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. 12594v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern Lean theorem provers achieve strong performance only with substantial training and inference compute, driven in part by scarce verified proof data and the long reasoning traces of formal proof search, making both supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and sampling expensive.
By Joshua Ong Jun Leang, Zheng Zhao, Mihaela C\u{a}t\u{a}lina Stoian, Qiyuan Xu, Haonan Li, Wenda Li, Shay B. Cohen, Eleonora Giunchiglia
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:2509. 14274v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant promise in formal theorem proving.
By Kazumi Kasaura, Naoto Onda, Yuta Oriike, Masaya Taniguchi, Akiyoshi Sannai, Sho Sonoda
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.
By Austin Letson, Leopoldo Sarra, Auguste Poiroux, Oliver Dressler, Paul Lezeau, Dhyan Aranha, Frederick Pu, Aaron Hill, Miguel Corredera Hidalgo, Julian Berman, George Tsoukalas, Lenny Taelman
arXiv:2606. 03303v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong informal mathematical reasoning but struggle to generate mechanically verifiable proofs in formal languages like Lean.
By Po-Nien Kung, Linfeng Song, Dawsen Hwang, Jinsung Yoon, Chun-Liang Li, Simone Severini, Mirek Ol\v{s}\'ak, Edward Lockhart, Quoc V Le, Burak Gokturk, Thang Luong, Tomas Pfister, Nanyun Peng
arXiv:2506. 17104v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising first-order logic (FOL) reasoning capabilities with applications in various areas.
By Chuxue Cao, Mengze Li, Juntao Dai, Jinluan Yang, Zijian Zhao, Shengyu Zhang, Weijie Shi, Chengzhong Liu, Sirui Han, Yike Guo
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.
By Jierui Zhang, Siyuan Tan, Xinhang Li, Longzhuangzhi Lin, Dailin Li, Chengfeng Gu, Xinping Li, Yaxian Hao, Shengjia Liang, Yuxiang Ren, Wenhao Liu
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.
By Tian-Shuo Liu, Shiyuan Zhang, Zijie Geng, Haoyu Liu, Runjie Xu, Pengyuan Wang, Lei Yuan, Yang Yu
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.
By Jui-Hui Chung, Ziyang Cai, Zihao Li, Qishuo Yin, Rohit Agarwal, Simon Park, Rodrigo Porto, Narutatsu Ri, Ziran Yang, Shange Tang, Xingyu Dang, Hongzhou Lin, Mengdi Wang, Danqi Chen, Chi Jin, Liam H Fowl, Sanjeev Arora
arXiv:2606. 29493v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for LLM-assisted theorem proving in Lean are often treated as intrinsically reliable because every solved instance comes with a machine-checked proof.
By Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Siddharth Bhat, Stella Biderman
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.