arXiv:2607. 08986v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We formalize a research result in the Lean 4 proof assistant by having a mathematician direct an AI system, and frame the activity as a formalization game.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2607. 08986v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We formalize a research result in the Lean 4 proof assistant by having a mathematician direct an AI system, and frame the activity as a formalization game.
arXiv:2606. 31134v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in mathematical reasoning, they frequently produce subtle errors that evade human detection.
arXiv:2606. 28572v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The axiom of choice has divided the foundations of mathematics for over a century, but the distinction between classical and constructive proofs has remained a philosophical and methodological one.
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.
arXiv:2606. 05400v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-horizon autoformalization of research mathematics fails not only at hard lemmas, but at scale: statements drift, dependencies tangle, context decays, and local repairs corrupt distant work.
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.