The paper investigates whether interactive arguments for oracle‑aided AI computations can be zero‑knowledge, meaning the verifier learns nothing beyond the correctness of the output. It proves that, in general, zero‑knowledge proofs for all oracle‑aided computations are impossible, even in the random oracle model, and this impossibility extends to debate protocols. However, if the oracle signs each answer with a cryptographic signature, then every oracle‑aided computation can be verified in zero‑knowledge with efficient provers and verifiers, assuming only collision‑resistant hash functions.
By Alessandro Chiesa, Ziyi Guan, Burcu Yildiz
arXiv:2506. 13609v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Training powerful AI systems to exhibit desired behaviors hinges on the ability to provide accurate human supervision on increasingly complex tasks.
By Jonah Brown-Cohen, Geoffrey Irving, Georgios Piliouras, Lijie Chen, Jiawei Li, Zhiyang Xun
arXiv:2609.24895v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: When an LLM supplies an argument that a user could not readily construct, how can the user decide whether to accept its claim? Inspired by interactive...
By Baotong Zhang, Dean Foster, Jo\~ao Sedoc
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.
By Shuangxiang Kan, Shuanglong Kan, Sebastian Ertel
arXiv:2607. 01223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When should an AI system's answer be trusted?
By Ben Slivinski, Michael Saldivar
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.
By Junyu Ren
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: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: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.
By Jialiang Sun, Yuzhi Tang, Ao Li, Chris J. Maddison, Kuldeep S. Meel
arXiv:2608.28997v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: In May 2026 an OpenAI model produced a counterexample to the Erd\H{o}s unit distance conjecture. Five mathematicians published a human-verified version...
By Maher Kallel, Mohamed El Louadi
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.
By Santhana Srinivasan R, Maithilee Patawar
Stellar Colosseum is a model‑agnostic harness designed to improve long‑horizon research in mathematics and theoretical computer science by allocating inference across multiple agents. It explores alternative strategies before constructing proofs, uses a readiness gate to decide when a route is mature enough to decompose, represents proof plans as interdependent subproblems, and routes verifier findings back to the relevant part of the argument. The workflow generates candidates in parallel, attacks them with targeted falsification, and combines candidates and critiques into a single research artifact through overlapping random‑sample tree aggregation, and has been integrated into Google Antigravity's Teamwork framework as the Long Proof pattern. Demonstrations show that, when paired with Gemini 3.1 Pro, Stellar Colosseum achieves 71.0% accuracy on the TCS‑Bench theorem‑proving benchmark and solves 218 of 222 Codeforces problems.
By Honghao Lin, David P. Woodruff, Yuan Deng, Jieming Mao, Song Zuo, Vahab Mirrokni