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.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 03303v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong informal mathematical reasoning but struggle to generate mechanically verifiable proofs in formal languages like Lean.
arXiv:2606. 09450v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks.
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.
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:2606. 08728v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mathematical reasoning has long served as a stringent test of machine intelligence; over the past decade, it has moved from a niche problem within NLP to one of the most consequential AI frontiers.
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.