arXiv:2607. 01223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When should an AI system's answer be trusted?
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...
arXiv:2609.10293v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the sou...
arXiv:2607. 20527v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLM systems such as OpenScholar and PaperQA2 read the scientific literature and return cited answers, and both they and their benchmarks already check whether those citations hold, with a fixed attribution model or human graders.
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:2609.26035v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conversational agents often express answers in a uniformly confident register. We test whether expressed uncertainty, provenance-aware assertion, and e...
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:2609.39228v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present FYAN, a human--AI harness for document-level mathematical formalization. Rather than treating theorems in isolation, FYAN coordinates an end...
arXiv:2608. 05420v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate text that resembles a mathematical proof, but resemblance does not establish correctness.
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.
AdvancedMathBench is a new benchmark suite that evaluates large language models on advanced mathematical proof generation and verification. It includes ProverBench, with 245 problems from undergraduate to doctoral qualifying‑exam levels, and VerifierBench, which tests models’ ability to judge proof validity using 888 expert‑annotated trajectories. The suite features an automatic verification pipeline trained on expert data, and results show that even state‑of‑the‑art models perform poorly, highlighting a gap between generation and verification skills.
Euston is an 8‑B parameter mathematical claim‑verification model that resists producing false derivations when presented with corrupted theorems. It was trained on 3,026 matched true/corrupted statement pairs generated by GraphSynth, a probabilistic factor‑graph generator, and fine‑tuned from DeepSeek‑R1‑8B using GRPO. On a balanced held‑out split, Euston’s balanced accuracy rose from 29.50 % to 63.75 %, and its discrimination gap improved from –0.5 % to +27.5 %, while maintaining comparable general mathematical ability and reducing response length and truncation rates.
The paper investigates whether giving AI monitors access to the final answer improves their ability to verify reasoning. Using 237 step‑by‑step solutions to physics exam questions, the authors found that answer access mainly helps monitors detect inconsistencies with the final answer rather than independently checking the reasoning. Certification of the answer increased overall accuracy and error localization but reduced the ability to flag critical traces where the answer was correct but the reasoning was flawed.