The evaluation of mathematical results plays a central role in assessing researchers' contributions and shaping the direction of the field. Currently, such evaluations rely primarily on human judgment, whether through journal peer review or committees at research institutions. To complement these traditional processes, we propose a data-driven approach. We construct a hierarchical graph linking conjectures, theorems, papers, authors and fields to capture their citation relationships. We then introduce a PageRank-style algorithm to compute influence scores for these entities. Using these scores, we analyze the evolution of field rankings over time and quantify the impact between fields. We hope this framework can contribute to the development of more advanced, quantitative methods for evaluating mathematical research and serve as a complement to expert assessment.