Research in mathematics and AI
What should mathematics become with AI?
We’re exploring this question through practical research: solving problems, examining proofs, and reconsidering what mathematicians should spend their time on.
Our current focus is group theory. We welcome collaborators from other areas.
01 / RESULTS
Problems and solutions
Current results from the Kourovka Notebook, with verification status and setup details.
The table distinguishes solutions accepted by the Kourovka editors, solutions checked by our team, those still awaiting review, and problems that other authors solved first. Expand the available solution summaries to read the arguments and preview their PDFs. Model and setup labels record how each result was obtained; they are not a controlled comparison of approaches.
Showing 18 of 18 problems
| Problem | Verification | Model & agent setup | Human contribution | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21.137 | Editor-accepted | Model: GPT-5.6 ProSetup: Web interface | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 21.137 — A non-powerful subgroup of p-th powers for every odd primeFor each odd prime p, an explicit group of order p³ᵖ⁺¹ and exponent p² has its set of p-th powers equal to a subgroup isomorphic to UT₃(F_p) × C_pᵖ⁻¹, which is nonabelian of exponent p. This gives a uniform negative answer to the odd-prime part of the problem. The Kourovka editors have accepted the case p = 3; the uniform write-up for all odd primes is team-checked and has been sent to the editors. Review status: Editor-accepted. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 21.137 | ||||
| 12.15 | Editor-accepted | Model: GPT-5.6 ProSetup: Web interface | To be documented | Publication pending |
| 14.67 | Team-checked | Model: GPT-6 AstraSetup: Agentic setup | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 14.67 — Largest centralizers and nilpotent subgroupsA counterexample of order 660,602,880 gives a negative answer, even when the nilpotent subgroup is normal and has nilpotency class two. An involution has a largest centralizer among nonidentity elements but does not centralize this subgroup. The write-up gives a self-contained proof without computer enumeration. Review status: Team-checked. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 14.67 | ||||
| 19.20 | Team-checked | Model: GPT-5.6 ProSetup: Web interface | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 19.20 — Counting endomorphisms and partial isomorphismsA nonabelian group of order 512 has equally many endomorphisms and partial isomorphisms, giving a negative answer. The endomorphism count has a direct proof; the partial-isomorphism count uses exhaustive finite quadratic-map enumeration. The PDF includes a counting certificate and describes its verification; no claim of minimal order is made. Review status: Team-checked. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 19.20 | ||||
| 21.115 | Solved elsewhere | Model: GPT-5.6 SolSetup: Legacy agentic setup | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 21.115 — A sharp bound for complements of coset unionsIf n left or right cosets do not cover a finite group G, their complement has at least |G|/2ⁿ elements. The proof establishes this sharp bound through matrix-rank estimates, with equality attained by coordinate index-two cosets. A note by another author deposited on Zenodo on 2 August 2026 gives the same rank argument, so the problem was solved before our write-up. Review status: Solved elsewhere. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 21.115 | ||||
| 1.67 | Team-checked | Model: GPT-5.6 SolSetup: Legacy agentic setup | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 1.67 — Invariants of a relation quotientThe write-up describes N/[F, N] for a minimal free presentation of a finitely presented group. Its abstract isomorphism type is determined by the Schur multiplier and a free abelian summand, independently of the chosen minimal presentation. It also discusses the limits of computing these invariants from an arbitrary finite presentation. Review status: Team-checked. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 1.67 | ||||
| 14.23 | Solved elsewhere | Model: GPT-5.6 SolSetup: Legacy agentic setup | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 14.23 — Bounds for bases of fixed subgroupsThe answer depends on whether the rank is fixed. For each fixed rank, a computable bound on basis lengths follows from existing algorithms for fixed subgroups. A single bound for all ranks is impossible: an explicit family of automorphisms of norm 2 provides counterexamples. The Kourovka editors have since accepted an independent solution by Olga Kharlampovich; our write-up remains available for reference. Review status: Solved elsewhere. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 14.23 | ||||
| 14.15 | Team-checked | Model: GPT-5.6 SolSetup: Legacy agentic setup | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 14.15 — Commutator width of automorphism groupsThe commutator width of Aut(Fₙ) is infinite for every n ≥ 3. The argument draws on published results about quasimorphisms and verbal width, connecting the Notebook question to existing theorems rather than claiming a new general theorem. Review status: Team-checked. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 14.15 | ||||
| 21.148 | Team-checked | Model: GPT-5.6 ProSetup: Web interface | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 21.148 — Right-relatively convex subgroups with a distributive latticeIn the group of increasing bijections of the rationals with bounded displacement, the right-relatively convex subgroups are exactly the isolated subgroups and exactly the convex ℓ-subgroups. Their lattice is distributive but not a chain, giving a negative answer. The main ingredient is an orbital sandwich theorem, proved with a coding construction adapted from Hyde, Jonušas, Mitchell and Péresse. Review status: Team-checked. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 21.148 | ||||
| 21.68 | Pending review | Model: GPT-6 AstraSetup: Web interface | To be documented | Publication pending |
| 8.74 | Pending review | Model: GPT-6 AstraSetup: Agentic setup | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 8.74 — Intersections of good subnormal subgroupsThe submitted argument constructs two good subnormal subgroups whose intersection is not good, in a countable locally finite 2-group of derived length at most three. It proves goodness using an explicit augmentation-ideal bound. This proposed counterexample is still pending team review. Review status: Pending review. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 8.74 | ||||
| 16.53 | Pending review | Model: GPT-6 AstraSetup: Agentic setup | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 16.53 — Generating a group from two coprime subgroupsA finite group G = ⟨A, B⟩ with d(A) = d(B) = 2, coprime orders |A| and |B|, and d(G) = 4 gives a negative answer already for d = 2. The subgroups live in a direct power of PSL(2, 11); the proof combines exact finite counts in this group of order 660 with Lagrange’s theorem and the fact that a homomorphism is determined by its values on generators. Two archived checkers agree, but an independent GAP reproduction is still pending. This proposed counterexample is still pending team review. Review status: Pending review. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 16.53 | ||||
| 10.46 | Pending review | Model: GPT-6 AstraSetup: Agentic setup | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 10.46 — Double commutators with transvections over a noncommutative ringOver an explicit finitely presented noncommutative algebra R of characteristic two, a matrix σ in GL₃(R) has [[σ, T₁], T₂] of infinite order for every pair of nonidentity matrices with (Tᵢ − I)² = 0, so no such double commutator is unipotent. This refutes the statement for noncommutative R; it makes no claim about commutative rings or rings in which 2 is invertible. The proof rests on Gerasimov’s theorem on units of ring coproducts and a free-product tree argument, without finite enumeration. This proposed counterexample is still pending team review. Review status: Pending review. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 10.46 | ||||
| 6.38 | Pending review | Model: GPT-6 AstraSetup: Agentic setup | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 6.38 — Subgroups meeting every conjugacy class of GL₂The invertible monomial subgroup of GL₂ over the algebraic closure of F₂ meets every conjugacy class but is not parabolic. This refutes the general-linear assertion of part (b) as literally stated, in dimension two and characteristic two. The same monomial family appears in the Notebook archive for part (a), so no novelty is claimed, and other groups of Lie type are not addressed. This proposed counterexample is still pending team review. Review status: Pending review. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 6.38 | ||||
| 17.32 | Team-checked | Model: GPT-5.6 SolSetup: Legacy agentic setup | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 17.32 — A Cayley–Hamilton analogue for free groupsThe proposed analogue fails for every rank n ≥ 2: explicit examples have n + 1 successive orbit elements generating the free group, while the first n generate a subgroup of infinite index. The write-up also gives counterexamples to a normal-closure variant at rank 2 and a subset variant at rank 3. Review status: Team-checked. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 17.32 | ||||
| 20.75 | Team-checked | Model: GPT-5.6 ProSetup: Web interface | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 20.75 — Abelian normal subgroups with few generatorsFor the explicit integer N = 2¹²⁴²¹⁰³⁵⁰, a finite 2-group of order 2¹¹⁰ᴺ⁺¹ has every abelian normal subgroup generated by at most 32N + 1 elements, while it contains an elementary abelian subgroup requiring 65N generators. This gives a negative answer to Pyber’s question. The group multiplication is given by finite deterministic formulas, and the proof is self-contained without enumeration of the group or its subgroups. Review status: Team-checked. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 20.75 | ||||
| 21.99 | Team-checked | Model: GPT-5.6 ProSetup: Web interface | To be documented | Summary & proof ↓ |
Problem 21.99 — Transporters with exactly one fixed pointA solvable group of order 46,875,000,000 has a faithful transitive action of degree 23,437,500 with distinct points α and β such that every element taking α to β fixes exactly one point. This refutes Müller’s conjecture already for solvable groups. The group is an extension of F₅¹² by a group of order 192, and the fixed-point calculation is carried out directly on twelve affine blocks. Review status: Team-checked. Model and setup attribution supplied by the project team. Preview PDF for problem 21.99 | ||||
| 21.91 | Team-checked | Model: GPT-5.6 ProSetup: Web interface | To be documented | Publication pending |
No problems match these filters.
We update these records as reviews are completed.
Human contributions and further run details are still being documented. Proofs will be published on GitHub.
What do the verification statuses mean?
- Editor-accepted
- Accepted by the Kourovka editors and marked as solved in the Notebook, as reported by the project team.
- Team-checked
- The project team has checked the solution. This status does not imply editorial acceptance or formal verification.
- Pending review
- A proposed solution is awaiting checks by the project team.
- Solved elsewhere
- A solution by other authors was published or accepted before ours. Our write-up remains available for reference and does not claim priority.
The new mathematics
What we want AI
to contribute to mathematics
We care about the questions, structures, and ideas that people find meaningful, useful, beautiful, or worth understanding.
A proof establishes a result. Understanding gives us more: the ideas behind it, its connections to other mathematics, and ways to explain, simplify, and use it. We believe this work deserves as much attention as proving new things.
As AI takes on more technical computation, search, and routine derivation, mathematical judgment becomes more central. We still need to choose worthwhile questions, look for conceptual explanations, and develop a sense of what is fruitful, illuminating, or reusable.
The Maidenhead Project puts these ideas to work on longstanding questions. We began with the Kourovka Notebook, a collection of open problems in group theory. We use AI-assisted research to revisit those questions, check the resulting arguments, and work toward explanations that others can build on.
Our wider ambition reaches into how mathematics is taught and how mathematical work is valued. We want to cultivate judgment and connections across fields, help newcomers develop mathematical taste, and give explanation and teaching the recognition they deserve. Deep expertise, research leadership, explanation, and teaching all help mathematics grow.
Understanding and explaining a result deserve as much attention as proving it.
Choosing problems
Ask why a question matters and where it might lead. Mathematical taste helps direct the effort.
Checking and explaining
Scrutinize the proof, find its central ideas, and make the argument understandable.
Teaching and collaboration
Share methods and connections. Value the people who explain, teach, and help others enter the field.
Tools and documentation
Our research setup
We’re developing a system of AI agents for mathematical research. We plan to publish the code so other mathematicians can use it, examine how it works, and improve it.
The records distinguish work in a web interface from our agentic setup and its legacy version. Available write-ups are hosted here while we prepare the research repository for release. We want that account to explain the core idea, how it connects to existing mathematics, and what others can reuse. Checking an argument and making it understandable are both part of the work.
Maidenhead research setup
Our repository is currently private. We’re preparing it for public release.
04 / TEAM
Our team
We bring together experience in mathematics, AI, and mathematical education.
Prof. Elena Bunina
Bar-Ilan University
Prof. Alexei Miasnikov
Stevens Institute of Technology
Vlad Stepanov
AI in Math & Math Education Lab, Stevens Institute of Technology
Stan Fedotov, PhD
Nebius Academy
Maria Matveeva
AI in Math & Math Education Lab, Stevens Institute of Technology
Kyrylo Muliarchyk, PhD
Bar-Ilan University
We welcome new collaborators.
05 / CONTRIBUTE
Work with us
project@maidenhead.solutionsEmail us to get involved. Pull requests will be welcome when the GitHub repository is public.
Check a proof
Review a proposed solution and help us identify gaps, errors, or ways to improve the argument.
Suggest a problem
Suggest an open problem and explain its mathematical interest or connections to other work.
Improve the setup
Try the agents, test different approaches, or contribute improvements to the code and documentation.
Submit a solution
Share your proof, its central idea, and how you found it, including the role of AI and human work.
Explain an idea
Simplify an argument, explain a connection, or write an account of a result for a wider mathematical audience.