alt Hacker NewsThere are quite a few comments here about benchmark and coding performance. I would like to offer some opinions regarding its capacity for mathematics problems in an active research setting.
I have a collection of novel probability and statistics problems at the masters and PhD level with varying degrees of feasibility. My test suite involves running these problems through first (often with about 2-6 papers for context) and then requesting a rigorous proof as followup. Since the problems are pretty tough, there is no quantitative measure of performance here, I'm just judging based on how useful the output is toward outlining a solution that would hopefully become publishable.
Just prior to this model, Gemini led the pack, with GPT-5 as a close second. No other model came anywhere near these two (no, not even Claude). Gemini would sometimes have incredible insight for some of the harder problems (insightful guesses on relevant procedures are often most useful in research), but both of them tend to struggle with outlining a concrete proof in a single followup prompt. This DeepSeek V4 Pro with max thinking does remarkably well here. I'm not seeing the same level of insights in the first response as Gemini (closer to GPT-5), but it often gets much better in the followup, and the proofs can be _very_ impressive; nearly complete in several cases.
Given that both Gemini and DeepSeek also seem to lead on token performance, I'm guessing that might play a role in their capacity for these types of problems. It's probably more a matter of just how far they can get in a sensible computational budget.
Despite what the benchmarks seem to show, this feels like a huge step up for open-weight models. Bravo to the DeepSeek team!
Replies
I reviewed how DeepSeek V4-Pro, Kimi 2.6, Opus 4.6, and Opus 4.7 across the same AI benchmarks. All results are for Max editions, except for Kimi.
Summary: Opus 4.6 forms the baseline all three are trying to beat. DeepSeek V4-Pro roughly matches it across the board, Kimi K2.6 edges it on agentic/coding benchmarks, and Opus 4.7 surpasses it on nearly everything except web search.
DeepSeek V4-Pro Max shines in competitive coding benchmarks. However, it trails both Opus models on software engineering. Kimi K2.6 is remarkably competitive as an open-weight model. Its main weakness is in pure reasoning (GPQA, HMMT) where it trails Opus.
Speculation: The DeepSeek team wanted to come out with a model that surpassed proprietary ones. However, OpenAI dropped 5.4 and 5.5 and Anthropic released Opus 4.6 and 4.7. So they chose to just release V4 and iterate on it.
Basis for speculation? (i) The original reported timeline for the model was February. (ii) Their Hugging Face model card starts with "We present a preview version of DeepSeek-V4 series". (iii) V4 isn't multimodal yet (unlike the others) and their technical report states "We are also working on incorporating multimodal capabilities to our models."
Very interesting. I wonder how much of this is due to the context length. I am unclear on the implementation strategy, you ran this problem as a 1-shot using chat mode, or using each on an agent harness?
Wondering how gpt 5.5 is doing in your test. Happy to hear that DeepSeek has good performance in your test, because my experience seems to correlate with yours, for the coding problems I am working on. Claude doesn't seem to be so good if you stray away from writing http handlers (the modern web app stack in its various incarnations).
Curious to know what kind of problems you are talking about here
They have had the best math models for about a year most folks just didn't know about it. You can't find inference on APIs, but I run these at home, this is also the advantage of open models.
https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-Math-V2 https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B