Paper defines theorem interestingness metric, 27B model beats frontier models at proof difficulty
Pascallisch · x · 2026-09-26
A new arXiv paper (2609.28603) by Niket Patel, Remi Munos, Julia Kempe et al. tackles whether AI-generated theorems are actually interesting. Key points:
- Defines a theorem's intrinsic interestingness as the ratio of proof length to statement length, and shows it correlates strongly with downstream utility.
- Uses proof difficulty conditioned on premises as a primitive, training a 27B model that predicts proof difficulty more accurately than frontier general-purpose models.
- Optimizing for the metric yields more interesting theorems and cuts substantial/full overlap with Mathlib from 91.9% to 30.6%, i.e. more out-of-distribution math.
- The system generates candidate theorems, selects the most interesting, and iteratively expands a self-growing, machine-verified library — a practical signal for ranking conjectures and guiding proof search.
Related event: Paper introduces "interestingness" metric for LLM-discovered theorems(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- "Not anthropomorphizing AI is the real error": viral thread on AI psychosis — ZeroStateReflex · 2026-09-26
- Should Double-Blind Peer Review Be Replaced by Fully Open Review in the AI Era? — Temporary_Switch_339 · 2026-09-26
- You can't stumble into ASI: frontier RSI ranking ≈ rich teams that actually believe in it — menhguin · 2026-09-26
- The Economist: AI writing's real victims are readers, not writers — paulnovosad · 2026-09-26
- AI safety debate: the movement will never look respectable to average Americans, and that's fine — repligate · 2026-09-26
- "Taking Off the Device Isn't Leaving the Company": Wearable AI Data Portability Questioned — tallmetommy · 2026-09-26