arXiv:2607. 16372v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Interactive theorem proving (ITP) underpins program verification and formalized mathematics, but its manual effort limits scalability.
arXiv:2607. 06341v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Formal verification offers the strongest guarantee of software correctness, but it does not scale: the proofs demanded by interactive theorem provers such as Coq require enormous expert effort.
Formal verification offers the strongest guarantee of software correctness, but it does not scale: the proofs demanded by interactive theorem provers such as Coq require enormous expert effort. Large language models (LLMs) promise to generate these proofs automatically, yet existing approaches wire a fixed, human-designed proof strategy into the system and constrain the model to follow it (retrieving premises and predicting tactics one step at a time, or splitting goals by divide-and-conquer), and still prove only a fraction of their target theorems.
arXiv:2607. 11307v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Full-proof autoformalization bridges extensive mathematical proofs in natural language with formally validated reasoning, offering a pathway to elevate the ceiling of verifiable mathematical reasoning.
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:2606. 28841v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify.
arXiv:2608. 09277v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Verified code generation asks a large language model (LLM) to generate both an executable program and a machine-checkable proof that the program meets a formal specification, promising software that is correct by construction.
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.
arXiv:2607. 13069v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models produce chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning that appears logically sound yet may not genuinely depend on its stated premises.
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.
arXiv:2606. 06468v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce Goedel-Architect, an agentic framework for formal theorem proving in Lean 4 centered on blueprint generation and refinement.
arXiv:2608. 15432v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In formal verification, both the autoformalization of statements and automated proof search have been studied extensively.
arXiv:2512. 10187v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLMs excel at reasoning, but validating their steps remains challenging.