arXiv:2509. 14274v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant promise in formal theorem proving.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
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:2606. 09450v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks.
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.
arXiv:2506. 17104v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising first-order logic (FOL) reasoning capabilities with applications in various areas.
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.
MathAdv is a diagnostic benchmark for formal theorem proving that covers 13 undergraduate- and graduate-level mathematics domains. It includes Lean 4 proofs and up to three auxiliary tasks—multiple-choice questions, fill-in-the-blank problems, and expert-crafted transformations—to probe knowledge, informal reasoning, and robustness to problem presentation. Evaluation of current theorem provers shows formalization is a major bottleneck, performance varies by domain, natural-language guidance can help or hinder models, and equivalent reformulations reveal significant robustness gaps.