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.
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. 13782v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have made notable progress in automated theorem proving, yet existing formal benchmarks remain limited in both mathematical coverage and difficulty.
arXiv:2606. 09450v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks.
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.
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.
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. 10799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to rigorously verify complex mathematical proofs.
The paper introduces GAP, a methodology that automatically generates mathematically equivalent variants of existing math problems using surface renames and kernel rewrites. Applying GAP to all 1,051 William Lowell Putnam Competition problems creates PutnamGAP, a 6,306-item dataset with 5,255 unseen variants. Evaluation of 18 commercial and open-source LLMs shows accuracy drops across all models, especially under kernel rewrites, indicating a persistent weakness in transferring proof plans to new mathematical settings.
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: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.
The paper introduces a method for evaluating the intrinsic interestingness of mathematical theorems by comparing the length of their proofs to the length of their statements. It trains a 27B language model to predict proof difficulty, enabling the generation and selection of more interesting theorems while significantly reducing overlap with existing Mathlib. The approach allows iterative expansion of a self‑building, machine‑verified mathematical library guided by quantifiable metrics.
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.