Autonomous AI Agents Systematically Diverge From Human Preferences in Proof Formalization
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 04273v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: For centuries, human mathematicians have written proofs to substantiate their mathematical arguments; yet, the ability to automatically verify the validity of proofs has long been a challenge.
arXiv:2608.28433v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Proof assistants such as Lean 4 promise the paradigm of formally verified mathematics, but large-scale formalization projects have faced major barr...
arXiv:2606. 04273v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: For centuries, human mathematicians have written proofs to substantiate their mathematical arguments; yet, the ability to automatically verify the validity of proofs has long been a challenge.
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.
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.
arXiv:2607. 07779v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent developments in AI for Mathematics (AI4Math), especially Large Language Model (LLM)-driven theorem provers, has achieved remarkable success in formal proof generation for well-defined mathematical problems through Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP) languages.