Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and olympiad-style mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed.
arXiv:2606. 13782v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have made notable progress in automated theorem proving, yet existing formal benchmarks remain limited in both mathematical coverage and difficulty.
By Lushi Pu, Weiming Zhang, Xinheng Xie, Zixuan Fu, Bingxiang He, Hongya Lyu, Xin Li, Jie Zhou, Yudong Wang
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.
By Lingkai Kong, Zijian Wu, Yuzhe Gu, Haiteng Zhao, Zhouqi Hua, Wenyong Huang, Shuang Sun, Zhicheng Xiong, Xiaotian Zhang, Shuya Zhao, Yan Wang, Disheng Xu, Wenwei Zhang, Kai Chen
LiveMathematicianBench is a dynamic multiple‑choice benchmark for research‑level mathematical reasoning, built from recent arXiv papers published after model training cutoffs. It introduces a thirteen‑category logical taxonomy of theorem types and uses a proof‑sketch‑guided distractor pipeline to create plausible but invalid answer choices, enhancing sensitivity to genuine reasoning. Evaluation shows current large language models perform poorly, with the best model scoring 43.5% overall and only 17.6% under substitution‑resistant conditions, indicating the benchmark’s difficulty and realism.
By Linyang He, Qiyao Yu, Hanze Dong, Baohao Liao, Xinxing Xu, Micah Goldblum, Jiang Bian, Nima Mesgarani
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:2606. 03303v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong informal mathematical reasoning but struggle to generate mechanically verifiable proofs in formal languages like Lean.
By Po-Nien Kung, Linfeng Song, Dawsen Hwang, Jinsung Yoon, Chun-Liang Li, Simone Severini, Mirek Ol\v{s}\'ak, Edward Lockhart, Quoc V Le, Burak Gokturk, Thang Luong, Tomas Pfister, Nanyun Peng
arXiv:2606. 10479v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Combinatorics is central to Olympiad-level mathematical problem solving, requiring deep discrete reasoning, creative constructions, and rigorous structural insight.
By Shunkai Zhang, Haoran Zhang, Yun Luo, Qianjia Cheng, Haodi Lei, Yizhuo Li, Runzhe Zhan, Zhilin Wang, Bangjie Xu, Yucheng Su, Xinmiao Han, Xiaoye Qu, Dongrui Liu, Zhouchen Lin, Yu Qiao, Ning Ding, Yafu Li, Yu Cheng
arXiv:2606. 09450v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks.
By QuocViet Pham, Elvir Karimov, Andrey Galichin, Ivan Oseledets
LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks. However, existing evaluations remain heavily concentrated on competition-style problems and often fail to capture how models behave on longer, more dependency-rich mathematical developments.
MathAdv is a diagnostic benchmark for formal theorem proving that covers 13 undergraduate- and graduate-level mathematics domains. It includes Lean 4 proofs and up to three auxiliary tasks—multiple-choice questions, fill-in-the-blank problems, and expert-crafted transformations—to probe knowledge, informal reasoning, and robustness to problem presentation. Evaluation of current theorem provers shows formalization is a major bottleneck, performance varies by domain, natural-language guidance can help or hinder models, and equivalent reformulations reveal significant robustness gaps.
By Jiaxin Yuan, Connor Martinez Lockhart, Xiaoyu Liu, Jiaqi Wang, Chenghao Deng, Xiayimei Han, Vlasios Mastrantonis, Dmitrii Gudin, Shaopeng Zhu, Abdirisak Abdullahi Mohamed, Bilal Hamdi Aytekin, Jiewen Lang, Zezheng Song, Furong Huang
arXiv:2608. 15979v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models produce outputs presented as discoveries - new proofs, conjectures, or molecules.
By Eric Xie, Wenqian Ye, Aidong Zhang
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