arXiv:2610.40551v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As AI's mathematical capabilities rapidly improve, meaningful benchmarks are shifting from university-level problems and math olympiads to research-level mathematics. The Ramanujan Challenge is a benchmark comprised of research-level problems in number theory, including unpublished results and open conjectures. It presented concrete formulas for mathematical constants whose correctness can be checked numerically, while their proofs may require non-obvious mathematics. Here, we analyze the Challenge submissions, measuring the relative success of different AI models, Computer Algebra Systems (CAS), and formal tools. We find correct submissions that are conceptually distinct from the official solutions, and a proof of one of the published open conjectures. Evaluating the submissions exposed a second challenge: judging complex proofs reliably at scale. We introduce an AI-assisted evaluation pipeline for natural language proofs, CAS code, and Lean formalizations that assesses semantic and logical correctness. Compared with the conventional one-shot LLM judgment, our pipeline reduces false-positive verdicts on natural language proofs from 23% to 6% and improves judgment accuracy on supporting code from 46% to 58%. This approach provides a methodology for evaluating research-level mathematics at scale, with potential applications across mathematics and AI for science.
arxiv
Ramanujan Challenge Analysis Introduces AI-Assisted Proof Evaluation Pipeline
An analysis of Ramanujan Challenge submissions compares the relative success of AI models, computer algebra systems, and formal tools on research-level number theory problems. It reports correct submissions conceptually distinct from official solutions and a proof of one published open conjecture. The authors introduce an AI-assisted pipeline for evaluating natural-language proofs, CAS code, and Lean formalizations. Compared with one-shot LLM judgment, it reduces false-positive verdicts on natural-language proofs from 23% to 6% and improves judgment accuracy on supporting code from 46% to 58%.
It offers a concrete methodology and measured results for reliably evaluating research-level mathematical proofs across multiple formats.
Comments & Questions (0)
No comments yet
Be the first to comment!