Counterexample Generation via Per-Theorem Symbolic Verifiers: When Imitation Hurts and Reinforcement Repairs

Mathematical reasoning demands two critical, complementary skills: constructing rigorous proofs for true statements and discovering counterexamples that disprove false ones. However, current AI efforts in mathematics focus almost exclusively on proof construction, often neglecting the equally important task of finding counterexamples. In this paper, we address this gap by fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) to reason about and generate counterexamples. We formalize this task as formal counterexample generation, which requires LLMs not only to propose candidate counterexamples but also to produce formal proofs that can be automatically verified in the Lean 4 theorem prover. To enable effective learning, we introduce a symbolic mutation strategy that synthesizes diverse training data by systematically extracting theorems and discarding selected hypotheses, thereby producing diverse counterexample instances. Together with curated datasets, this strategy enables a multi-reward expert iteration framework that substantially enhances both the effectiveness and efficiency of training LLMs for counterexample generation and theorem proving. Experiments on three newly collected benchmarks validate the advantages of our approach, showing that the mutation strategy and training framework yield significant performance gains.

Reasoning language models are trained to produce solutions, not to refuse them, and this bias persists when the problem they are handed is false. Asked to prove a corrupted theorem, a strong model will typically comply and produce a confident derivation of something untrue. We present Euston, an 8B mathematical claim-verification model trained to resist exactly this. Training data were generated with GraphSynth, a probabilistic factor-graph generator that couples attribute-level diversity to decode-time structural masking and span-synchronized verification, yielding 3{,}026 matched true/corrupted statement pairs (6,052 statements) drawn from arXiv papers spanning 2010--2025. We fine-tuned DeepSeek-R1-8B with GRPO under a rule-based, zero-API reward for 189 steps on four H100 GPUs. On a balanced 200-true/200-false held-out split, balanced accuracy rises from 29.50% to 63.75% and the discrimination gap---the difference between the rate of calling false statements false and the rate of calling true statements false moves from -0.5% (z=-0.1) to +27.5% (z=+6.0). Critically, the gain is not purchased with general mathematical ability: AIME 2026 accuracy under official semantics is 65.00% against a 69.17% base, a difference of -4.17% that is not statistically significant, whereas an earlier run of the same recipe on a smaller GraphSynth corpus collapsed to 40.00%. Median response length also falls from 19,217 to 18,296 tokens and the truncation rate from 25.8% to 8.3%, so the improvement does not come from thinking longer. We report the result together with the confounds that bound its interpretation, principally the all-false composition of the official evaluation sets and the low precision implied at realistic error prevalence.

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.