arXiv:2608.28639v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Formal theorem proving with large language models remains challenging due to the difficulty of navigating large proof search spaces efficiently. Existi...
arXiv:2608. 15979v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models produce outputs presented as discoveries - new proofs, conjectures, or molecules.
arXiv:2602. 16793v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In the past year, custom and unreleased math reasoning models reached gold medal performance on the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO).
arXiv:2606. 00671v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We present Moxia (formerly AXIOM), a trust-first neuro-symbolic architecture for self-explaining mathematical reasoning over natural-language input.
arXiv:2606. 00671v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We present AXIOM, a trust-first neuro-symbolic architecture for natural-language mathematical reasoning.
arXiv:2607. 14137v2 Announce Type: cross Abstract: To answer a question about a program, move the program to where the question is decidable.
arXiv:2608. 05420v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate text that resembles a mathematical proof, but resemblance does not establish correctness.
arXiv:2608. 00004v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Grading natural-language mathematical proofs is a recurring cost in evaluating math-reasoning systems, and frontier LLM judges are expensive.
Large language models produce outputs presented as discoveries - new proofs, conjectures, or molecules. Whether such an output that appears creative is truly original and effective is hard to establis...
arXiv:2607. 00815v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: SAT solvers settle combinatorial problems beyond the reach of interactive theorem provers and produce LRAT certificates for independent verification.
AdvancedMathBench is a new benchmark suite that evaluates large language models on advanced mathematical proof generation and verification. It includes ProverBench, with 245 problems from undergraduate to doctoral qualifying‑exam levels, and VerifierBench, which tests models’ ability to judge proof validity using 888 expert‑annotated trajectories. The suite features an automatic verification pipeline trained on expert data, and results show that even state‑of‑the‑art models perform poorly, highlighting a gap between generation and verification skills.
arXiv:2607. 01223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When should an AI system's answer be trusted?