analiza aiqbench
This paper introduces qtBench, a benchmark of 29 open problems in algebraic combinatorics, designed to test whether AI agents can find simple combinatorial algorithms that explain given polynomial coefficients. The authors built anti-cheating safeguards and a testing scaffold, and a collaboration with OpenAI produced proposed solutions to several problems. For AI readers, the useful signal is a concrete, verifiable evaluation of frontier models on research-level math, along with the authors' open questions about release norms and how AI-generated proofs should be checked.
AI Discovery in Combinatorics: From Problems to Solutions and Back to Bigger Problems
arXiv:2610.16555v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce $qt$Bench, a benchmark of 29 open problems in algebraic combinatorics. These problems ask for a simple combinatorial algorithm that explains given polynomial coefficients or identities. To help AI agents search for such algorithms, we provide a scaffold for playing with combinatorial objects, countering cheating attempts, and testing candidate solutions. To explore how far frontier AI systems can go on these problems, we collaborated with OpenAI, whose researchers obtained proposed solutions to several of them. This highlights bigger meta-problems: is AI discovery at scale ethical? How should these results be released? How should proof digestion be organized? We discuss these questions and give our views.
Abstract:We introduce $qt$Bench, a benchmark of 29 open problems in algebraic combinatorics. These problems ask for a simple combinatorial algorithm that explains given polynomial coefficients or identities. To help AI agents search for such algorithms, we provide a scaffold for playing with combinatorial objects, countering cheating attempts, and testing candidate solutions. To explore how far frontier AI systems can go on these problems, we collaborated with OpenAI, whose researchers obtained proposed solutions to several of them. This highlights bigger meta-problems: is AI discovery at scale ethical? How should these results be released? How should proof digestion be organized? We discuss these questions and give our views.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Combinatorics (math.CO)
arXiv:2610.16555 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.16555v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.16555 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 205 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Have We Seen an Acceleration in Discoveries?
METR · 14 aug. 2026

Interview with Matthias Troyer, Vice President & Technical Fellow at Microsoft
Quantum Computing Report · 23 sept. 2026
Coverage-driven alignment - What ‘Teaching Claude Why’ can borrow from AV verification
LessWrong · 8 iun. 2026
Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk
Latent Space · 8 oct. 2026