Failure Modes of Large Language Models on Research-Level Mathematics: A Taxonomy and an Empirical Characterisation

Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to rigorously verify complex mathematical proofs. Standard global evaluation approaches suffer from "context poisoning," in which superficially plausible statements mask subtle logical flaws, leading to hallucination or over-skepticism. To address this, we shift from global evaluation to strict step-level verification: our framework maintains detailed context for each deduction step and strictly constrains the sources of applied theorems. We evaluate on a carefully curated adversarial diagnostic suite of research-level proofs drawn from the FirstProof challenge. A systematic ablation study demonstrates that these deductive constraints are indispensable, as unconstrained global prompting consistently fails to localize subtle logical errors. Beyond outperforming global evaluation, our approach fundamentally alters the failure taxonomy. Error analysis reveals that, rather than exhibiting severe logical hallucinations, remaining rejections are primarily instances of "pedantic hyper-rigor" stemming from unstated domain conventions, effectively exposing implicit ambiguities within the expert benchmark itself. Our findings suggest that prompting agents to organize their verification notes in a cautious, human-mathematician-like manner can substantially improve their ability to distinguish rigorous proofs from flawed ones, with the potential to strengthen agentic reasoning on frontier mathematical concepts that the base model does not already know well, and to lay a theoretical foundation for future automated proof-review systems. Code and prompts are available at GitHub.

We present a new approach for benchmarking Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities on research-level mathematics. Existing benchmarks largely rely on static, hand-curated sets of contest or textbook-style problems as proxies for mathematical research. Instead, we establish an updatable benchmark evaluating models directly on the latest research results in mathematics. This consists of an automatic pipeline that extracts lemmas from arXiv and rewrites them into self-contained statements by making all assumptions and required definitions explicit. It results in a benchmark that can be updated regularly with new problems taken directly from human mathematical research, while previous instances can be used for training without compromising future evaluations. We benchmark current state-of-the-art LLMs, which obtain around 10-15$\%$ accuracy in theorem proving (pass@1) depending on the model, showing that there is currently a large margin of progression for LLMs to reach human-level proving capabilities in a research context.

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. This evaluation gap limits trustworthy AI assistance in proof-certified scientific progress. Existing evaluations often emphasize final answers or rely on costly expert grading, while end-to-end proof generation remains open-ended and hard to verify automatically. We introduce Mask-Proof, a pipeline that turns real proofs into automatically checkable masked-step tasks. It masks key formula steps, provides the necessary surrounding context, and evaluates model reconstructions with an LLM-based equivalence judge using repeated votes for stability. The resulting Mask-ProofBench contains 292 curated problems across diverse research areas. Experiments with 17 models show that reasoning-enhanced models outperform standard models by 12% to 27%. Our evaluator achieves 96.8% agreement with expert annotators, enabling faithful, reproducible, and comparable measurement of step-level mathematical reasoning. Benchmark, annotations, and code are available at https://github.com/weating/Mask-Proof.