The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
arXiv:2606. 15258v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of mathematical problem solving and can even assist with research-level proofs, yet we still lack a scalable and reproducible way to measure step-level reasoning in long proofs across diverse sources.
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 introduces Proof‑R1, a reinforcement‑learning framework that trains large language models to generate verifiable proofs for natural‑language logical reasoning tasks. Proof‑R1 only accepts a generated conclusion into the proof state when it satisfies formal verification constraints, ensuring each reasoning step is machine‑checkable. The method also reconstructs the dependency closure that supports the final answer, aligning credit with valid proof steps, and shows improved answer accuracy and verifiability across multiple benchmarks and models.
arXiv:2608. 09538v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation.
We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA).
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.