AlgoVeri: An Aligned Benchmark for Verified Code Generation on Classical Algorithms
arXiv:2602. 09464v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vericoding refers to the generation of formally verified code from rigorous specifications.
arXiv:2602. 09464v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vericoding refers to the generation of formally verified code from rigorous specifications.
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.
arXiv:2608. 14221v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autoformalization is commonly framed as translating natural-language mathematical statements into machine-verifiable formal languages such as Lean 4.
arXiv:2602. 20629v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) saturate elementary benchmarks, the research frontier has shifted from generation to the reliability of automated evaluation.
arXiv:2608. 10916v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autoformalisation (AF) systems map natural language reasoning steps into formal statements in a proof assistant such as Lean.
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.
arXiv:2608. 20153v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown growing potential for automated theoretical computer science (TCS) research, yet existing benchmarks remain far from realistic research settings.
The paper introduces a benchmark of 3,600 exact‑rational word problems and 8,600 prompts that test whether language models give the same canonical answer when the same quantity is expressed in different numeric forms (decimal, fraction, percentage, number word, scientific notation, or unit‑converted). After normalizing answer syntax, canonical accuracy is high (0.969–0.996), but correctness across equivalent representations drops to 0.848–0.981, revealing that many errors stem from the evaluator’s number grammar rather than the models’ reasoning. The study also finds that representation consensus does not outperform paraphrase consensus on low‑error subsets and that certain models (e.g., Mistral Small 4) exhibit systematic unit‑conversion errors.
arXiv:2607. 19407v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Formal theorem proving has emerged as a frontier challenge for machine learning, yet the ecosystem is fragmented: proofs remain siloed across incompatible systems, limiting both training data for learning-based provers and the portability of verified results.
Magenta is a training‑free pipeline that bridges informal natural‑language mathematical problems and formal Lean 4 verification. Given a problem in plain text, it generates an answer, translates it into a Lean 4 statement, and constructs a machine‑checked proof. The system includes a statement judge to ensure the formalisation matches the original problem and an error‑attribution judge to guide corrections, achieving perfect accuracy on olympiad benchmarks and solving all six IMO 2026 problems when combined with K2‑Horizon‑7B.
The paper identifies a new failure mode in neurosymbolic systems called Verdict‑Preserving‑Unfaithfulness (VPU), where incorrect formal encodings can still pass solver checks. It introduces Generative Verification (GenV), a method that uses a language model to produce a continuous reference‑equivalence score without relying on explicit localization. Experiments show GenV+HN achieves high AUROC, generalizes to unseen translators, and improves downstream agent performance by 11.3 points.
arXiv:2606. 15972v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: With large language models (LLMs) increasingly applied to mathematical reasoning, formal proof assistants such as Lean can be leveraged to verify reasoning outputs with machine-checkable rigor, enabling use cases such as answer selection in test-time scaling with K sampled candidate answers.