# Can an AI Agent Rediscover a Blaschke-Curve Invariant?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38369 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.38369/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [AI Feynman: a Physics-Inspired Method for Symbolic Regression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.11481/) (2019)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We study generalized Blaschke curves as a controlled environment for AI-assisted mathematical rediscovery. For one fixed degree-four Blaschke product, an agent receives numerical coordinates of the six pair-lines determined by each of 80 boundary configurations. The target theorem is withheld from the task instructions. The saved research log reports rejected geometric hypotheses and a homogeneous cubic fitted to polygon sides. Its frozen coefficients predict 480 lines from 80 unseen parameter values, with a recorded RMS scale-free residual of 8.88×10-17. Discovery-set diagonals provide an out-of-fit consistency check, not a fully held-out test. A separate one-configuration run reports insufficient evidence for invariance. A post-review deterministic degree-search baseline also recovers the cubic, so the experiment does not establish an advantage over polynomial fitting. We present this single-instance case study as a protocol for separating conjecture, numerical validation, and proof, with explicit limitations concerning agent metadata, prior knowledge, and reproducibility.