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.
By Ziyu Wang, Qiming Dai, Yishan Wu, Zaiwen Wen
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:2604. 03789v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in large language models have significantly improved their ability to perform mathematical reasoning, extending from elementary problem solving to increasingly capable performance on research-level problems.
By Haocheng Ju, Guoxiong Gao, Jiedong Jiang, Bin Wu, Zeming Sun, Shurui Liu, Leheng Chen, Yutong Wang, Yuefeng Wang, Zichen Wang, Wanyi He, Peihao Wu, Liang Xiao, Ruochuan Liu, Bryan Dai, Bin Dong
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.
By Slim Barkallah, Luke Bailey, Kaiyue Wen, Mohammed Abouzaid, Tengyu Ma
The paper introduces GUARD, a neuro‑symbolic system that autoformalizes argumentative material by completing missing premises (guards) before formal verification. It uses large language models to generate candidate guards, Isabelle/HOL to verify them, and a contrastive test to ensure the proof depends on the original premises and does not over‑generalize. Experiments on Debatepedia and ARCT show that GUARD improves verified‑faithful scores by over 30 points and reduces leakage by about 20 points compared to prior LLM‑driven theorem proving methods.
By Xin Quan, Reto Gubelmann, Andr\'e Freitas
arXiv:2606. 10799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to rigorously verify complex mathematical proofs.
By Yifeng Sun
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
arXiv:2608.28639v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Formal theorem proving with large language models remains challenging due to the difficulty of navigating large proof search spaces efficiently. Existi...
By Bodla Krishna Vamshi, Haizhao Yang
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
arXiv:2608. 15979v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models produce outputs presented as discoveries - new proofs, conjectures, or molecules.
By Eric Xie, Wenqian Ye, Aidong Zhang
arXiv:2606. 03743v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in generating formal proofs, their outputs often remain less readable, modular, maintainable, and reusable than proofs in mature formal mathematics libraries.
By Yiming Fu, Peixuan Liu, Zichen Wang, Kun yuan
arXiv:2607. 14582v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing LLM-based theorem provers have achieved impressive results on formal mathematics benchmarks, yet they remain confined to acting as autonomous agents that prove a stated proposition.
By Junjie Zhang, Jiayu Liu, Wenbin Liu, Zhenya Huang, Doudou Wang, Yan Jiang, Leiye Xu, Tao Xiong, Wen Huang, Qi Liu, Guoping Hu, Enhong Chen, Mengping Zhang, Xiangdong Ye