We present the zbMATH Open Knowledge Graph, a large-scale RDF knowledge graph (KG) covering more than 250 years of mathematical scholarship. Unlike existing scholarly knowledge graphs that primarily capture bibliographic metadata and citation structures, the zbMATH Open KG integrates expert-curated semantic content, including reviews, keywords, subject classifications, software references, and disambiguated authorship. This combination of domain-specific representation of mathematical knowledge and extensive temporal coverage supports analyses that require fine-grained exploration of mathematical concepts, research fields, and scholarly relationships over time. The resulting graph comprises 34 million entities and 168 million RDF triples represented using established Semantic Web vocabularies, supporting interoperability and FAIR data principles. We further demonstrate its capabilities through query-driven historically grounded scholarly exploration use cases, illustrating how the knowledge graph can surface relationships and patterns that may be difficult to identify from bibliographic and citation information alone. The zbMATH Open KG provides an open semantic infrastructure for studying the development of mathematical knowledge and tracing scholarly connections across centuries of scholarship.
As several mathematical conjectures have recently been settled using large language models (LLMs), the mathematical community has formulated norms and recommendations regarding the publishing of such results. These norms do not cover the disclosure of the prompts and precise software setup used to obtain those results, nor do they require that results be formalized in a manner that allows for machine verification. I argue that both of these are essential. In addition, since LLM-obtained results may be hard to understand, human authors have the responsibility to invent intuitive explanations.
Existing LLM-based theorem provers have achieved impressive results on formal mathematics benchmarks, yet they remain confined to acting as autonomous agents that prove a stated proposition. In this paper, we propose MathCoPilot, a human-in-the-loop system that embodies a new human--AI symbiotic paradigm for mathematical research, in which the mathematician steers the high-level mathematical direction while AI agents carry out the detailed formalization and proof work under continuous human guidance. MathCoPilot unifies three core capabilities: (1) an interactive workbench where the mathematician and AI agents collaborate through a living proof blueprint that decomposes a proof into navigable steps the human can directly inspect, direct, and refine; (2) automated proving skill orchestration with adaptive knowledge base search and Lean-integrated iterative verification; and (3) topic-driven paper retrieval and automated formalization into a verified Lean knowledge base. Using MathCoPilot, we systematically compare four state-of-the-art LLMs, including Gemini~3.1~Pro, GPT-5.4, and Claude~Opus~4.7, on a FormalMATH subset and on two real PDE theorems requiring deep domain expertise, evaluating their ability to produce verified Lean~4 proofs and to identify errors in deliberately incorrect proofs. Our results show that while current models can handle undergraduate-level problems with high success rates under favorable autoformalization conditions, substantial challenges remain for domain-specific theorems requiring genuine mathematical understanding.