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.
arXiv:2606. 09450v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks.
arXiv:2607. 16372v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Interactive theorem proving (ITP) underpins program verification and formalized mathematics, but its manual effort limits scalability.
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:2608.18084v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Theorem proving in real-world Lean 4 projects is challenging because proofs often depend on project-specific context. While iterative refinement ca...
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.
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.
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.
FormalEvolve is a neuro‑symbolic evolutionary search framework that treats autoformalization as a budgeted test‑time search problem. It builds a compilation‑feasible archive of formal statements and expands it using LLM‑driven mutation, crossover, bounded patch repair, and symbolic AST rewrites to generate diverse, semantically accepted formalizations. In experiments on CombiBench and ProofNet, FormalEvolve achieves higher SH@100 scores and improves theorem‑complete proving under fixed prover budgets compared to no‑archive baselines.
ProofEvolve is a neuro‑symbolic framework that evolves formally verified symbolic proof structures alongside neural models to expand the knowledge boundary in automated theorem proving. The neural component proposes variation operators such as decompositions, repairs, and schema recombinations, while the Lean kernel verifies every proof transition, ensuring formal soundness. Across three competition‑level Lean benchmarks, ProofEvolve achieves the highest average solve rate among evaluated proof systems.
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: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.