Below is a summary of Terence Tao’s article “Machine-Assisted Proof,” which appeared in Notices of the American Mathematical Society. The goal is to encapsulate the primary arguments, historical progression, and future prospects of the field of computer-aided mathematics, while also reflecting Tao’s discussion of how different computational tools—proof assistants, machine learning, and large language models—can be combined to transform mathematical research. All references below are from the article or the resources therein, and a direct link to the original publication is provided:
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
- Introduction and Historical Context
Machine-assisted mathematics has a venerable legacy rooted in the vision of simplifying tedious computation. In centuries past, people used mechanical computers, abaci, and “human computers” to calculate large tables of prime numbers (e.g., for early insights on the distribution of primes) or to predict fluid flow during major engineering projects. These data sets sparked new theorems, occasionally even influencing entire branches of mathematical thought. For instance, elaborate prime number tables laid groundwork for Legendre and Gauss to conjecture the Prime Number Theorem, while the early use of electronic computers by Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer seeded conjectures in the realm of elliptic curves.
In Tao’s survey, he emphasizes that computational tools have diversified dramatically since the era of mere “number-crunching.” Modern scientists no longer rely exclusively on approximate numerical methods susceptible to roundoff errors. Instead, they increasingly employ formal verification strategies—ranging from interval arithmetic to symbolic algebra computations—to guarantee reliability. This growing set of approaches includes computer algebra systems (CAS), satisfiability (SAT/SMT) solvers, machine learning frameworks, and formal proof assistants (like Coq, Isabelle, and Lean). He illustrates their collective power through examples such as the Boolean Pythagorean Triples Theorem (proved with SAT solvers, requiring four CPU-years and producing a 200-terabyte propositional proof) and highlights how data-driven mathematics continues to reshape entire subfields.
- Modern Threads of Machine Assistance
2.1 Large Mathematical Databases
One pillar of machine-assisted proofs rests on large-scale data sets of mathematical objects. Historically, these manifested as prime number tables, knot libraries, or the database of sequences found in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS). Contemporary expansions involve massive record-keeping in areas like elliptic curves (e.g., Cremona’s database or LMFDB), graphs, and hyperbolic knots. These data sets help mathematicians spot patterns, make conjectures, and locate obscure references.
Tao underlines how data sets also feed machine learning. As advanced neural networks metabolize these caches of examples, they can sometimes “infer” relationships that were previously hidden. The output, although not automatically authoritative, can stimulate mathematicians to test newly surfaced patterns, as witnessed in knot theory when machine learning teased out how the signature of a knot correlated with specific hyperbolic invariants.
2.2 Scientific Computation and Beyond
In older eras, “scientific computation” denoted differential equation solvers, finite element routines, or methods for fluid dynamics. Today, the scope embodies everything from numeric approximations with guaranteed error bounds to symbolic manipulations that deliver exact solutions. Tools like Mathematica, Maple, SageMath, and Magma offer capabilities that once seemed like science fiction. SAT and SMT solvers extend this further, systematically investigating exhaustive logic conditions in combinatorics, cryptography, and more. Tao cites the 2016 proof of the Boolean Pythagorean Triples Theorem [HKM16], exemplifying the scale at which computer search can exceed typical human endurance.
2.3 Communication and Collaboration
Modern computing fundamentally changes how mathematicians communicate and collaborate. Shared digital workspaces, large online collaboration platforms (like the Polymath projects described by Gowers [Gow10]), and well-maintained code repositories all accelerate research. Tao suggests this might lead to scientific and mathematical endeavors more on par with large collaborations in physics or software engineering.
- Proof Assistants and Formal Verification
3.1 When Computers Write “Code” for Proofs
One of Tao’s central points concerns modern proof assistants (e.g., Coq, Lean, Isabelle), which require that every step in a proof be delineated with machine-checkable rigor. If the code compiles successfully, the proven theorem stands on an unassailably firm foundation. Although older computational proofs—like the 1976 Appel–Haken proof of the four-color theorem—exposed vulnerabilities to programming errors, the newer generation of proof assistants can ensure that each line is justified formally, removing errors introduced through flawed code or ambiguous logic.
In practice, however, producing a meticulously formalized argument is cumbersome. A “de Bruijn factor” measures the ratio between the length of a formalized proof and an informal one. Currently, even with user-friendly updates, that ratio can be quite high—somewhere around 20 by Tao’s estimate. Thus, fully formalizing a lengthy argument can be time-intensive, though each breakthrough project (e.g., the 2005 Coq formalization by Werner and Gonthier of the four-color theorem, the Flyspeck project for the Kepler Conjecture [HAB+17], or Scholze’s “liquid tensor” project [Com22]) leaves behind infrastructure and foundational libraries that pave the way for the next wave of proofs.
3.2 Examples of Large Formalization Efforts
The four-color theorem’s original proof, which used custom code and microfiche computations, had cracks that were laborious to verify by hand. Conversely, Robertson, Sanders, Seymour, and Thomas [RSST96] improved the procedure, streamlined the required graphs, and facilitated checks in standard programming languages. Contemporary formalizations push this further, proving every step in a common environment that subsequent users can trust.
• Flyspeck (Hales et al.): In total, 21 collaborators painstakingly formalized the computer-intensive proof of the Kepler conjecture. Estimated at first to require 20 years, the project completed in 11, demonstrating how synergy among multiple experts accelerates large-scale verification.
• Scholze’s “Liquid Tensor” Project: Despite the short length of the result (roughly ten pages), the extensive background in condensed mathematics rendered the formalization a massive undertaking, achieved by a dedicated volunteer community over 18 months.
• Tao’s Collaboration on an Additive Combinatorics Conjecture: A group of around 20 researchers carefully formalized a 33-page argument in three weeks. Although the ratio of effort to pages remains high, the resulting libraries and patterns will make future efforts more efficient.
3.3 Potential for More Efficient Formalization
In various fields, from PDE to arithmetic geometry, proofs can be labyrinthine. Yet Tao muses that there is no fundamental reason formal verification must remain so difficult. With better tooling, integration of SMT solvers, and possibly large language models that translate informal lines of reasoning into machine checkable forms, it is plausible the “de Bruijn factor” could eventually dip below 1 for certain classes of mathematical arguments. That shift would profoundly alter research protocols, making lines of proof generation and verification nearly inseparable and ushering in truly crowd-sourced mega-projects in mathematics.
- Machine Learning Methods
4.1 Emergence of Neural Networks in Mathematics
Machine learning (ML) systems, particularly neural networks, have revolutionized pattern recognition, speech analysis, and recommendation systems. Transposing these successes to mathematics is less straightforward, in part because of the discipline’s requirement for absolute rigor. However, ML can be harnessed effectively when combined with robust verification steps. Examples include:
• Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) seeking approximate solutions for PDE blowup phenomena, which can then be tested using classical stability checks or fixed-point arguments.
• Knot theory, where a large database of hyperbolic knots was used to train networks to predict the signature from a handful of hyperbolic invariants [DJLT21]. Although the initial “black box” correlation was opaque, saliency analysis enabled mathematicians to identify the three crucial invariants that actually guided the neural network’s predictions.
The final result was documented, refined, and then rigorously checked.
4.2 The Role of Data Representation
One rarely discussed but fundamental hurdle, Tao notes, is how to systematically store mathematical objects so that machine learning frameworks can parse them. PDEs, for instance, seldom appear in a canonical format. Mundane issues—variable naming or arrangement of differential operators—create high obstacles that hamper large-scale data collection. One potential solution is to define normal forms or “fingerprints” for PDEs, something Billey and Tenner [BT13] proposed for theorems in general. If mathematicians can develop standardized or easily transformable PDE representations, entire new realms might open for machine learning methods to detect emergent analogies or behaviors.
4.3 Complementarity with Traditional Methods
Machine learning remains susceptible to overfitting, hallucination, and brittleness in the presence of novel data distributions. Mathematics demands thorough validation. Combined approaches can mitigate each other’s weaknesses: a neural network might guess a pattern or produce an approximate blowup solution for a PDE, and a more stringent method (like an SMT solver or a symbolic manipulator) can refine or dismiss that guess. By letting each tool do what it excels at, the synergy can produce mathematically meaningful results.
- Large Language Models (LLMs) and Generative Transformers
5.1 Capabilities and Limitations
Another transformative factor in machine-assisted math is the arrival of large language models, or LLMs, trained on colossal corpora of text. Tools like GPT-4 (https://openai.com) mark a watershed moment by occasionally mimicking advanced reasoning. Yet Tao demonstrates with examples that LLMs remain prone to unpredictable errors (“hallucinations”). When asked for the result of a simple expression like 7 × 4 + 8 × 8, GPT-4 incorrectly stated 120, then rationalized the correct arithmetic separately in a conflicting explanation. However, LLMs can plug into external modules—like Wolfram Alpha for exact calculations—to circumvent arithmetic errors.
5.2 Use Cases in Mathematical Workflows
Tao finds LLMs beneficial for:
• Generating code across various languages (Python, SAGE, LaTeX, Lean) through user prompts.
• Cleaning, reorganizing, or formatting large sets of bibliographic entries.
• Proposing known theorems or literature references relevant to a user’s line of inquiry, albeit with no guarantee of freedom from nonsense.
• Suggesting potential strategies (like generating functions or induction) that might nudge an experienced mathematician to revisit overlooked angles.
Similarly, GitHub Copilot, a GPT-based tool, integrates code suggestions in real time. It often captures the user’s intent with surprising finesse, automatically rewriting integral approximations, adjusting variables, or moving from one step to the next in LaTeX or Lean proofs. This synergy can speed up a mathematician’s day-to-day tasks, even if it cannot fully replace expert reasoning.
5.3 Risks and Rewards
Though LLMs approximate reasoning from vast text corpora, they can lead novices astray if the suggestions are uncritically assumed correct. Instead, they serve as “co-pilots” for domain experts, highlighting possible paths or code snippets that can be quickly validated or corrected. Tao envisions a future where mathematicians might simply ask an LLM for an entire research paper with formal verification included, passing routine computations or references to specialized sub-tools. But bridging the gap between imagination and robust, state-of-the-art technology remains a formidable challenge.
- Combining Proof Assistants, Machine Learning, and LLMs
6.1 A Potential Triad
If a proof assistant strongly enforces rigor, a machine learning model hunts for patterns or approximate solutions, and an LLM offers a nimble interface for human-machine communication, these three systems could align to form an unprecedented day-to-day resource for research. In such a scenario, a mathematician working on a PDE problem might have the LLM first propose a direction, the ML solver produce an approximate solution or guess, and the proof assistant verify the final steps with absolute reliability.
6.2 Short Proof Generation and Expansion
Researchers have begun exploring how LLMs can generate short proofs that, while initially riddled with minor errors, are polished into correctness forms by Lean or Coq. Each time the assistant identifies a problem, it is piped back to the LLM to fix the step. Over time, this loop could semi-automate the dreaded “low-level details,” letting human experts concentrate on strategic, big-picture arguments. That said, the scalability of these approaches is under active investigation, as formal proof generation for large statements is not yet trivial.
6.3 Reducing “Proof Sprawl”
In PDE theory, integrals and inequalities often balloon into pages of inert detail. If integrated digital tools can systematically verify, for example, that a Sobolev norm estimate is indeed correct under certain boundary conditions, human-written pages of headache-inducing expansions might become references to a machine-verified certificate. This approach could greatly reduce the textual overhead in research articles and might even enable broad families of PDEs to be studied en masse, with each equation’s “verification journey” partly automated.
6.4 Broader Large-Scale Exploration
Tao alludes to an era where mathematicians test entire families of objects (e.g., a parametric set of PDEs) in parallel, letting machine assistance handle hundreds or thousands of short computations or bounding arguments. The few nontrivial thresholds that require distinctive insights would prompt human-level creativity, but the mundane or derivative steps would be delegated to AI. Graph theorists, for instance, already have glimpses of this in large-scale, automated exploration yielding new conjectures and partial results. Over time, a synergy of LLM-driven code generation, ML pattern detection, and formal verification might legitimize “parallel mathematics,” freeing mathematicians to revolve around the conceptual nether regions that defy routine checks.
- The Road Ahead
7.1 Obstacles and Opportunities
Currently, many obstacles keep machine-assisted math from overshadowing simpler tools like LaTeX and personal note-taking. Powerful ML models are resource-intensive and proprietary. Proof assistant libraries remain incomplete or require laborious expansions for each new sub-discipline. LLM hallucinations can stoke confusion if not carefully checked by experts or cross-validated by other software (e.g., an SMT solver or a symbolic CAS). Despite these challenges, Tao’s viewpoint is optimistic: incremental expansions in each direction are leading to enormous leaps forward in synergy.
7.2 Crowdsourced Collaborations
One of the most intriguing possibilities is the shift toward massive, crowdsourced proofs. Traditional mathematics collaborations rarely transcend five co-authors, primarily for trust and organizational reasons. However, formal proof environments can isolate subtasks so that dozens, or even hundreds, of contributors can each tackle a piece without needing to trust each other’s steps blindly—provided the overarching blueprint is well-defined. This is reminiscent of open-source software engineering or advanced physics projects. As proof assistants evolve, we could see collaborations at a scale rarely imagined in pure mathematics, with project managers or “architects” dividing the proof and verifying pieces in real time.
7.3 Formalizing All Mathematics?
Given enough time and computational heft, it is conceivable that large chunks of classical mathematics will be formalized. Repetitive or under-documented results could be systematically checked for universal correctness. Imagining a future in which an LLM that has been thoroughly “fine-tuned” on formal mathematics libraries could parse a new paper, raise queries for ambiguous steps, and handle bridging arguments with minimal human prompts is no longer complete science fiction. Tao is insistent that we stand far from that reality, but the pace of developments suggests that the next few years could contain eye-opening demonstrations.
7.4 Educational and Expository Functions
Formal proofs can also yield interactive textbooks or adaptive educational tools. Students might read a condensed argument, expand any step they find dubious, view sub-steps in Lean or Isabelle, or see alternative approaches. Meanwhile, instructors or advanced researchers might insert or revise definitions to align with a chosen approach or generalize statements, all within a common environment that instantly revalidates correctness. LLM-driven explanations can further demystify specialized proofs, though the field must overcome the challenge of making sure these explanations remain accurate, rigorous, and free of illusions.
- Further Reading and Resources
Though “machine-assisted” approaches to mathematics have begun featuring in conferences and workshops, Tao underscores that the subject remains scattered across computer science, mathematics, AI research, and engineering circles. As a result, finding unified references is difficult. He recommends the proceedings of a June 2023 National Academies workshop on “AI to Assist Mathematical Reasoning” [Kor23] for a broad snapshot and the document compiled by Talia Ringer that aggregates resources for AI in mathematics (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kD7H4E28656ua8jOGZ934nbH2HcBLyxcRgFDduH5iQ0).
Additional pointers include the “Natural Number Game” for novices to learn Lean in an engaging format. IPAM’s “Machine assisted proof” workshop (February 2023) captures emerging techniques in real time, with the talks archived online for enthusiasts. Finally, the published references in Tao’s piece point to foundational texts such as the original proofs and formalizations of the four-color theorem [Gon08], the Böhm–Jacopini approach to verifying HPC computations in geometry or PDE, the Boussinesq blowup solutions produced through neural network approximations [WLGSB23], and explorations of advanced combinatorial reasoning with large language models [RPBN+23], among others.
- Conclusion: A New Era for Mathematics
Terence Tao posits a near future where mathematicians, assisted by an array of computational agents, might conjure a carefully integrated approach to problem-solving. CAS packages, proof assistants, machine learning modules, and LLMs each embody distinct facets of “machine intelligence.” Individually, these are not the omnipotent solvers sometimes imagined in science fiction. Yet collectively, they hold real promise: machine learning networks can guess or spot patterns in oceans of data; proof assistants can eradicate logical leaps or illusions; LLMs can fill the role of an attentive collaborator, generating insights or code on demand; and classical symbolic tools can finalize tasks requiring closed-form manipulations. The synergy of these technologies could become a permanent fixture in the mathematician’s toolkit, fundamentally changing research organization and the scale at which problems can be tackled.
The article recounts project after project where synergy has already borne fruit. From the once-controversial proof of the four-color theorem to modern leaps in PDE blowup analysis, from the intricate structural relationships uncovered in knot theory to enormous breakthroughs in packing problems, computational muscle and logical precision fuse to reveal mathematics that might have remained dormant. Tao projects that these new “research modalities” will not yield hyper-intelligent AI overshadowing human mathematicians. Rather, they promise a new brand of close collaboration where the human mind and machine processes each shore up the other’s weaknesses.
In sum, the arrival of improved formal proof assistants, domain-specific data sets for machine learning, and advanced user-friendly LLMs are weaving a tapestry of possibility: large-scale, crowd-powered collaborations; comprehensive coverage of classical and novel results; and entire new subfields ignited by the pursuit of subtle but computationally tractable phenomena. Tao’s central insight is that the real transformation occurs not when we fixate on a single technology, but when we meld them all, letting their interplay generate stability, creativity, and reliability. As each strand matures, machine-assisted proof could move from a specialized method to the default format of sophisticated mathematics, heralding an era of more robust, transparent, and wide-reaching discovery.
For additional details, including presentations and archived workshop talks, readers may consult the article’s references and the resources at:
• https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202501/rnoti-p6.pdf
• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kD7H4E28656ua8jOGZ934nbH2HcBLyxcRgFDduH5iQ0
• https://terrytao.wordpress.com/mastodon-posts/
This constellation of ideas underscores that the future of machine-assisted proof is both collaborative and multifaceted. The synergy across formal verification, symbolic computation, and AI-driven exploration holds the power to transform the enterprise of mathematics—from verifying classical theorems like the four-color theorem or the Kepler conjecture to illuminating unsuspected connections between different domains. As Tao suggests, we likely stand at the dawn of an era in which rigorous formal proofs and advanced computational searches become seamless, allowing mathematicians to engage problems at unprecedented breadth and depth.
