficiency. Identifying that the primary bottleneck of verification lies in error detection capability, we propose pessimistic verification, a paradigm of agentic workflows that rejects a solution if any of multiple parallel verifiers identifies a flaw. We further introduce progressive pessimistic verification, which employs fine-grained proof decomposition to significantly enhance verification accuracy and efficiency. Our approach surpasses the performance and token efficiency of extended long chain-of-thought (long CoT) and mainstream verification workflows, crucially, our analysis reveals that existing benchmarks underestimate its effectiveness on stronger models due to inherent annotation errors. To further validate the effectiveness of our method, we applied a verification-based solving workflow on the IMO 2025 and MathArena Apex 2025 datasets, where the workflow with progressive pessimistic verification exhibits remarkable improvements in both efficiency and accuracy on highly challenging contest-level math problems with state-of-the-art models. Code is available at https://github.com/THUNLP-MT/pverify.

Recent advances in large language model (LLM) reasoning through reinforcement learning rely on annotated datasets for verifiable rewards, which may limit models' ability to surpass human-level performance. While self-play offers a promising alternative, prior methods yield only marginal or even negative gains on post-trained models because they generate problems that cluster around familiar concepts rather than discovering novel ones. We introduce Open-Ended Self-Improving Reasoner (OpenSIR), a self-play framework in which a single LLM alternates teacher and student roles to generate and solve novel problems without external verifiers or annotated data. Starting from a single seed problem, OpenSIR sustains open-ended exploration through diversity rewards that push the model toward unfamiliar concepts and difficulty calibration that keeps problems learnable. Across seven math benchmarks, OpenSIR consistently improves all models, averaging +3.6 points on instruction models and +3.1 on reasoning models, while recent self-play baselines yield marginal or even negative gains; starting from a single trivial seed, it also surpasses GRPO baselines trained on over 7K annotated examples. Despite training only on self-generated math, OpenSIR is the only self-play method that transfers to general reasoning, improving by at least +4.4 points on reasoning models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at both informal and formal (e.g. Lean 4) mathematical reasoning but still struggle with autoformalisation, the task of transforming informal into formal mathematical statements. Yet, the performance of current Math LLMs is constrained by the scarcity of large-scale corpora, particularly those containing pairs of informal and formal statements. Interestingly, the formal languages used in autoformalisation share structural similarities with programming languages, and code data is available at scale. However, current models trained on code do not transfer effectively to formal math, due to structural and syntactic differences between them. To address this, we propose TopoAlign, a framework that unlocks widely available code repositories as training resources for Math LLMs. TopoAlign decomposes code into docstrings, main functions, and dependency functions, and reassembles these components into analogues that structurally mirror formal statements. We train three state-of-the-art models, DeepSeek-Math, Qwen-3 and Herald, and evaluate them on the MiniF2F, Putnam, and ProofNet benchmarks. TopoAlign provides substantial gains for DeepSeek-Math, improving performance by 17.77% on BEq@10 and 68.82% on typecheck@10, and also measurably improves Herald by 0.12% on BEq@10 and 1.09% on typecheck@10 despite introducing no new mathematical knowledge.