Formalization

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into automated code optimization introduces a critical reliability risk we term the Efficiency Hallucination: an LLM's tendency to issue non-functional mutations with unsubstantiated performance claims on already-optimized code. This is driven by the Evaluation Trap, wherein binary benchmarks incentivize unnecessary modifications over safely abstaining. We present a validation framework using classification penalty methods, evaluated across 180 optimization runs on nine models (GPT, Claude, Gemini) using EffiBench. Under standard prompts, models exhibit a 100% over-edit rate on optimal code. Our guardrail raises correct abstention from 0% to to 44.4%, preserving a 100% edit rate on sub-optimal code with zero false abstentions. Calibration is uneven: GPT-5.4 Mini approaches near-perfect abstention, and simple code is recognized more reliably than complex code. Our framework offers a training-free mechanism to mitigate LLM overconfidence before deployment in production.

The development of generative artificial intelligence resources enables opportunities of speeding up systems and engineering design work. This contribution introduces a framework of formal operations for assembling context in LLM-based engineering design. This framework involves the assembly of modular context units, including policy prompts, reference units with persistence, and user questions with prompt vectoring. This approach enables the systematic structuring of interactions with generative models. A formal method for evaluating modelling-as-code LLM outputs is also presented, which enables the evaluation of compliance to intent from LLM answers and thereby asses the support from LLMs for systems architecture modelling.

Proof assistants such as Lean 4 promise the paradigm of formally verified mathematics, but large-scale formalization projects have faced major barriers to entry, including the need for expertise in formal verification (as well as the underlying mathematics) and the significant time required for writing formal proofs. AI coding agents have dramatically reduced these barriers; human users can now use natural language to prompt agents to write complex proofs in Lean. This opens up the intriguing possibility of internet-scale mathematical collaboration involving both humans and AI agents, where correctness is machine-checked. To realize this possibility, we introduce Prove2Me (https://prove2.me), an open collaborative platform for formalizing mathematics. Users launch formalization "missions", to which AI agents contribute formal proofs toward completion. We designed mechanisms and a specialized harness in Prove2Me that enable large-scale collaboration so that agents can build on one another's work and freely reuse existing results. In doing so, Prove2Me aims to turn math formalization into a scalable, crowd-sourced effort open to anyone with an agent.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown growing potential for automated theoretical computer science (TCS) research, yet existing benchmarks remain far from realistic research settings. We introduce \ourbenchmark, an expert-validated benchmark for evaluating LLMs on frontier, end-to-end TCS research. \ourbenchmark contains $143$ instances drawn from papers accepted to STOC, FOCS, SODA, and COLT in 2025-2026, preserving paper-specific definitions, assumptions, and proof dependencies, with expert-verified Lean formalizations and proofs. Evaluations of leading LLMs reveal that current models remain far from reliably completing the full research pipeline. In particular, autoformalization is the sharpest bottleneck: the best model achieves only $11.5$ on translating natural-language claims into formal theorem statements, compared with $28.6$ Pass@8 when proving human-provided formal statements. Building on \ourbenchmark, we further develop an automated TCS research framework that generates, formalizes, filters, and proves new claims. Of $64$ generated claims, only $6$ ultimately pass expert evaluation and proof verification, indicating that beyond formalization, limited research taste remains another major barrier to autonomous TCS research.

With the growing adoption of artificial intelligence in high-stakes decision-making, identifying the causes of outcomes--particularly failures--and determining who is responsible has become a critical concern. In this work, we examine how well formal definitions of \textit{responsibility attribution}, grounded in the framework of \textit{actual causality}, align with human judgments of responsibility. To this end, we conduct a large-scale survey to elicit human judgments of responsibility in multi-agent sequential decision-making scenarios, using a modified version of the card game Goofspiel. We evaluate multiple responsibility attribution methods, assess their alignment with human judgments about responsibility, and identify factors that significantly shape responsibility judgments. While no single responsibility attribution method consistently aligns with human responses, our findings highlight key factors that influence human responsibility judgments, including agent-specific biases and amount of information available to agents during decision-making.

We present MechGeo, a Mathlib native agentic framework that jointly addresses faithful autoformalization and certified proof construction for Euclidean geometry. In this framework, GeoFormalizer represents informal problems in GeoIR, deterministically translates them into Lean 4, and iteratively repairs candidate statements using structural diagnostics and semantic evaluation. GeoProver constructs geometric proof plans, derives intermediate lemmas, and selectively algebraizes suitable subgoals through a library verified in Lean. Singular or SymPy may generate algebraic certificates, but all resulting proofs and counterexamples are checked by Lean's kernel. Experiments across seven LLM backbones show substantial improvements in autoformalization, particularly for models with weaker direct translation performance. On 43 historical IMO geometry problems, GeoFormalizer generates formal statements that GeoProver proves in 29 cases; for the remaining 14, it constructs counterexamples verified in Lean and proves all repaired statements after expert correction. Together with IMO 2026 Problem 2, this yields, to the best of our knowledge, the largest reported collection of automated, kernel-checked Lean proofs for IMO geometry problems. On the 14 geometry statements in LEAP's Lean-IMO-Bench, MechGeo proves 12 for the first time, formally refutes the remaining two, and proves both repaired statements. These results establish counterexample guided diagnosis, geometric reasoning, and certified symbolic computation as a practical foundation for trustworthy formal geometry.

Planning over Temporal Dynamic Knowledge Graphs (TDKGs) presents theoretical challenges in open-world environments with incomplete information. Existing action formalisms often face decidability issues and the Ramification Problem, while structural abduction requires expansive combinatorial search spaces. We introduce a unified framework with two modules--PIE-Abducer (incremental direct-derivation abduction) and PIE-APT (Abductive Planning for TDKGs)--operating natively on the expressive SROIQ Description Logic. Modeling state transitions as non-monotonic updates to deductively closed DL theories, we represent actions natively in OWL. This leverages an incremental reasoner to preserve decidability and natively bypass the Ramification Problem. To address incomplete knowledge, PIE-Abducer circumvents Minimal Hitting Set (MHS) enumeration. Instead of combinatorial search, it injects the logical negation of a goal into a consistent DL branch and synthesizes missing premises via direct refutation consequences. PIE-APT employs a recursive Generate-and-Test architecture, interleaving backward-chaining A* search with PIE-Abducer to synthesize both action sequences and abductive assumptions. Candidates undergo strict validation via forward-chaining Temporal Projection to evaluate logical trajectories. We evaluate four OWL benchmarks targeting semantic abilities missing from classical planning: parameterized goals with witness search, mid-search DL entailment, open-world assumption injection, and adversarial plan synthesis. Results show qualitative superiority over classical planners and prove our direct-derivation approach significantly outperforms an MHS-faithful baseline in abductive enrichment.

The reliance on unstructured free text for documenting clinical trial protocols creates a significant barrier to automated reasoning, cohort discovery, and trial simulation. The lack of formal structure obscures critical temporal phenotypes, such as dynamic eligibility criteria and event timing constraints. Although Temporal Ensemble Logic (TEL) offers an expressive framework for modeling these elements, manual encoding remains a prohibitive bottleneck. We introduce the CT-TEL workflow: a scalable pipeline leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to translate narrative clinical protocols into TEL formulas. We applied CT-TEL to generate logical models for 23 real-world trials from ClinicalTrials.gov. We evaluated translation fidelity via a back-translation approach, using LLMs to convert TEL formulas back into natural language and measuring semantic similarity against source texts. The resulting semantic retention suggests that LLMs may offer a pathway for mapping informal protocols to computable logic, providing preliminary evidence toward scalable clinical trial emulation within the emerging "Symbolic Biomedicine" paradigm championed by the corresponding author.

Topos causal models recast causal inference inside a topos: a causal world is a presheaf, an intervention is a sub-model named by a characteristic map into the subobject classifier $\Om$, and reasoning is Kripke-Joyal forcing in an intuitionistic internal language. We give the first axiom-free machine-checked account of this 1-topos core, in Cubical Agda over a previously verified probability monad and do-calculus; the framework is otherwise developed on paper, with central claims stated rather than proved. Three of our results go beyond faithful transcription. We exhibit a contextuality obstruction the programme does not treat: pairwise-consistent local causal data with no global model, detected by a degree-one holonomy class. We delimit the claim that interventions are modelled by the subobject classifier: an intervention and an observation name the same subobject, so $\Om$ fixes the target of a do-operation but not the operation itself, which is surgery on the kernels --- where, on a confounder, the interventional and observational laws differ. And we settle the modal unit --- inflationarity is derivable from $j\top = \top$ and naturality, not a fourth axiom. We also machine-check the classifier of sieves with its classification theorem, the pullback collating local mechanisms, and the Kripke-Joyal forcing clauses. The development assumes no axioms and typechecks under Agda's \texttt{--safe} flag, with the ordered field discharged at $\mathbb{Q}$; type-level sheafification and a directed do-calculus are future work.

Autoformalization translates informal natural language into formal, machine-verifiable languages. While most work focuses on individual statements, real formalization efforts are inherently theory-level: they require an entire web of axioms, definitions, and lemmas before target theorems can even be stated. In this position paper, we argue for theory-level autoformalization: formalizing complete theories, including all their inter-dependencies, as structured libraries. We examine the significance of this shift, address alternative views, identify open challenges, and propose three promising paths forward. Our survey of autoformalization is available at https://github.com/marcusm117/Awesome-Autoformalization.

We formalize a research result in the Lean 4 proof assistant by having a mathematician direct an AI system, and frame the activity as a formalization game. The objective is to turn a LaTeX document into Lean. The game is won when the development compiles, contains no sorry, and a machine check shows the target theorems rest on Lean's foundational axioms alone. Reuse is a second check, by a definition we introduce: whether the development yields a self-contained layer of general mathematics the wider library could absorb. The case study is a complete, axiom-clean formalization of well-posedness for the nonlinear Vlasov equation via Dobrushin's mean-field route -- existence, uniqueness, the stability estimate and mean-field limit, and a short-window superposition principle (weak solutions are Lagrangian). The human's role was to direct, not to write proofs: to scope the definitions, steer the decompositions, and triage the library's gaps; the AI agent executed. The formalization certifies the proof of each statement as written; whether the written statement is the intended theorem stays the mathematician's judgment. The optimal-transport machinery that fell out of the build (in particular, properties of the Wasserstein-1 metric and the Kantorovich-Rubinstein duality theorem) separates into a self-contained layer that compiles against Mathlib alone: about a sixth of the development (49 of 299 declarations), behind a 22-declaration interface with no reverse dependency. The headline theorems ran in about a week, the full development in about a month. We report the quantitative claims as observations of one game, not as general laws. The game's rules name no particular system, so the methodological framing is meant to outlast the tools of any one run.

We build a team of specialized large language-model agents and present an agent-driven workflow for research-level formalization in theoretical physics, with the autoformalization of the fundamental theorem of matrix-product states as a demonstration. The agents, coordinated through a structured mathematical blueprint and periodic human review, orchestrated and executed the full formalization autonomously. For some statements, the agents were able to explore new proof routes that are not part of the standard literature. Along the way the agents produced extensive tensor-network and quantum-information libraries not previously available in Mathlib, Lean's mathematical library. As a physical application, the formalization also extends towards symmetry-protected topological phases in one dimension. We find that the main bottleneck in large-scale autoformalization is enforcing mathematical intent and we provide a detailed study of the full process and various subtleties involved. We release the codebase as the library \href{https://github.com/LionSR/TNLean}{TNLean}, together with a \nChapters{}-chapter \href{https://lionsr.github.io/TNLean/blueprint/}{blueprint} of the formalization effort.

Recent developments in AI for Mathematics (AI4Math), especially Large Language Model (LLM)-driven theorem provers, has achieved remarkable success in formal proof generation for well-defined mathematical problems through Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP) languages. However, current systems remain fundamentally limited in tackling frontier research mathematics, such as discovering new theorems or resolving open conjectures, which are often open-ended, under-specified, and involve multiple layers of abstraction. We argue that the next leap in AI4Math systems requires a decisive shift from predefined problem-solvers to research agents that can address frontier mathematical challenges with rigorous formal mathematical reasoning. In this position paper, we provide a systematic review of the field, covering datasets, auto-formalization, and proof synthesis. More importantly, we identify core limitations of existing systems in serving as mathematical research agents, examining issues across datasets, relational structure, mathematical exploration, tool ecosystem, and human-AI collaboration, outlining a strategic road-map for the future of AI4Math.

Quantum information theory is built on entropic quantities; among them, the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy is a fundamental divergence with various applications, and its data processing inequality (DPI) under quantum channels is a cornerstone result. In this work, we present a Lean 4 library for quantum information, designed as a reusable formal infrastructure for theoretical analysis. As a central demonstration of the library, we formalize the DPI for the sandwiched Rényi relative entropy for positive semidefinite operators on finite-dimensional quantum systems. The library provides a basis-independent operator-theoretic framework for finite-dimensional quantum mechanics compatible with the standard mathematical library Mathlib, including reusable interfaces for finite-dimensional systems, states, channels, tensor products, partial traces, Choi operators, Kraus representations, and Stinespring representations. It also builds infrastructure for noncommutative trace inequalities, including operator monotonicity and convexity via the real continuous functional calculus, block-operator positivity, Hilbert-Schmidt operator spaces, Jensen's operator inequality, generalized perspectives, operator power means, and Lieb-Ando trace inequalities. On top of this framework, we formalize entropy-specific ingredients for the DPI: variational formulas for the sandwiched quasi-entropy via Young and reverse-Young inequalities, tensor-product compatibility of real powers, and Haar measures on unitary groups. Together, these components yield a Lean formalization of the DPI, give strong subadditivity as a corollary, and provide the last missing component needed to complete the Lean formalization of the generalized quantum Stein's lemma. More broadly, the development provides machine-checkable foundations for future formalized and AI-assisted research in quantum information theory.

Planning often requires symbolic specifications that are both executable and verifiable. For large language models deployed in autonomous or decision-support systems, failures in such formalization may lead to unverifiable decisions, execution failures, or unsafe downstream behavior. We present NL-PDDL-Bench, a multi-domain benchmark for natural-language-to-PDDL specification construction with planner-verified executability and controlled difficulty scaling by object count. We further propose a planner-in-the-loop framework that uses validator and planner diagnostics to revise non-executable specifications through localized edits. Building on this infrastructure, we develop a planner-grounded optimization recipe that combines parameter-efficient Low-Rank Adaptation supervised fine-tuning, offline planner-derived preference pairs for Direct Preference Optimization, and inference-time planner-in-the-loop repair, without requiring online planner calls during training. We also provide a unified evaluation suite for parseability, solvability, specification similarity, and outcome-aware plan-level consistency against planner references. Experiments on representative model families show substantial gains in planner success and plan-level agreement, with improved robustness under difficulty scaling and cross-domain variation. These results highlight the value of externally verifiable formalization for reliable deployment of LLMs in safety- or security-sensitive planning systems. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/ibasicplan/NL-PDDL-Bench

Headline type-correctness (TC%) of LLM autoformalization has climbed from $\sim$53% to $\sim$76% in two years, yet this scalar conceals which errors each method resolves. We propose a signal-coverage matrix that crosses the Lean elaborator (pass/fail) with a semantic-equivalence judgment (equivalent/not), sorting every output into one of four cells: true success (TS), type-only (TO), semantic-only (SO), or both fail (BF). On ProofNet# and MiniF2F-test with DeepSeek V4-Pro across Vanilla, Lean-Retry, Sample-Filter, and Stratified Autoformalization (SAF): (1) the +34 to +36 TS gain across the three elab-feedback methods is $\sim$64% type-stratum recovery, with SO flat on net (87.5% of original semantic errors rescued, 8 newly created). (2) The TO-to-TS rate is 23/61 for each method (Wilson 95% CI [26.6%, 50.3%]), and this stratum-level recovery rate predicts $Δ$TS on held-out methods to within 2/186 and renders $Δ$TC linear in the Vanilla elab-fail rate across six (model, dataset) cells ($R^2=0.96$). (3) The two judges disagree by 26 to 37 pp on elab-feedback outputs (vs. 7 pp on Vanilla), with 30 to 56% of symbolic-judge false negatives traceable to elaborator-forced rewrites. The persistent residual reduces to two gold-formalization errors. TC% gains should be credited by which cell moved, not by the scalar alone.

Auto-formalization is critical for scalable formal verification, but existing progress largely focuses on isolated statements, while theory-scale auto-formalization, which coherently translates hundreds of interdependent definitions, lemmas, and theorems, remains open due to challenges in consistency, faithfulness, scalability, and correctness. In this paper, we introduce LCS-Bench, a stand-alone, theory-scale benchmark based on Logics for Computer Science. LCS-Bench is built through a novel semi-automated agentic pipeline that leverages concept graphs, formal signature planning, issue tracking, sorry-filling with counter-example search, complemented by faithfulness review from human experts. The resulting artifact covers 327 textbook items, over 4,076 Lean declarations, and more than 85K lines of Lean code. The dataset supports broad evaluation through a data engine that automatically derives five tracks of evaluation benchmarks, measuring different aspects of auto-formalization and theorem-proving capabilities. We also introduce a novel evaluation protocol featuring definitional equivalence checkers, enabling more fine-grained and faithful assessment. Through extensive evaluation on 14 models, we demonstrate that (1) LCS-Bench is of high quality, consistent, and faithful; (2) the benchmark is challenging, with state-of-the-art models achieving only 20.1% on auto-formalization tasks; and (3) our analysis reveals key findings regarding theory-scale auto-formalization and suggests promising directions for future work.

Large language models attain remarkable surface fluency on code, yet they do not formally guarantee the syntactic validity of their output, nor do they typically leverage the hierarchical structure that defines the target language. While existing constrained-decoding frameworks offer a solution to the former, they predominantly operate under rigid assumptions that preclude critical lexical mechanisms relied upon by modern parsers (e.g., Pythonic indentation). In this work, we present a formal engine and constrained decoder that is sound and complete with respect to the full Tree-sitter specification by augmenting generalized LR (GLR) parsing with a novel speculative-lexing construction that maintains concurrent lexer-state hypotheses synchronized with the GLR graph-structured stack. We also introduce Weave of Formal Thought (WoFT), a latent-variable fine-tuning method that trains the language model to interleave non-terminal grammar symbols directly into the generation process. Utilizing the reweighted wake-sleep (RWS) algorithm to optimize the importance-weighted evidence lower bound (IW-ELBO) of the surface text, the model learns to selectively retain formal derivations as an adaptive structural scratchpad. Across ten widely used programming languages spanning multiple paradigms, fine-tuning StarCoder2-3B with WoFT consistently outperforms text-only SFT baselines, achieving up to a 14.9% relative reduction in surface-token cross-entropy, and demonstrating that discretionary latent syntax recovers critical structural information that flat autoregressive training discards. Our code and implementation are publicly available at https://github.com/alexbouayad/formal.

Mathematical knowledge is organized around statements and their dependencies, but this structure is exposed unevenly: informal papers cite mostly at the document level, while formal libraries record fine-grained dependencies over a much smaller body of mathematics. We introduce TheoremGraph, a unified statement-level dependency graph spanning both informal and formal mathematics. On the informal side, we parse 11.7M theorem-like environments from mathematics arXiv and recover 18.3M candidate directed dependencies, each labeled by the extractor that proposed it so downstream users can trade coverage for precision. On the formal side, we release LeanGraph, a Lean 4 elaborator-level extractor producing 388,105 declaration nodes and 11.3M typed edges across 25 Lean projects. We bridge the two graphs by embedding generated natural-language slogans into a shared semantic space, linking related statements across papers and across the informal/formal divide; an LLM judge affirms 47,952 such matches above a 0.8 cosine floor, with the judge-acceptance rate rising from 48% across the floor to 87% in the >=0.9 tier. On formal concept retrieval, our name-and-signature representation with graph expansion comes within 0.5pp of LeanSearch v2's reranked Recall@10 (0.775 vs. 0.780) without an LM reranker. We release the dataset, extractors, HTTP API, and MCP interface as infrastructure for mathematical search, attribution, and retrieval-augmented reasoning, available at theoremsearch.com and huggingface.co/datasets/uw-math-ai/theorem-matching.

Multi-step reasoning with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting remains fragile: logical errors or hallucinations in early steps silently propagate, producing confident but incorrect conclusions. This paper presents VeryTrace, a zero-shot verification-and-repair framework that formalizes natural-language reasoning traces into a structured, compilable representation. VeryTrace introduces a Domain-Specific Language (DSL) that (i) makes step dependencies explicit, (ii) mechanizes quantitative content as executable expressions, and (iii) structures semantic inferences via deduction schemas. Our hybrid verifier combines deterministic checks for computational correctness, dependency resolution, and constraint satisfaction with targeted LLM audits for non-mechanizable semantic judgments, enabling step-level error localization and repair. Across three diverse domains-competition mathematics (AIME 2025), robotics planning (LLM-BabyBench), and kinship reasoning (CLUTRR), VeryTrace improves accuracy over zero-shot baselines on state-of-the-art LLMs without requiring domain-specific training or in-context examples, demonstrating that formalized trace verification achieves both precision and generalization.

Because mathematics is highly abstract, a single statement can take very different forms depending on what subfield it is framed in. There are many examples where breakthroughs occurred after researchers discovered that a question had already been answered in a different field. At the same time, the growth of new resources related to formalization has increased the need for tools that enable efficient and reliable navigation between mathematical 'languages' (e.g., from Lean to natural language). In this paper, we investigate whether current embedding models capture mathematical equivalence. To do this, we introduce the Mathematically Equivalent but Lexically Different Pairs (MELD) Dataset, a collection of mathematically equivalent statements that are expressed in very different language. We show that current state-of-the-art embedding models tend to group statements by the terminology used to make them instead of the underlying math. Motivated by this, we propose a contrastive approach to learning embeddings of mathematical text that focuses on aligning informal statements with different formalizations. Our experiments demonstrate that this leads to improvements not only on informal-formal retrieval tasks but also on MELD, which only contains natural language statements.

This paper studies the expressive power of ASPIC$^+$ argumentation frameworks with uncertain preference profiles by comparing them with several abstract formalisms with uncertain defeats. Most of our results are negative (and some of them are theoretically unexpected). We also conjecture a positive, non-trivial threshold for the expressivity of uncertain preferences, and prove some essential preliminary steps toward the confirmation of this conjecture.

Analogical proportions link four items a, b, c, d by a relation stating that ``a is to b as c is to d", a, b, c, d being the formal representation of real world entities, ranging from simple numerical values to more complex structures such as profiles. Accordingly, $a, b, c, d$ could be atomic values like Boolean, nominal or numerical values, more generally vectors of such values, or even families of items represented by logical formulas. In this paper, we consider another representation setting, which is the probabilistic one. Precisely, the article proposes a study of {analogical} proportions between probabilities, whether they are simply between probability values, or between distributions (which requires the preservation of their normalization). More particularly, we study the properties of definitions based on arithmetic proportion, or on a combination of the former with geometric proportion, while other options are also discussed. Previous works have shown that when four profiles a, b, c, d, represented as vectors, form analogical proportions componentwise, it is likely that their classes form an analogical proportion also. This is the basis of an analogical proportion-based classification method that can produce accurate predictions. Similarly, in this paper, each profile is associated with a distribution describing the frequencies of the possible values of a discrete attribute of interest. We then discuss and experimentally investigate if the distributions associated to four profiles forming an analogical proportion themselves also form an analogical proportion.

The paper explores how "culture" can be operationalised in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and what this reveals about the possibilities and limits of considering a plurality of cultural backgrounds in technological design. It proposes that cultural alignment cannot be achieved only by adding more examples of "other cultures", rather it requires plural epistemologies: allowing multiple, locally grounded ways of knowing. To analyze how this plurality of knowing can be addressed in NLP, the paper uses a socio-technical model of language technology (LT) design, the five layers of technological activity model, for collecting and systematizing approaches to culture in NLP. The analysis shows that while NLP research has made progress toward more culturally sensitive systems, many approaches remain partial, addressing "culture" primarily at the level of output or representation while leaving deeper questions of power, governance, and social context unresolved. The paper concludes that operationalising culture requires much more than technical adaptation; it suggests a reflexive and plural socio-technical approach that navigates potentials and limits of computational formalisation for accounting multiple linguistic and socio-cultural backgrounds.

We present an integrated framework that unifies runtime verification and model-based diagnosis within the stream specification language LOLA. By encoding system descriptions, component health states, and observations into a single stream-based formalism, the approach enables continuous, online fault localization directly alongside fault detection, without requiring separate toolchains. The framework supports both time-invariant and transient faults, and naturally accommodates nondeterministic observations.

We present a formal model of mesh inference: how a population of independent agents, each holding private state and exchanging only admitted, typed observations, derives a conclusion none of them holds alone, with no central coordinator and no agent exposed. No agent shares weights, gradients, or hidden state, and the agents may span different teams, networks, and organizations. Motivated by the observation that asking a model is energy-minimizing inference, we model the mesh as a coupled free energy that each agent relaxes locally. We show that a single admission/emission policy governs three properties. First, mesh inference converges to a unique answer for any admission, symmetric or not, because the coupling is always an M-matrix. Second, it is identification-complete: it derives the centralized optimum exactly when the contributing views are carrier-connected. Third, it is observation-only: no node transmits its internals, and confidentiality is the dual of identification. Content-addressed lineage is the only global side-channel. In the linear-Gaussian regime every derived answer is determined, hence equal to the centralized optimum, at O(diam^2) latency, the measured price of removing the center. One such derivation is one turn of a center-free learning loop, which we formalize as architecture rather than prove. The open problem we state is when asking improves the collective rather than corrupting it: whether the non-linear closure derives an upgraded answer or a confident error. To our knowledge, this is the first formal characterization of when a center-free, observation-only mesh recovers the centralized optimum.

The proliferation of large-scale, decentralized systems of autonomous agents, such as swarms of robots and networked cyber-physical systems, presents a formidable challenge to traditional formal methods. The Software Component Ensemble Language (SCEL) offers a formal model for such systems, but its operational semantics is not ideal for reasoning about global, structural, and emergent properties. This report proposes a new, multi-layered mathematical model for SCEL using category theory and sheaf theory. We argue that a society of robots described in SCEL can be formally modeled as a sheaf on a topological space, where components are points, ensembles are open sets, and distributed knowledge forms the sheaf's data. In this framework, computational processes like information sharing become equivalent to the sheaf-theoretic operation of "gluing" local data. System failures can then be understood and quantified as topological obstructions, measurable by sheaf cohomology. This approach transforms the verification of a complex distributed system into the analysis of the geometry of a mathematical object, providing deep, structural insights for the design of robust autonomic systems.

Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have led AI for Theorem Proving to become a promising means of formally verifying computer systems. Whilst formal verification is traditionally reserved for safety-critical systems due to the required amount of expertise and effort, AI can help to automate a large amount of this workload and make it far more accessible. Blockchain-based systems are becoming increasingly popular and are frequently targeted by malicious actors, often resulting in huge financial losses, highlighting the need to better verify these systems and mitigate vulnerabilities. Arguably the most important component of these systems is the consensus protocol, which allows nodes to agree on decisions in a potentially adversarial environment. In this paper, we improve upon IsabeLLM, the automated theorem proving tool in Isabelle. Namely, we implement a Retrieval-Augmented Generation framework, Error tracing and counterexample generation for improved context supplied to the Large Language Model. Compatibility with the latest version of Isabelle and Sledgehammer is also implemented for improved efficiency. We compare the performance of the two versions of IsabeLLM in their ability to complete the verification of Bitcoin's Proof of Work consensus.

In speech processing, most state-of-the-art sequence prediction models rely on auto-regressive (AR) strategies to generate output sequences based on the raw predictions of the model. Despite their crucial role in the inference process, a comprehensive overview of AR strategies as a unified field is lacking, due largely to implicit and multiple definitions of next-token decoding. This context complicates the choice, comparison, and evaluation of strategies, while creating inconsistencies in the characterization of approaches as auto-regressive or not. We begin by setting explicit inclusion criteria for the field of AR search in speech processing, and derive a generalized theoretical framework to categorize and report on search strategies for neural models. We show the capabilities of this formalism in simplifying the design of benchmarks centered around the decoding process, allowing for ablation studies that are focused on search strategies.

Symbolic informalization enables a reliable conversion of formal mathematics to natural language. It has the potential to make machine-checked content human-readable without loss of precision. In a traditional proof system usage, symbolic informalization generalizes the limited mechanisms of syntactic sugar into the ordinary language of mathematics. In a setting where proofs are constructed by artificial intelligence and autoformalization, symbolic informalization can explain what precisely has been constructed. This paper outlines the project Informath, which aims to show how symbolic informalization can produce fluent text with a reasonable development effort and address multiple formal and natural languages. Informath is based on an interlingual architecture, where Dedukti works as a hub between different proof systems (Agda, Lean, Rocq) and Grammatical Framework (GF) takes care of linguistic correctness and variation in different natural languages.

Autoformalization, translating natural-language mathematics into formal proof assistants, is bottlenecked not by translation fluency but by \emph{faithfulness}: a formal statement can typecheck and be provable, yet still encode a different theorem than the source intended. We introduce \emph{Bidirectional Provability Fingerprinting} (\bpf{}), a framework that certifies faithfulness by characterizing each candidate through its forward and backward consequence neighborhoods in the ambient theory and matching these against probes derived from the natural-language statement. We further introduce four novel components: (i) \emph{Counterfactual Probe Generation} (\cpg{}), a contrastive procedure that synthesizes probes targeting specific drift directions; (ii) the \emph{Equivalence Spectrum}, a continuous faithfulness score that replaces brittle binary verdicts; (iii) \emph{Adaptive Probe Budget Allocation} (\apba{}), an information-theoretic budget router; and (iv) \emph{Faithfulness-Guided Decoding} (\fgd{}), which uses \bpf{} signals as a reward during autoformalization. We prove a \emph{drift detection theorem} and a \emph{PAC-faithfulness} result establishing that the equivalence class of a natural language statement is learnable from $\mathcal{O}(\log(1/δ)/\varepsilon)$ probes under mild assumptions. We release \driftbench{}, a benchmark of $2{,}183$ NL/Lean~4 pairs with controlled drift labels across six subfields of mathlib4. \bpf{},+,\cpg{} detects $89.6\%$ of drifted formalizations at a $3.0\%$ false-positive rate-against $41.2\%$ for typecheck and $63.3\%$ for LLM-judge baselines, and \fgd{} reduces the rate at which a state-of-the-art autoformalizer emits drifted statements by $47\%$. https://pmlrbd.github.io/BPF/

With large language models (LLMs) increasingly applied to mathematical reasoning, formal proof assistants such as Lean can be leveraged to verify reasoning outputs with machine-checkable rigor, enabling use cases such as answer selection in test-time scaling with K sampled candidate answers. However, employing Lean requires that LLM outputs, originally in natural language, first be formalized. Existing Lean-based answer-selection work uses an autoformalization model to generate a formal statement in Lean for each candidate answer independently, incurring a significant computational cost. We propose BASE, a base-and-edit pipeline that formalizes a single base candidate per problem and derives the remaining K-1 statements by editing the answer expression in place. To facilitate this, we train a rewriter model LEANSCRIBE to localize the answer in the base formalization and generate a reusable edit function for the other K-1 candidates. BASE simultaneously improves selection accuracy and reduces formalization cost - a Pareto improvement that holds on all 12 (dataset, solver) configurations across four benchmarks and three solvers, cutting autoformalizer calls by about 5x at K=8, with the reduction expected to become larger as K grows. Code is available at https://github.com/ucr-rai/base-and-edit.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise for reasoning over Text-Attributed Graphs (TAGs). However, applying LLMs to graphs requires linearizing their structure into sequences, introducing distortion rooted in the graph bandwidth problem. While this distortion has been shown to degrade performance, it is often attributed to prompt design or model scale, leaving the underlying mechanism unclear. In this work, we show \textit{how} rotary positional embeddings turn graph linearization into bandwidth-dependent attention decay, suppressing attention between graph-adjacent nodes that are forced far apart in the serialized sequence. This shifts the focus of LLM-based graph reasoning from prompt engineering and scaling toward correcting attention misalignment. Motivated by this analysis, we propose \textbf{G}raph-\textbf{a}ligned \textbf{L}anguage \textbf{A}ttention (\textbf{GaLA}), a lightweight, inference-time modification for LLMs. GaLA biases attention toward graph-adjacent nodes while preserving the LLM's sequential inductive biases. Across TAG benchmarks, GaLA improves performance with negligible overhead, demonstrating that distortion is a correctable bottleneck in LLM-based graph reasoning.

Agentic AI opens new opportunities for automating Business Process (BP), enabling autonomous decision-making and dynamic adaptation. However, realising this potential requires BP entities and their interactions to be defined with formal precision. This paper presents a formal framework for Agentic BP analysis through the AGO methodology. AGO captures the modelling perspective in terms of who is acting (Agents), why it is carried out (Goals), and what the relevant entities are (Objects). Grounded in set theory and mathematical logic, we formally define the AGO entity types and their interactions, organising all definitions into a BP Knowledge Base (BPKB). The resulting BPKB supports structured querying, incremental updates, and automatic generation of BP workflows, while ensuring soundness and completeness of the derived paths.

Large language models can often close proof gaps in interactive theorem provers, but a verified theorem is not the same thing as a reusable library contribution. We study this distinction through a detailed case study: a semi-autonomous formalization of Grothendieck's vanishing theorem. The initial version compiles with no sorries, but an expert review found serious problems in definitions, theorem generality, file organization, and the API. We then ran a review-driven refactor and compression process and obtained a second expert review. The before-and-after comparison shows a sharp split: agents adapted well to local, mechanically checkable feedback, but remained weak at choosing definitions and designing APIs. We argue that autoformalization should be evaluated not only by closed sorries, but by whether the resulting formalization survives expert review.

Mathematical knowledge is split between bibliographic databases (e.g., MathSciNet, zbMATH Open) and formal proof libraries (e.g., Lean mathlib), preventing unified access between published results and their formalizations. We propose a relational bridge-database that aligns publication metadata with formal artifacts, providing an interoperability layer between mathematical literature and machine-verifiable proofs. We introduce a paper-level formalization score that measures how much of a publication is covered in formal systems. As a feasibility study, we show how such scores can be estimated via cross-document alignment between informal texts and Lean formalizations, enabling large-scale analysis of formalization coverage. This framework is a first step toward integrating bibliographic and formal mathematical ecosystems into scalable, machine-actionable knowledge graphs linking publications to formal proof objects.

Complex reasoning tasks increasingly require systems to produce outputs whose correctness cannot be judged by exact match against a single reference. Autoformalization (AF) is a representative example; it asks a model to translate informal mathematical or logical reasoning into a formally checkable object, yet expert-validated formalizations do not scale beyond toy cases and a single informal argument can admit many valid formal renderings. Progress therefore depends on whether partial, structured proxies can substitute for exact references. We introduce a reference-free proxy-judge framework for AF that replaces gold-standard matching with a vector of per-axis property checks. The framework organizes the proxy along three structural scopes that cover global properties of the elicited object, per-module properties internal to its sub-components, and cross-domain properties that re-align it to the informal source, and aggregates each axis into a verdict vector. The vector drives a reflective refinement loop in which a violated coordinate routes the controller to a matching repair target, so each iteration changes only what is judged wrong. Under bounded judge noise, the expected intrinsic gap contracts geometrically to a noise-dependent plateau. Across seven formalization backbones on miniF2F, ProofNet, e-SNLI, and ProntoQA, refinement consistently lifts Pass Rate over the single-shot ICL baseline, and the per-axis proxy outperforms a matched scalar proxy on benchmarks where the baseline has room to improve. Structured proxy judgments therefore provide both a practical refinement signal and a theoretical handle on convergence when exact references are unavailable.

AI agents increasingly turn past experience into reusable artifacts such as code, workflows, and procedural memories. Reuse can improve efficiency, but it also creates a lifecycle reliability problem: artifacts that succeed once may fail under environment drift, underspecified tasks, or changing task distributions, especially in web automation. We introduce SKILL.nb, a framework for governing reusable agent workflows with evidence-calibrated lifecycle policies. SKILL.nb uses selective formalization: execution evidence decides which workflow steps should become executable code, which should remain natural-language guided, and when those choices should be revised. Workflows are stored as auditable, versioned notebooks that interleave natural-language guidance, multi-language executable cells, validation gates, fallback paths, and multimodal evidence such as outputs, screenshots, and error traces. At runtime, gate-conditioned execution lets each step run code when its gates validate, or fall back locally when drift invalidates the executable realization. On WebArena-Verified, SKILL.nb achieves 53.7% single-round success, improving over the strongest baseline by 3.9 percentage points. Across three re-executions, it retains 91.7% of initially successful tasks, 15.5 points above the next best method. Under bounded repair, it recovers 72.9% of subsequent failures while limiting post-repair regressions to 4.2%, compared with 15.0% to 17.0% for persistent baselines. It also leads on Mind2Web cross-website and cross-domain splits. In a GitLab migration test, SKILL.nb preserves performance when reusing frozen state learned on GitLab 15.7, with frozen-versus-fresh target-version gaps of -1.7 points on GitLab 16.11 and +0.6 points on GitLab 18.9. These results identify lifecycle governance and gate-conditioned execution as reliability axes beyond one-shot task success.

Within the past few years, the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate formal mathematical proofs has improved drastically. We provide a comparison of various LLMs' effectiveness in producing formal proofs in Lean 4 with the goal of assisting those seeking to use LLMs to support their own projects. We utilize both pass@$k$ and refine@$k$ metrics as the benchmark for our comparison and evaluate on subsets of both miniF2F and miniCTX datasets. Our testing shows that overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7 perform best. Gemini 3.1 Pro achieved a 92% success rate on miniF2F via refine@32 whereas Opus 4.7 achieved a 86% success rate on miniCTX via refine@32. When taking cost into account, NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Super and GPT-OSS 120B were the most efficient, with competitive accuracies and average costs of <\0.01$ per correct proof.

Asymptotic statistical theory is a challenging domain for AI-assisted formalization: its central results mix convergence statements, asymptotic expansions, functional analysis, and regularity conditions that have a large gap from existing infrastructure in Lean 4 formalization. To address these challenges, we propose a hypothesis-disciplined Lean 4 formalization pipeline built from multiple agents: a manager that coordinates seven specialist roles for proof planning, skeleton scaffolding, Mathlib reconnaissance, proof construction, integration, independent review, and audit. The main methodological discipline is the hypothesis-disciplined audit, implemented by the Auditor agent: every main-theorem hypothesis and concept-layer field must be anchored in the source mathematical prose, justified as a Lean encoding adapter, marked as source-implied, or rejected as an unsupported strengthening. Using this workflow, we build a systematic formalization of asymptotic statistical theory, especially the parametric and semi-parametric models' asymptotic distribution and efficiency results. The resulting Lean development is axiom-clean and source-faithful, with Lean-checked and human-audited proofs of core parametric and semi-parametric theorems organized so that theorem-agnostic infrastructure and statistical concept definitions are separated from theorem-specific assembly. The formalization results are available at https://github.com/junwei-lu/Lean-Asymptotic-Statistical-Theory.

For centuries, human mathematicians have written proofs to substantiate their mathematical arguments; yet, the ability to automatically verify the validity of proofs has long been a challenge. Advances in AI systems' ability to generate code and engage in increasingly high-level mathematical reasoning promise to transform people's ability to formalize and thereby verify proofs. While many works focus on benchmarking the current frontier, we instead study how people use these tools. We conduct a mixed-methods analysis into the initial impact of AI on people's formalization workflows: what people claim they want, what they see as the barriers to those visions, and how they actually use and adapt AI in practice. A qualitative survey shows that people's preferences are diverse, but with a general desire for AI assistance in formalization that preserves high-level human control over the proof discovery process. To assess how people actually engage with AI for formalization under such limitations, we conduct a controlled user study in which participants formalize informal math problems and their proofs, with and without AI, across a range of mathematical problems at varying levels of difficulty and domains. Despite limitations of the tools at the time for autoformalization, participants tend to attain higher formalization accuracy when allowed access to AI tools than when formalizing on their own, with most participants flexibly choosing to use multiple different AI tools. Taken together, our work sheds light on the early stages of AI integration into formalization workflows, involving an intimate interplay of human and AI engagement.

Equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) to execute reliable multi-step workflows has become a central challenge in artificial intelligence. Despite recent advances in LLMs' agentic capabilities, most agent systems still lack formal methods for specifying, verifying, and debugging their workflow and execution trajectories. This challenge mirrors a long-standing problem in mathematics, where the ambiguity of natural languages (NLs) motivates the development of formal languages (FLs). Inspired by this paradigm, we propose Lean4Agent, to the best of our knowledge, the first framework that uses Lean4, a dependent-type FL to model and verify agent behavior. Lean4Agent launches FormalAgentLib, an extensible Lean4 library for formally modeling and verifying agent workflows' semantic consistency under explicit assumptions, and enabling localization of execution-time failures revealed by trajectories. Building on FormalAgentLib, we further develop LeanEvolve, which applies results in FormalAgentLib to revise workflows to enhance its capability. Extensive experiments on a hard problem subset of SWE-Bench-Verified and a subset of ELAIP-Bench across 5 leading LLMs indicate that the verification-passing workflows outperform the failing ones by an average of 11.94%, and LeanEvolve further improves SWE performance by 7.47% on average. Furthermore, Lean4Agent establishes a foundation for a new field of using expressive dependent-type FL to formally model and verify agent behavior.

This paper proposes, for the first time, a rigorous formal definition of the concept of Machine Theory of Mind, based on principles supported by evidence from cognitive psychology, neuroscience and artificial intelligence, and uses the above as a lens to examine state-of-the-art and current efforts in the field, driving a potential agenda for further research there able to "crack" the problem. It also advances a general holistic meta-model for Machine Theory of Mind, and examines the state of the art when it comes to empirically benchmarking such models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong informal mathematical reasoning but struggle to generate mechanically verifiable proofs in formal languages like Lean. We present LEAP, an agentic framework that enables general-purpose foundation models to achieve state-of-the-art performance on automated formal theorem proving. LEAP leverages foundation model capabilities, such as informal reasoning, instruction following, and iterative self-refinement. By decomposing complex problems into smaller units, the system bridges formal proof construction with informal blueprints through continuous interaction with the Lean compiler. To provide a rigorous evaluation beyond increasingly saturated benchmarks, we introduce Lean-IMO-Bench, a benchmark of IMO-style problems formalized in Lean, with short statements yet highly non-routine and multi-step proofs across a wide range of difficulty levels. Empirically, on the latest 2025 Putnam Competition, an annual mathematics competition for undergraduate students in North America, LEAP solves all 12 problems, matching recent breakthroughs by frontier formal mathematical models. On Lean-IMO-Bench, LEAP boosts the one-shot formal solve rate of general-purpose LLMs from below 10% to 70%, notably surpassing the 48% benchmark set by a specialized, gold-medal-caliber IMO system. Furthermore, we demonstrate LEAP's research-level utility by autonomously formalizing complex proofs for open combinatorial challenges, including a verified proof for a key subproblem in Knuth's Hamiltonian decomposition of even-order Cayley graphs.

Building on recent formalizations of root cause analysis for rare events (``outliers'') in structural equation models, we propose a formal definition of a causal pathway and discuss its testable implications. We identify conditions under which these implications depend only on a causal abstraction defined by the pathway of rare events, rather than on the full causal graph of the underlying system. Accordingly, we introduce an abstraction of causal structure to pathways of rare events that bridges simple verbal causal explanations and detailed causal modeling.

Autoregressive language models frequently degrade during long-horizon generation, producing repetitive text, losing instruction adherence, and exhibiting unstable entropy. Despite the prevalence of these failures, practitioners lack online diagnostics to detect them in real-time as they occur. We formalize this degradation as cognitive fatigue, a measurable generation-time state characterized by decay in attention to the original prompt, representational drift, and entropy miscalibration. We introduce the Fatigue Index (FI), a lightweight, model-agnostic diagnostic that aggregates these three signals under explicit axioms (monotonicity, boundedness, interpretability) enabling reliable runtime monitoring. Across nine models (1B-13B parameters), FI trajectories exhibit structured temporal dynamics, predict task degradation (AUROC = 0.95) and repetition (Spearman rho = 0.94), and reveal non-monotonic scaling behavior: instruction-tuned models below 3B exhibit faster collapse than base models, with this trend reversing at 7B. Stress analyses further show that FI onset accelerates under longer contexts, middle-positioned evidence, and reduced numerical precision. These results establish cognitive fatigue as a coherent and measurable phenomenon, and position FI as a principled tool for runtime reliability monitoring in production LLM systems.

A plausible future mathematical claim must satisfy two constraints: it should follow the direction of prior work and respect the formal dependencies that constrain what can validly follow. Existing approaches typically model only one of these sources, producing claims that are either weakly grounded or insufficiently motivated. We introduce grounded future mathematical generation, where the goal is to generate a plausible future theorem-like claim for an anchor paper using two complementary sources of context: its scientific citation graph and aligned formal theorem dependency graph. To address this setting, we propose COMPOSE, a dual-graph framework that conditions a language model on both scientific citation context and formal theorem structure. To support this setting, we construct a dataset of 108K paired scientific-formal graph examples from arXiv and Mathlib, together with a benchmark of 47K future papers from 2024--2025. Experiments show that COMPOSE outperforms strong baselines on retrieval to real future papers and achieves the best overall performance under LLM-judge evaluation, producing more grounded and mathematically richer outputs. These results show that future mathematical generation benefits from combining scientific context with formal structure. Project page is available at https://david-busbib.github.io/COMPOSE-page/.

We present AutoformBot, a multi-agent system for building an Autoformalized Textbook Library At Scale (Atlas) in Lean 4. AutoformBot orchestrates thousands of LLM agents, equipped with formal verification tools, dependency-aware task scheduling, and collaborative version control, to translate informal textbook prose into machine-checked definitions and proofs. We apply our methods to a corpus of 26 open-access textbooks spanning analysis, algebra, topology, combinatorics, and probability, producing Atlas: a verified library of over 45,000 Lean 4 declarations and 500 thousand lines of code. We release two artifacts: (i) AutoformBot, the open-source multi-agent framework; and (ii) Atlas, the resulting formal library. Our results suggest that autoformalizing the core content of graduate-level mathematics at scale is now economically and technically feasible. This opens the door to the automated verification of both human- and machine-generated mathematics at a research level.

Formality transfer is commonly framed as a symmetric bidirectional task between informal and formal registers. We argue that this framing conceals a supervision design flaw in existing benchmarks such as GYAFC: binary human rewrites encode relative stylistic shifts rather than absolute human notions of formality. Consequently, models learn to generate pseudo-formal outputs that satisfy benchmark labels while failing to produce genuinely formal language. We quantify this misalignment by re-evaluating benchmark formal labels under a human-aligned definition of formality, revealing substantial discrepancies that propagate to consistent informal-to-formal failures across model families. To address this issue, we reconceptualize formality transfer as a graded dimension rather than a binary attribute. We introduce a three-level spectrum: informal, casual, and formal, where casual serves as an explicit intermediate state that clarifies supervision signals. Based on this framework, we introduce 3LF, a dataset providing parallel supervision across all three levels. Training on 3LF substantially reduces informal-to-formal failures and improves alignment with human perception. For example, GPT-4.1-nano improves from 0.06 to 0.88 F1 in the informal-to-formal direction despite 3LF being significantly smaller than GYAFC. We further demonstrate that these gains cannot be reproduced through in-context learning alone and provide qualitative analyses of ambiguity-driven errors and meaning distortions. Overall, our findings demonstrate how supervision design shapes stylistic alignment and highlight the importance of alignment-aware benchmark construction in controllable text generation.

Self-evolving scientific agents capable of conquering the hard tail of formal mathematics require Compositional Learning Behaviours (CLBs) -- the capacity to ground and recombine novel symbolic structures in context, beyond mere recombination of prelearned atoms. We propose S2B-LM, an adaptation of the CLB-evaluating Symbolic Behaviour Benchmark that removes numerical processing as a confound and adds chain-of-thought scaffolding to elicit rather than merely probe latent CLB competency. Cross-evaluating ten Lean~4 theorem provers on CLB competency in S2B-LM and miniF2F whole-proof performance, we find correlational and causal evidence of our claim: First, a necessary-condition analysis via quadrant test yields $p=0.004$, with model scale being ruled out as a confound. Second, extracting a CLB-encoding activation direction from DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B using S2B-LM traces via Contrastive Activation Addition and applying it during miniF2F whole-proof generation on the AIME subset, CLB suppression collapses solve rate from $32.3\%$ to $2.9\%$, without loss of coherence, while suppressing a random activation direction of equal magnitude leaves it at $31.9\%$. Together, these results show that CLB competency is necessary but not sufficient for the hard tail of formal mathematical verification.

This paper reports the core linguistic work performed to construct a dictionary-based morphological analyser for Malagasy simple verbs. It uses the Unitex platform and comprised the contruction of an electronic dictionary for Malagasy simple verbs. The data is encoded on the basis of morphological features. The morphological variations of verb stems and their combination with inflectional affixes are formalized in finite-state transducers represented by editable graphs. 78 transducers allow Unitex to generate a dictionary of allomorphs of stems. 271 other transducers are used by the morphological analyser of Unitex to recognize the stem and the affixes in conjugated verbs. The design of the dictionary and transducers prioritizes readability, so that they can be extended and updated by linguists.

Formalizing legal provisions promises machine-accessible law and automated legal reasoning, and recent LLMs make it tempting to generate such formalizations directly from statutory text. However, any formalization makes implicit interpretive choices whose consequences are hard to anticipate, especially if an LLM is the author. We present a method for systematically comparing different formalizations of the same legal provision by their inferences on individual cases. Given multiple formalizations of a provision, we match them at the node level, derive a shared interface for each pair from the matching, and use a SAT solver to enumerate the edge cases on which any two formalizations disagree. Selected edge cases are then verbalized into concrete factual scenarios that a legal expert can examine and act on. We apply our method to formalizations of ten EU provisions generated by nine frontier LLMs. We find that behavioral divergence between formalizations is essentially uncorrelated with their structural agreement and that the verbalized cases reveal qualitatively distinct types of disagreement, including divergences that mirror genuine controversies in the legal commentary.

Reliable verification of proofs remains a bottleneck for training and evaluating AI systems on hard mathematical reasoning. Fully formal proofs, in languages like Lean, are easy to verify because they are unambiguous and modular. Most proofs, particularly those written by AI systems, have neither property, and translating them into formal languages remains challenging in many frontier math settings. We propose Pseudo-Formalization (PF), a proof format that captures the modularity and precision of formal proofs while retaining the flexibility of natural language. A Pseudo-Formal proof is decomposed into self-contained modules, each stating its premises, conclusion, and proof in natural language. To verify the correctness of a regular natural language proof, an LLM translates it to Pseudo-Formal and then verifies each module independently, an algorithm we call Block Verification (BV). We evaluate PF+BV on two benchmarks spanning olympiad and research-level mathematics, where it pareto-dominates LLM-as-judge baselines on error-finding precision and recall. To support future work, we release our research-level proof verification benchmark ArxivMathGradingBench.

Two decades ago, the Semantic Web Services community was asked how agents with different ontological commitments could discover, compose, and invoke web services coherently. The response was OWL-S and WSMO: formally grounded capability descriptions specifying what a service could do, what the agent must already know for invocation to be epistemically sound, and how ontological mismatches could be formally bridged. Current KG metadata standards such as VoID and DCAT describe what a KG contains, yet say nothing about what a specific agent can prove from it, what closure assumptions govern empty results, or whether the agent's task vocabulary is grounded in the schema. Furthermore, in deployed KGs the governing schema DL and the operative entailment regime can diverge: an epistemic failure mode invisible to current metadata. We revisit and extend these insights for the KG setting with a four-dimensional formal framework; Semantic Expressivity, Agentic Discoverability, Task-Relative Grounding, and Epistemic Trust Scope, from which we derive the Agentic Affordance Profile (AAP): a semantic layer above VoID and DCAT enabling principled KG selection, composition, and failure diagnosis at agent planning time. The four dimensions operationalise the affordance structure of the Ontological Continuum at the individual-agent level, specifically for \kg selection, composition, and failure diagnosis. A worked example drawn from a scholarly-search task concretely grounds the framework, and identifies the formal, computational, and engineering work needed to realise AAP-based affordance matching at scale though a five-point research agenda.

We formalize trust calibration for agentic tool use (deciding when an automated agent's proposed action may execute autonomously versus require human approval) as a preference-learning problem. A policy gateway maintains a Gaussian-process posterior over a latent human risk-tolerance function, observed through a probit likelihood on binary approve/deny feedback, and escalates to the human exactly where the approval outcome is most uncertain. We show this is structurally an instance of Preferential Bayesian Optimization, inheriting its inference machinery (approximate Gaussian-process classification) and its sample-efficiency argument (uncertainty-targeted querying), while differing in objective: classifying an action space into allow/block/ask regions rather than optimizing a design.

LLM context is not just tokens; it is a set of commitments. Long-running conversations accumulate goals, constraints, decisions, preferences, tool results, retrieved evidence, artifacts, and safety boundaries that future responses must preserve. Existing context-management methods reduce length through truncation, retrieval, summarization, memory systems, or token-level prompt compression, but they rarely specify which semantic commitments must survive compression or how their preservation should be measured. We propose Context Codec, a commitment-level framework for compressing prompts and chat histories. Context Codec represents dialogue state as typed, source-grounded semantic atoms with canonical identity, equivalence, conflict, confidence, risk, and evidence spans. It separates five concerns - extraction, normalization, representation, rendering, and verification - and introduces metrics for Critical Atom Recall, Weighted Atom Recall, Commitment Density, and round-trip recoverability. It also defines a taxonomy of semantic compression errors, a concrete normalization procedure, conservative fallback rules for low-confidence and safety-critical atoms, and Context Compression Language (CCL), an ASCII-first compact rendering of canonical JSON atoms. In a small diagnostic study, CCL-Core occupies a useful middle ground between structured prose and JSON: more explicit and auditable than prose, usually more compact than JSON, and less risky than heavily minified notation. The result is not a claim that shorthand solves compression, but a framework for making context compression verifiable: compress the conversation, keep the commitments.

Recent progress in formal theorem proving has benefited from large-scale proof generation and verifier-aware training, but agentic proving is rarely integrated into prover training, appearing only at inference time. We present OProver, a unified framework for agentic formal theorem proving in Lean 4, in which failed proof attempts are iteratively revised using retrieved compiler verified proofs and Lean compiler feedback. OProver is trained through continued pretraining followed by iterative post-training: each iteration runs agentic proving, indexes newly verified proofs into OProofs and the retrieval memory, uses repair trajectories as SFT data, and uses unresolved hard cases for RL. OProofs is built from public Lean resources, large-scale proof synthesis, and agentic proving traces, containing 1.77M Lean statements, 6.86M compiler-verified proofs, and serialized trajectories with retrieved context, failed attempts, feedback, and repairs. Across five benchmarks, OProver-32B attains the best Pass@32 on MiniF2F (93.3%), ProverBench (58.2%), and PutnamBench (11.3%), and ranks second on MathOlympiad (22.8%) and ProofNet (33.2%) more top placements than any prior open-weight whole-proof prover.

Automated proving of polynomial inequalities is a fundamental challenge in automated mathematical reasoning, where rich algebraic structure and a rapidly growing certificate search space hinder scalability. Purely symbolic approaches provide strong guarantees but often scale poorly as the number of variables or the degree increases, due to expensive algebraic manipulations and rapidly growing intermediate expressions. In parallel, LLM-guided methods have made notable progress, particularly on competition-style inequalities with a small number of variables. To address the remaining scalability challenges, we propose NSPI, a neuro-symbolic framework that combines the complementary strengths of LLMs and symbolic computation for polynomial-inequality proving. Concretely, an LLM proposes a conjecture in the form of an approximate polynomial Sum-Of-Squares (SOS) decomposition; we refine it via symbolic computation to obtain an exact polynomial SOS representation, which directly proves the target inequality, and we further certify the proof in Lean, yielding an end-to-end pipeline from heuristic discovery to machine-checked proof. Experiments on challenging benchmarks involving polynomials with up to 10 variables demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of the proposed method.

Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to solve complex combinatorial problems through direct reasoning, so recent neuro-symbolic systems increasingly use them to synthesize executable solvers. A central design question is how the LLM should represent the solver, and whether it should also attempt to optimize search. We introduce CP-SynC-XL, a benchmark of 100 combinatorial problems (4,577 instances), and evaluate three solver-construction paradigms: native algorithmic search (Python), constraint modeling through a Python solver API (Python + OR-Tools), and declarative constraint modeling (MiniZinc + OR-Tools). We find a consistent representational divergence: Python + OR-Tools attains the highest correctness across LLMs, while MiniZinc + OR-Tools has lower absolute coverage despite using the same OR-Tools back-end. Native Python is the most likely to return a schema-valid solution that fails verification, whereas solver-backed paths preserve higher conditional fidelity. On the heuristic axis, prompting for search optimization yields only small median speed-ups (1.03-1.12x) and a strongly bimodal effect: many instances slow down, and correctness drops sharply on a long tail of problems. A paired code-level audit traces these regressions to a recurring heuristic trap. Under an efficiency-oriented prompt, the LLM may replace complete search with local approximations (Python), inject unverified bounds (Python + OR-Tools), or add redundant declarative machinery that overwhelms or over-constrains the model (MiniZinc + OR-Tools). These findings support a conservative design principle for LLM-generated combinatorial solvers: use the LLM primarily to formalize variables, constraints, and objectives for verified solvers, and separately check any LLM-authored search optimization before use.

Compound AI systems that chain multiple LLM calls into directed computation graphs are now the dominant architecture for production AI. Although these architectures leverage heterogeneous nodes with mixed-mode outputs, no existing framework quantifies how perturbations propagate through such pipelines, where nodes are stochastic and execution paths can diverge structurally. We introduce QUIVER, a formal framework for measuring perturbation propagation in graph-structured LLM pipelines. The framework defines: (1) a sensitivity matrix with type-dispatched distance metrics that classifies edges as amplifiers, absorbers, or threshold-sensitive, complemented by occurrence-lift; (2) trajectory divergence decomposing variation into value drift, structural path divergence, and iteration count divergence; (3) bifurcation thresholds identifying the smallest perturbation that causes structural execution path changes; and (4) distribution faithfulness, quantifying when per node evaluation datasets diverge from production distributions. We validate on two production enterprise pipelines and a public DSPy multihop QA pipeline, three structurally distinct architectures. Across 8,200+ instrumented traces (32,000+ pair comparisons), we demonstrate that QUIVER reveals distinct sensitivity profiles across architectures, distinguishes mechanistically different cascade patterns producing identical divergence rates, predicts nodes prone to trajectory bifurcation from observational data alone, and localizes stale evaluation artifacts to specific node-field categories that aggregate metrics cannot surface.