The paper introduces DAPS, a dependency‑aware premise selector for large language model theorem proving in Lean 4. By curating underused dependency resources from 53 Lean Blueprint projects and extracting typed, multi‑level Mathlib4 dependencies, DAPS employs a structural neighborhood encoder and a group‑level contrastive objective to overcome frequency skew, isolated ranking, and out‑of‑distribution degradation. It achieves a mean Recall@32 of 89.25 on Mathlib4‑Heldout, outperforming the strong selector LeanHammer, and improves theorem proving on miniF2F and IMO‑ProofBench.
By Zixuan Chen, Wenyuan Jiang, Junling Wang, Mrinmaya Sachan, Yinya Huang
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.
By Jiaxin Yuan, Connor Martinez Lockhart, Xiaoyu Liu, Jiaqi Wang, Chenghao Deng, Xiayimei Han, Vlasios Mastrantonis, Dmitrii Gudin, Shaopeng Zhu, Abdirisak Abdullahi Mohamed, Bilal Hamdi Aytekin, Jiewen Lang, Zezheng Song, Furong Huang
The paper introduces a method for evaluating the intrinsic interestingness of mathematical theorems by comparing the length of their proofs to the length of their statements. It trains a 27B language model to predict proof difficulty, enabling the generation and selection of more interesting theorems while significantly reducing overlap with existing Mathlib. The approach allows iterative expansion of a self‑building, machine‑verified mathematical library guided by quantifiable metrics.
By Niket Patel, Ahmad Rammal, Amaury Hayat, Remi Munos, Julia Kempe
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.
The paper argues that large language models (LLMs) organize their internal mathematical reasoning by reusable reasoning approaches rather than by the benchmark topics they are tested on. Using a generation‑replay protocol, the authors extract activation‑importance signatures from eight models across five math sources, cluster these signatures, and find that the resulting groups align more closely with reasoning approaches than with topics. The study shows that changing the requested reasoning approach shifts cluster assignments, while paraphrasing the prompt does not, underscoring the primacy of approach over topic in LLM reasoning.
By Sajad Goudarzi, Samaneh Zamanifard, Moloud Nasiri, Hamed Rahimian
arXiv:2610. 02191v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated striking capabilities on frontier mathematical problems, it remains unclear whether they possess the structural mathematical understanding underlying their solutions.
By Shuo Xing, Zilin Dai, Chengyuan Qian, Fangzhou Lin, Wenjing Chen, Ping He, Pan Lu, Alvaro Velasquez, Mohit Bansal, Zhengzhong Tu