The paper "SoK: Formal Methods for Fact-Checking and Information Integrity" discusses how automated fact‑checking systems typically output a verdict but lack a detailed record—called a warrant—explaining the evidence and conditions behind that verdict. It proposes organizing the field by what is being formalised—claims, reasoning, checking systems, ecosystems, and regulatory obligations—rather than by pipeline stages, and surveys 121 works to identify gaps, notably the scarcity of formal methods applied to verifying the checking systems themselves. The authors highlight that existing formal tools, though largely unused in this domain, could address these gaps and outline open problems with suggested first steps.
arXiv:2610.17358v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Formal verification proves that a program satisfies its specification, but says nothing about whether the specification captures what the author mean...
The paper examines how AI‑written research papers often contain misattributed numerical claims. By re‑analyzing 540 judgments from a benchmark of nine AI agents on fifteen research problems, the authors manually labeled 256 claims and found that most failures stem from misalignment between the paper and the underlying work rather than outright cheating. They propose a deterministic claim‑to‑evidence checker that achieves over 90% precision and, when combined with an LLM verifier, offers a more reliable audit of AI‑generated research.
arXiv:2607. 12650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny.
arXiv:2609.39228v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present FYAN, a human--AI harness for document-level mathematical formalization. Rather than treating theorems in isolation, FYAN coordinates an end...
arXiv:2608.21363v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A protocol is presented for recording the governance decisions of automated AI runtimes. When a runtime releases, blocks, defers, redacts, or escalates...
arXiv:2608.28997v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In May 2026 an OpenAI model produced a counterexample to the Erd\H{o}s unit distance conjecture. Five mathematicians published a human-verified version...
KAPPA is an open‑source toolkit that uses language‑model agents to translate LaTeX proofs from statistical papers into Lean 4, where each numbered result is verified step by step against the original text. The system assigns one of four verdicts—verified unconditionally, verified conditionally, issue recorded, or unfinished—to every result, and it can run unattended, re‑check only changed sections, and report resource usage. In tests on four example papers and three published statistical papers, KAPPA detected the known errors and additional issues that were later confirmed by hand, while a direct language‑model approach without the kit produced fewer correct verdicts and sometimes over‑claimed proofs.
Papers in statistical theory rest on long proofs that few readers check line by line. We present KAPPA (Kit of Agents for Proof-checking Papers with a proof Assistant), open-source software that organ...
The paper argues that as AI systems increasingly generate code, the bottleneck has shifted to supervising these systems, revealing a vocabulary gap between cybernetic coordination (actions aligning with the world) and epistemic coordination (understanding that can be verified). It critiques current oversight that merely approves outputs, proposing instead that every consequential choice by an agent must include a retrievable condition explaining why it was made, enabling third‑party verification. The authors illustrate this with three delegation episodes, introduce a two‑part reconstruction test, and propose the ORRCF convention to embed such conditions in all recorded decisions.
The paper introduces ClaimReceipt, a specification and verifier that checks whether a claim in an agent evaluation can be recomputed from retained evidence (sufficiency) and whether the evidence covers the entire experiment set (coverage). Using the CR‑2 verifier on 1,392 historical records, the authors demonstrate accurate reproduction of audit verdicts, non‑redundant field groups, and zero false positives on semantic faults. In a prospective CR‑3 run, the system correctly flags missing receipts and preserves coverage when private evidence is withheld, while adding minimal overhead to inference time and transaction size.
arXiv:2607. 01223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When should an AI system's answer be trusted?
The paper presents a clinician‑led safety guardrail for mental‑health chatbots that replaces typical prompt‑engineering or Constitutional AI methods. Two clinicians design, finalize, and adjudicate a rule base of four safety checks, which is formally verified for internal consistency and applied to LLM outputs. The verification layer’s verdicts are recomputable from a named rule and sixteen facts, and it consistently avoids false crisis‑resource demands that a matched LLM judge frequently raises.