arXiv AI

Geometric Measurements of the Axiom of Choice in Neural Proof Embeddings

arXiv:2606. 28572v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The axiom of choice has divided the foundations of mathematics for over a century, but the distinction between classical and constructive proofs has remained a philosophical and methodological one.

arXiv AI
Sep 25

Learning to Discover Interesting Mathematics

The paper introduces a method for evaluating the intrinsic interestingness of mathematical theorems by comparing the length of their proofs to the length of their statements. It trains a 27B language model to predict proof difficulty, enabling the generation and selection of more interesting theorems while significantly reducing overlap with existing Mathlib. The approach allows iterative expansion of a self‑building, machine‑verified mathematical library guided by quantifiable metrics.

By Niket Patel, Ahmad Rammal, Amaury Hayat, Remi Munos, Julia Kempe
arXiv AI
Jun 16

The Faithfulness Gap: Certifying Semantic Equivalence Between Natural-Language and Formal Mathematical Statements

arXiv:2606. 16541v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autoformalization, translating natural-language mathematics into formal proof assistants, is bottlenecked not by translation fluency but by \emph{faithfulness}: a formal statement can typecheck and be provable, yet still encode a different theorem than the source intended.

By Noor Islam S. Mohammad, Tamim Sheikh
arXiv AI
Jun 2

Formally Solving Answer-Construction Problems in Lean

arXiv:2505. 18492v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Mathematical competition problems fall into two broad types: theorem proving, which asks for a proof of a given statement, and answer construction, which requires constructing a property-satifying object with proofs.

By Jialiang Sun, Yuzhi Tang, Ao Li, Chris J. Maddison, Kuldeep S. Meel
arXiv AI
Aug 28

ProofEvolve: Neuro-Symbolic Evolution for Formal Automated Theorem Proving

ProofEvolve is a neuro‑symbolic framework that evolves formally verified symbolic proof structures alongside neural models to expand the knowledge boundary in automated theorem proving. The neural component proposes variation operators such as decompositions, repairs, and schema recombinations, while the Lean kernel verifies every proof transition, ensuring formal soundness. Across three competition‑level Lean benchmarks, ProofEvolve achieves the highest average solve rate among evaluated proof systems.

By Wenqian Ye, Ziwei Guan, Eric Xie, Bohan Liu, Shivani Modi, Buyun Zhang, Ellie Dingqiao Wen, Henry Kautz, Aidong Zhang
arXiv AI
Jun 12

Pythagoras-Prover: Advancing Efficient Formal Proving via Augmented Lean Formalisation

arXiv:2606. 12594v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern Lean theorem provers achieve strong performance only with substantial training and inference compute, driven in part by scarce verified proof data and the long reasoning traces of formal proof search, making both supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and sampling expensive.

By Joshua Ong Jun Leang, Zheng Zhao, Mihaela C\u{a}t\u{a}lina Stoian, Qiyuan Xu, Haonan Li, Wenda Li, Shay B. Cohen, Eleonora Giunchiglia
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 16

Autoformalizing Argumentative Material Inferences

The paper introduces GUARD, a neuro‑symbolic system that autoformalizes argumentative material by completing missing premises (guards) before formal verification. It uses large language models to generate candidate guards, Isabelle/HOL to verify them, and a contrastive test to ensure the proof depends on the original premises and does not over‑generalize. Experiments on Debatepedia and ARCT show that GUARD improves verified‑faithful scores by over 30 points and reduces leakage by about 20 points compared to prior LLM‑driven theorem proving methods.

By Xin Quan, Reto Gubelmann, Andr\'e Freitas