ALPS: Measuring Valid Creativity in Large Language Models with Mathematical Construction
Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
arXiv:2608. 15979v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models produce outputs presented as discoveries - new proofs, conjectures, or molecules.
arXiv:2605.22875v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Long-horizon mathematical reasoning fails less often because a model cannot produce a valid next step than because an agent fails to maintain 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.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably grade Olympiad-level mathematical proofs. It introduces a human-curated dataset of USAMO 2025 candidate solutions with expert grading and evaluates 20 LLM verifiers across multiple metrics, prompt styles, and inference methods, finding that current models still have significant shortcomings. To improve performance, the authors propose TROJAN, an iterative self-critique pipeline for generating adversarial proofs, and MABGrader, a Multi-Armed Bandit framework that outperforms the state-of-the-art ProofGrader by 26.4% in Quadratic Weighted Kappa and reduces grading error by 14%.
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:2610.34490v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In formal systems such as Lean 4, efficiently finding answers to mathematical problems and generating verifiable proofs is an important task in autom...