Grounding, the translation of high-level theories into equivalent quantifier-free formulas, is a crucial step in declarative solving, yet it has so far escaped the proof-logging revolution. When this grounding step is not certifying, there is no way of knowing that the obtained solutions actually correspond to the original problem specification, resulting in a trust gap.
arXiv:2607. 21199v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Grounding, the translation of high-level theories into equivalent quantifier-free formulas, is a crucial step in declarative solving, yet it has so far escaped the proof-logging revolution.
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:2608. 09190v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: GK is a query-directed first-order prover that extends ordinary resolution-based proof search with explicit positive and negative claims, numerical confidence values, and prioritized default rules with exceptions.
arXiv:2606. 00671v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present AXIOM, a trust-first neuro-symbolic execution architecture for natural-language mathematical reasoning.
arXiv:2603. 18334v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly assist secure software development, their ability to meet the rigorous demands of Rust program verification remains unclear.
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:2606. 20227v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant progress in reasoning, particularly in deductive reasoning, which is crucial for high-stakes decision-making.
arXiv:2605. 20531v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reliable verification of proofs remains a bottleneck for training and evaluating AI systems on hard mathematical reasoning.
arXiv:2607. 16372v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Interactive theorem proving (ITP) underpins program verification and formalized mathematics, but its manual effort limits scalability.
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. 12650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny.
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.