arXiv:2608. 15432v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In formal verification, both the autoformalization of statements and automated proof search have been studied extensively.
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 AI.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
arXiv:2606. 10799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to rigorously verify complex mathematical proofs.