Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.24961

The Gold Rush in AI4Math: Where Are We Now?

Jiashun Jin·Zheng Tracy Ke·Bingcheng Sui
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have sparked growing interest in its use for mathematical research. While some view this as a major opportunity for discovery, others have raised concerns about its impact on traditional research practices. Despite extensive debate, empirical evidence on how AI is actually being used in mathematics remains limited. To address this gap, we collected all 32,944 arXiv submissions posted between March 1 and August 20, 2026, whose primary or secondary categories included Mathematics. We identified 3,575 submissions that explicitly disclosed author use of AI, of which 1,712 involved at least one substantive mathematical contribution. Our analysis reveals several broad patterns. First, disclosed AI use increased sharply over the study period, with substantive use growing from 1.39% of Mathematics submissions in March to 14.09% through August 20. Second, substantive AI use is highly uneven across fields: Combinatorics has the largest number of such papers, while Metric Geometry has the highest substantive-use rate. Third, substantive AI use is geographically concentrated: under weighted author counts, the United States and China together account for about two-thirds of the recognized country weight. Fourth, AI is already being applied to open research problems: among 717 named open-problem records associated with substantive use, 71% are labeled as fully resolved based on the authors' descriptions, with proofs of the conjectured statement more common than counterexamples or disproofs. Finally, AI-system use is also highly concentrated, with OpenAI systems appearing most frequently, followed by Anthropic. Together, these findings suggest that AI-assisted mathematics is expanding rapidly but remains at an early and uneven stage of adoption.

Explore related subjects

stat.APcs.CYcs.DLmath.HO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jiashun Jin, Zheng Tracy Ke, Bingcheng Sui. 2026-08-25. The Gold Rush in AI4Math: Where Are We Now?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.24961

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Auditing Bayesian Graph Alignment: Diagnostic Comparisons and Reference Failure

Bayesian graph alignment estimates correspondence probabilities, but convergence of an alignment-score trace need not imply accurate correspondence marginals. We audit this gap on 240 new exact graph pairs from four source families, 240 larger pairs with 20-100 vertices, and a separate 60-case exact implementation check. Under an explicit edge-flip likelihood, we compare three samplers and score, marginal, indicator, categorical, and classifier-based diagnostics. Marginal disagreement improves error discrimination over score R-hat for the exact informed sampler, but its improvement for vanilla local sampling is uncertain. Assignment-based R* and short indicator panels are competitive; no diagnostic dominates across samplers and endpoints. At larger sizes, diagnostics predict subsequent marginal changes, not posterior error, and classification performance depends on the drift threshold. Disjoint-window and held-out-chain checks attenuate but preserve positive associations. Only 22 of 240 original reference sets pass an agreement screen. On forty failure-selected cases, eightfold SMC particle escalation does not resolve disagreement, whereas additional rejuvenation helps. Longer informed runs remain unstable. An elementary feasible-alignment bound demonstrates severely unrepresentative SMC and informed-chain scores in concentrated 100-vertex cases, independently of approximate reference consensus. We also exhibit common-start chains with near-zero disagreement despite exact marginal error near .967. These results support assignment-sensitive auditing while identifying limits of finite budgets, diagnostic rankings, and reference agreement as evidence of accuracy.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

GeoDose-CP: Graph-Local Conformal Inference for Continuous-Treatment Earth Observation

Reliable intervention-oriented uncertainty quantification from Earth observation (EO) remains challenging when continuous treatment shifts, spatial dependence, limited support, and satellite-outcome uncertainty must be addressed simultaneously. Existing causal, conformal, and spatial approaches address parts of this problem, but their direct combination does not generally recover the appropriate interventional reference law because candidate reassignment jointly alters treatment likelihood, standardized residuals, and graph-dependent residual likelihood. This study presents GeoDose-CP, a support-aware conformal framework for localized stochastic potential outcomes under continuous or mixed continuous-atomic treatment. Its central methodological contribution is a graph-local target-orbit law that jointly represents intervention-induced treatment shift, the inverse outcome-scale Jacobian, and spatial residual dependence. The framework further provides exact weighted candidate inversion, a scalable sparse approximation with explicit discrepancy accounting, and refusal under inadequate support. Evaluation used controlled known-truth experiments, MineDoseBench, treatment-density sensitivity analysis, external conformal comparators, and a multi-mine New South Wales (NSW) study. In MineDoseBench, GeoDose-CP achieved mean selective coverage of 0.9692 across 27 configurations and a minimum local q0.05 of 0.8951; exact-sparse auditing produced nine inclusion disagreements over 2,700 targets. In the NSW study, the absence of an auditable longitudinal rehabilitation treatment rendered treatment-dependent inference nonoperational rather than forcing inference through a proxy exposure.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Interpreting relative utility for probabilistic predictions

At a fixed threshold, relative utility (RU) measures the net-benefit gain of a prediction model over the better of treat-all and treat-none relative to the corresponding gain under perfect outcome classification. We illustrate that RU equal to 1 therefore represents perfect outcome classification at that fixed threshold, not perfect probabilistic prediction. However, even when every predicted probability equals the true probability, observed RU can equal 0. In a simple constant-risk setting, this occurs with probability approaching 1 as the sample size increases. Consequently, the distance from observed RU to 1 should not in general be interpreted as improvement achievable by a better prediction for binary probabilities.

stat.AP↗