FaithSieve is a Lean‑assisted framework that fine‑grains natural‑language mathematical proofs into local reasoning units, extracts typed proof obligations, and verifies them with formal evidence gated by semantic alignment. It introduces two expert‑verified datasets—ProofLoc‑Olympiad and ProofLoc‑University—to benchmark first‑error localization. On these benchmarks, FaithSieve outperforms direct‑judging baselines, achieving 81.43% and 84.5% exact first‑error accuracy respectively.
By Ziyu Wang, Qiming Dai, Yishan Wu, Zaiwen Wen
arXiv:2609.35790v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: While neural theorem provers have achieved impressive milestones in formal mathematics, they largely operate on the assumption that faithful Lean 4 f...
By Thomas Hirtz, Farzad Jafarrahmani, Abdelmouksit Sagueni, Xiang Zhou, Wengping Deng, Liang Zhang
arXiv:2603. 02668v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We present SorryDB, a dynamically-updating benchmark of open Lean tasks drawn from 78 real world formalization projects on GitHub.
By Austin Letson, Leopoldo Sarra, Auguste Poiroux, Oliver Dressler, Paul Lezeau, Dhyan Aranha, Frederick Pu, Aaron Hill, Miguel Corredera Hidalgo, Julian Berman, George Tsoukalas, Lenny Taelman
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:2606. 31002v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Theorem-proving benchmarks evaluate proof search against fixed formal statements, but natural-language-to-Lean formalization must generate the formal statement itself.
By Ke Zhang, Patricio Gallardo Candela, Sudhir Murthy, Yi Xie, Zhi Wang, Maziar Raissi
arXiv:2606. 31134v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in mathematical reasoning, they frequently produce subtle errors that evade human detection.
By Arshia Soltani Moakhar, Iman Gholami, Max Springer, Mahdi JafariRaviz, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi
arXiv:2607. 14582v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing LLM-based theorem provers have achieved impressive results on formal mathematics benchmarks, yet they remain confined to acting as autonomous agents that prove a stated proposition.
By Junjie Zhang, Jiayu Liu, Wenbin Liu, Zhenya Huang, Doudou Wang, Yan Jiang, Leiye Xu, Tao Xiong, Wen Huang, Qi Liu, Guoping Hu, Enhong Chen, Mengping Zhang, Xiangdong Ye
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: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
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. 15258v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of mathematical problem solving and can even assist with research-level proofs, yet we still lack a scalable and reproducible way to measure step-level reasoning in long proofs across diverse sources.
By Jierui Zhang, Siyuan Tan, Xinhang Li, Longzhuangzhi Lin, Dailin Li, Chengfeng Gu, Xinping Li, Yaxian Hao, Shengjia Liang, Yuxiang Ren, Wenhao Liu
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