The paper introduces a framework that uses large language models to represent and measure mathematical arguments, capturing statements, equations, assumptions, and constructions while distinguishing source occurrences from contextual states and inference records. It defines a directed acyclic graph representation where depth is the longest prerequisite path and bulk counts distinct ancestor edges, providing a recurrence that handles shared subarguments and preserves macro skeletons. The framework includes a standardized, versioned prompt protocol for annotation discovery, deterministic recomputation, and review assistance, and proposes cross‑paper links to study theorem co‑use and support probabilistic premise suggestions and review of omissions.
By Eunji Park
arXiv:2606. 08728v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mathematical reasoning has long served as a stringent test of machine intelligence; over the past decade, it has moved from a niche problem within NLP to one of the most consequential AI frontiers.
By Syed Rifat Raiyan, Mohsinul Kabir, Hasan Mahmud, Md Kamrul Hasan
LeanGraphSearch is a graph‑based retrieval method for the Lean 4 theorem prover that builds a dependency graph from Mathlib’s forward dependencies and traverses it to find supporting lemmas via multi‑hop chains. By linking each declaration to its premises, propagating relevance through a graph‑ranking algorithm, and re‑ranking candidates against the original query, it improves recall by up to 12% over LeanSearch v2 on MathlibQR and increases coverage of complete annotated proof routes on MathlibMPR by up to 3.7%. When integrated into an iterative proving loop, LeanGraphSearch raises pass rates at 8, 16, and 32 reflection turns by as much as 40% compared to a vanilla prover and up to 10% compared to LeanSearch v2, demonstrating higher accuracy‑cost efficiency.
By Yihan Xu, Jia-Chen Gu, Junyi Zhang, Di Wu, Haikang Deng, Po-Nien Kung, Kai-Wei Chang, Amit Sahai, Wei Wang, Nanyun Peng
arXiv:2604. 03789v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in large language models have significantly improved their ability to perform mathematical reasoning, extending from elementary problem solving to increasingly capable performance on research-level problems.
By Haocheng Ju, Guoxiong Gao, Jiedong Jiang, Bin Wu, Zeming Sun, Shurui Liu, Leheng Chen, Yutong Wang, Yuefeng Wang, Zichen Wang, Wanyi He, Peihao Wu, Liang Xiao, Ruochuan Liu, Bryan Dai, Bin Dong
arXiv:2608. 15432v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In formal verification, both the autoformalization of statements and automated proof search have been studied extensively.
By Tadd Mao, Tianjun Zhong, Dhruva Arekar, Yuming Feng, One An, Jiani Huang, Xujie Si, Ziyang Li
arXiv:2610.35269v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Lean verifies that a formal proof establishes its stated proposition under declared assumptions, but does not check whether that proposition faithfully...
By Hao Shen, Ruichen Qiu, Lihong Zhi, Xiao-Shan Gao
The paper introduces OpenConjecture, a dataset of mathematical conjectures from arXiv papers since February 2026, and evaluates frontier GPT models on 200 randomly sampled conjectures. The models generate candidate solutions for about 60% of the conjectures, with counterexamples occurring roughly 1.3 times more often than proofs. The study examines solution novelty, citation practices, and fidelity to the original statements, finding that some solutions deviate from authors’ intent and that many proofs closely follow existing results, though some exhibit moderate novelty.
By Helen Jenne, Davis Brown, Jesse He, Henry Kvinge
arXiv:2606. 16603v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in data-intensive analytical tasks, yet their outputs are rarely verifiable: a reliance on linear text trajectories makes their reasoning difficult to audit.
By Jiajie Jin, Zhao Yang, Wenle Liao, Yuyang Hu, Guanting Dong, Xiaoxi Li, Yutao Zhu, Zhicheng Dou
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.
arXiv:2606. 10799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to rigorously verify complex mathematical proofs.
By Yifeng Sun
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
arXiv:2602.18307v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large language models have achieved striking results in interactive theorem proving, particularly in Lean. However, most benchmarks for LLM-b...
By Yutong Xin, Qiaochu Chen, Greg Durrett, I\c{s}il Dillig