Theorem

Language models can produce plausible short proofs, but may still be unreliable on long-horizon research problems, where progress depends on a sequence of uncertain and interdependent decisions. We introduce Stellar Colosseum, a model-agnostic harness for allocating inference across research in mathematics and theoretical computer science. Colosseum explores alternative strategies before proof construction, uses a readiness gate to decide when a route is mature enough to decompose, represents the proof plan as interdependent section-level subproblems, and routes verifier findings back to the affected part of the argument. Across these stages, it generates candidates in parallel, attacks them with targeted falsification, and combines candidates and their critiques into a single research artifact through overlapping random-sample tree aggregation. The Colosseum workflow has been integrated into Google Antigravity's Teamwork framework as the Long Proof pattern. We demonstrate the capabilities of Colosseum through open-ended research and evaluations on theorem-proving and competitive programming benchmarks. Using Colosseum with Gemini 3.1 Pro, we obtain several new results that address open problems arising from papers published at top venues such as FOCS and JMLR. On TCS-Bench, a benchmark of research-level theorem-proving tasks drawn from papers published at FOCS, STOC, and SODA, Colosseum achieves 71.0% accuracy using Gemini 3.1 Pro and Gemini 3.7 Flash. In a separate Codeforces evaluation using Gemini 3.1 Pro, the proof-oriented pipeline with execution feedback solves 218 of 222 problems.

We prove a full Adam theorem for spectral heavy-tail onset in a closed Gaussian Stein-Hermite teacher-student state-evolution model. The theorem begins with the actual full-batch Adam recurrences, derives the population gradient by Stein-Hermite calculus, proves finite-width covariance concentration, converts multi-step Adam momentum into an exact non-centered Gaussian sign kernel, controls the diagonal Adam denominator by a basis-homogenization theorem, derives a regularly varying projected update response from a Hermite edge-transfer theorem, pushes the response through the exact Gram update, and proves approximate-target KL contraction with matching upper and lower hitting bounds. The final law is (\tau_\varepsilon=\Theta(\Delta_1^{-\gamma}d^\rho\log(\Psi_0/\varepsilon))), where (\Delta_1) is the first spike-bulk spectral gap. The result is full in the following precise sense: every step from Adam's momentum and denominator to the spectral hitting law is formalized inside the closed state-evolution model. We also prove that a stronger arbitrary-gradient Adam theorem is impossible, and that exact two-step linear-network loss dynamics do not identify factor spectra or heavy-tail hitting times.

We present a machine-checked Lean~4 formalization of Dong and Yang's classification of optimal finite-length $(n,4)$ binary block codes for binary symmetric channels. The formalization was developed mainly by feeding the paper's proofs to an AI tool. To establish correctness, the authors verified the main theorem statements in Lean and the accepted axioms. This note discusses the corrections and simplifications made to the AI-generated formalization, and records discrepancies found in the paper during the formalization. The Lean code is available at https://github.com/shhyang/n4code_lean.

Most of mathematical knowledge has been communicated through so-called informal use of mathematics and natural language. With large language models (LLMs) being highly adept in using natural language, they achieve strong performance, yet not perfect, in informal mathematical reasoning. Restraining LLMs to informal reasoning misses out on the opportunity to use the discrete verification abilities that machines offer through machine-checkable proofs. In this paper, we bridge the gap between informal and formal reasoning by integrating Lean signals into the informal reasoning process. We introduce Magenta, a training-free agentic pipeline that, given only a natural-language problem, produces an answer, expresses it as a Lean 4 statement, and constructs a machine-checked proof. A statement judge verifies whether the formalisation preserves the original problem, while an error-attribution judge routes failed attempts either to mathematical re-derivation or local Lean repair. Magenta achieves 100% accuracy across all evaluated olympiad benchmarks, including AIME 2025, AIME 2026, and HMMT February 2026. When paired with the open-weight K2-Horizon-7B reasoner, it solves all six IMO 2026 problems. Our analysis shows that statement adjudication is essential for preventing false certificates and that feedback-guided correction outperforms independent resampling on difficult problems.

Leading benchmarks for formal theorem proving with large language models are small collections drawn from competition math, such as the IMO and Putnam, that poorly represent field-specific applications. We introduce StochBench, a Lean 4 benchmark of 450 graduate stochastic-processes problems at varying abstraction levels, each paired with its natural-language source. Addressing a field underrepresented in Mathlib, it covers finite and countable Markov chains, renewal processes, random walks, martingales, stopping times, queues, Brownian motion, stochastic calculus, weak convergence, and Poisson and continuous-time Markov processes. Our Opus 4.8-based agent achieves a 34.9% proof rate (157/450) under a 15-minute per-problem limit. StochBench better represents domain-specific applied mathematics while remaining challenging for advanced provers.

In Isabelle/HOL, we apply the deep-and-shallow embedding methodology of our prior work to monadic second-order logic (MSO). Three embeddings are developed side by side: a deep embedding (an inductive datatype with an explicit satisfaction relation); a maximal-shallow embedding that translates the connectives and quantifiers directly into HOL, carrying the interpretation and both assignments explicitly; and a minimal-shallow embedding -- a locale that fixes those parameters, collapsing the formula type to bool. The enabling new ingredient is a two-sorted substitution apparatus -- capture-avoiding substitution, renaming, and a substitution lemma per namespace -- in which each binder is transparent for the other; faithfulness of all three embeddings is mechanised and largely automated. Our central contribution is a fully mechanised two-sorted downward Loewenheim-Skolem theorem: the minimal embedding recovers deep validity relative to the (countable) assignment ranges, and this range-relative reading is shown to coincide with the general (Henkin-style) reading of MSO, whereas the standard reading validates strictly more formulas, witnessed by comprehension. Both readings are nonetheless recovered from the minimal embedding, differing only in the admitted interpretations: all of them for the general reading, only the elementary substructures of the full model for the standard. We exercise the embeddings on classical MSO landmarks: the Boolean-closure and graph schemata hold under the full second-order domain yet fail in the minimal embedding, making the dichotomy concrete, while reachability and 2-colorability are refuted throughout.

For every coherent and sufficiently expressive finite syntactic system S, we prove the existence of at least one theorem that S cannot produce autonomously. The result is a metatheorem: it proves the existence of a theorem, and applies to every finite syntactic system - security mechanisms, AI systems, formal verifiers, legal systems, economic models, and the formal system in which it is itself proved.

We report on our ongoing project to develop a computational pipeline, AutoGraphForge, for an automated graph-theoretic conjecturing-refuting-formalizing-proving system. Conjecture generation is counterexample-guided and runs in rounds: a Graffiti3 generator proposes conjectures over a small, evolving snapshot table $T$ (initially a few hundred graphs with their computed invariants) that grows only by counterexamples to its own conjectures. A novelty filter of $559$ classical and folklore relations, closed under transitive composition and linear identity substitution, decides via a linear program whether a candidate is already implied by known results. Surviving candidates are tested against a dataset of about $348,000$ graphs, unioning the complete House of Graphs invariant export, the exhaustive census of all connected graphs on at most nine vertices, several extremal families (strongly regular, minimal Ramsey, Cayley, cages, barbells, lollipops, spiders), and random models. Counterexample-search algorithms then attack the remainder. Run for several rounds on an HPC cluster, the loop yields $6,522$ conjectures that survived the refutation dataset, the novelty filter and every active-search run -- among them nontrivial relations between the annihilation number and the edge-cover number for bipartite and regular graphs, which we prove by hand. A subsequent formalization and proving stage deterministically translates each surviving conjecture into a Lean 4 statement skeleton; every candidate proof is kernel-verified against a pinned mathlib4 and our custom invariant preamble. This stage integrates two neural provers -- DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B (served with vLLM) and the Lean-specialised OProver-32B -- behind the independent kernel check. It is implemented end-to-end and passes initial sanity checks, with the full pipeline currently running on the cluster.

The SAIR Mathematics Distillation Challenge on Equational Theories asks a solver to classify whether one magma identity implies another and, for either verdict, to return a certificate accepted by a deterministic Lean judge. We present a single-file solver organized as a cheapest-first cascade. Its false branch combines coefficient tests over structured algebra families, bounded finite-model search, an explicit central-groupoid witness, and several infinite-carrier witnesses. Its true branch is a proof-producing ordered unit superposition procedure with Knuth-Bendix ordering, bidirectional demodulation, indexing, memoised substitution, and anytime size deepening. Search results remain outside the trusted base: successful derivations are replayed as small Lean terms, and countermodels are rechecked by the competition judge. The frozen solver is a 189,504-byte Python file with SHA-256 f2392533c9f4c03b.... In local runs through official judge revision 2848228, it produced accepted certificates for all 1,889 rows of the six public sets with no language-model calls. Separate measurements recorded full agreement on the 800 published Stage 1 evaluation-distribution problems, 100 accepted rows in the canonical Marathon manifest without tokens, and 200 accepted rows in the hosted playground. These are regression and playground measurements, not a leaderboard result and not evidence about a hidden set. All quantitative claims are tied to immutable result ledgers; the paper makes no completeness or comparative-superiority claim.

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.

We address the use of large language models (LLMs) to help discover Isabelle proofs. An Isabelle build establishes that the submitted theory is accepted, but not that an LLM changed only what the developer authorised. We present CAPRI, a contract-aware repair workflow in which Isabelle checks the proof and an independent checker enforces a machine-readable edit contract. Prompts, proposals, candidate repositories, diagnostics, verdicts, and hashes are retained for audit. We evaluate five workflows on twelve failed proofs from four developments, with three replicates per task and condition, giving 180 runs and 138 valid repairs. Of 144 terminal candidates accepted by Isabelle, six had modified protected text; all arose in iterative workflows that could edit a complete theory. A proof-body-only interface produced 29/36 valid repairs and no contract violations, compared with 31/36 for the corresponding full-theory workflow. One-shot repair produced 22/36, while a later prospectively frozen iterative workflow produced 32/36; these figures compare complete workflows rather than individual mechanisms. A separate post hoc OpenRouter campaign found no improvement in the designated Luna comparisons. A Sol configuration with matched demonstrations produced 33/36 repairs, compared with 29/36 in the frozen OpenAI Responses condition, but the difference was not statistically significant in a one-sided exact McNemar test ($p=0.0625$).

Schedulability analysis is essential for certifying real-time systems, but existing tests are often developed through pen-and-paper proofs that are difficult to scale, validate, and maintain. Mechanized verification in PROSA/ROCQ offers a rigorous alternative, yet manually constructing such proofs requires substantial domain expertise and proof-engineering effort. Recent successes of large language models (LLMs) across a wide range of tasks make them promising candidates for generating PROSA/ROCQ scripts for mechanized theorem provers. However, state-of-the-art LLMs often lack the PROSA-specific knowledge required to correctly use its modeling abstractions and proof patterns. This paper introduces PROVE-RT, an LLM-assisted framework for generating PROSA/ROCQ scripts to mechanize schedulability analyses in real-time systems literature. PROVE-RT guides generation through dependency-aware informal sketches, retrieval from processed PROSA documentation, staged skeleton generation, and proof completion. We construct a mechanization-oriented corpus from 1, 191 real-time systems papers, containing 13, 134 informal sketches with dependency information. On a curated evaluation set, direct prompting of state-of-the-art LLMs fails to reliably generate valid PROSA mechanizations, whereas PROVE-RT achieves a success rate of 44.7%. These results show that retrieval-guided and staged LLM assistance can improve automated mechanization of schedulability analysis in PROSA/ROCQ.

We construct OEIS Open, a benchmark based on 492 open mathematical conjectures from the OEIS, formalized in Lean by Tsoukalas et al. Whereas these conjectures had previously been attempted only with a bespoke agent, our open-source evaluation code runs any generic language model (LM) against them, and is secure against LM cheating attempts. We find that LMs equipped with a minimal set of tools resolve 147 of these conjectures with a budget of $50 per attempt, scoring 30% on OEIS Open. OEIS Open Lite is a random subset of 100 conjectures for cheaper evaluation. When evaluated with a budget of $200 per attempt, the best current LM scores 44% on OEIS Open Lite. Giving LMs access to the mathematics literature via 476,000 papers from arXiv did not increase performance on OEIS Open Lite, and nor did using more sophisticated agent loops. The conjectures covered in this work are of uncertain mathematical significance, and most have likely received little previous attention. Nevertheless, our results show that LMs can resolve open research conjectures autonomously and at modest cost.

Autoformalisation (AF) systems map natural language reasoning steps into formal statements in a proof assistant such as Lean. We consider how to assess the faithfulness of these systems. Existing approaches require expensive human-annotated ground truth, or rely on LLM judges or embedding models, which come with limited guarantees of accuracy. In addition, these methods typically only consider inputs that are known to be correct, and therefore do not assess whether the AF translates incorrect inputs faithfully. To address these limitations, we propose a new benchmark for AF faithfulness that is cheap to apply, sound under weak assumptions, and assesses both positive and negative examples. Our method is based on automatically generating perturbed reasoning steps that are designed to be invalid, and then measuring validity preservation on unperturbed steps and invalidity preservation on perturbed steps. We apply our method to eight AF systems across four mathematical datasets, and observe pervasive sycophancy: many AFs "silently correct" invalid inputs into provable statements. The most validity-preserving fine-tuned AFs are also the most sycophantic, suggesting a tension between validity and invalidity preservation in current AF systems.

First-order concept synthesis asks a system to infer one formula that classifies labeled objects consistently across several finite relational structures. Every candidate can be evaluated exactly, but quantified first-order formulas form a vast search space, and LLM outputs are often semantically promising without being fully correct. We introduce Hypothesis Frontier, a verifier-guided neurosymbolic framework that evaluates each LLM formula on every training object, retains the strongest verified hypothesis across rounds, and uses its remaining errors to guide subsequent generation. Symbolic processing repairs invalid formulas while remaining anchored to the LLM-generated hypothesis, and simplifies train-valid formulas without changing any training prediction. Under matched models, problem sets, and LLM-round budgets, Hypothesis Frontier solves substantially more problems than repeated original-prompt generation. After the final formulas are selected, exact simplification shortens many train-valid formulas while preserving every training prediction. Exact symbolic reasoning therefore helps both to solve more induction problems and to compress many of the resulting formulas.

GK is a query-directed first-order prover that extends ordinary resolution-based proof search with explicit positive and negative claims, numerical confidence values, and prioritized default rules with exceptions. It works directly with non-ground clauses, including equality and function terms. Candidate proofs are found by bounded first-order proof search; exception conditions of defaults are checked by further bounded searches, recursively when exceptions themselves depend on defaults. This avoids requiring a finite global grounding, while allowing incomplete searches to be reported as such. This paper adds structure-preserving quantitative reporting to that framework. Retained proof histories are used in two calculations. The first reconstructs the uncertain ground premises used by each proof and computes the probability that at least one retained proof is available, without counting shared premises independently. The second resolves positive and negative support at intermediate atoms before that support is propagated through later rules; the same calculation evaluates uncertain exception conditions for individual rule applications. Reports separate positive support, negative support, conflict, and ignorance and identify detected incomplete calculations or fallbacks. The implementation performs bounded reconstruction and dependency traversal after proof search and still requires no global grounding. Analytic examples and independent simulators reproduce the reference calculations on their stated fragments. Comparisons with probabilistic logic, probabilistic ASP, default logic, and goal-directed ASP identify cases of agreement, semantic difference, unsupported translation, and incomplete computation.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate text that resembles a mathematical proof, but resemblance does not establish correctness. A formal proof checker verifies whether each proof step follows established logical rules. Coq bases its rules on the Calculus of Inductive Constructions, a logical framework that defines which proof steps the system may accept. This pilot study evaluated six open-weight LLMs on the same 100 theorems from CoqStoq, a benchmark derived from real Coq projects. Each LLM received one attempt per theorem with the temperature set to 0, and Coq checked every proposed proof in the theorem's original project environment. We counted a proof as successful only if the Coq kernel accepted it. Gemma 4 verified 12 of 100 theorems, Llama 3.3 verified 8, and DeepSeek Coder V2 Lite verified 1. Qwen 3.5, Mistral Small 3.1, and GPT-OSS verified none. The 21 successful model-theorem results covered 15 distinct theorems, 11 of which were not solved by a baseline of standard Coq tactics. All verified theorems had short or medium human-written reference proofs; no model verified a theorem with a long reference proof. Because the proof-length analysis was exploratory, this pattern does not establish that proof length caused the difference. For the three models with at least one success, the total generation cost per verified proof ranged from 741 to 36,193 output tokens, 14.9 to 178.0 seconds, and 0.0167 to 0.2000 aggregate GPU hours. We could not calculate these ratios for models with no verified proofs. Across 600 attempts, the models produced 21 kernel-verified proofs, giving an overall success rate of 3.5%. The study reports descriptive differences among the models but does not statistically test whether one model outperforms another. Therefore, the results do not establish a universal ranking of the six models.

Building reliable applications that leverage large language models (LLMs) remains a significant challenge. While LLMs offer impressive capabilities across diverse tasks, their outputs often lack accuracy and provide no clear measure of confidence. This uncertainty compounds in flows of multiple calls to LLMs and other tools, making it difficult for developers and end-users to trust the results. This paper introduces a probabilistic language for programming LLM-based flows. It enables developers to quantify and propagate uncertainty throughout the application's flow, and experiment with different inference scaling techniques without adding a single line of code beyond the flow's logic. We present an experimental study to demonstrate this capability, and a case study building a theorem proving agent for the Rocq theorem prover.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed computational linguistics and achieved remarkable performance across numerous natural language processing tasks, yet significant gaps persist in understanding how these systems process culturally embedded linguistic expressions. This paper introduces ProverbIT, a novel Italian benchmark comprising 100 multiple-choice questions designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to complete Italian proverbs. We assess 13 frontier models, including Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and traditional LLMs, across three tasks: proverb completion, multiple-choice selection with correct answers, and multiple-choice selection without correct answers. Our evaluation reveals surprising results: while nearly all models demonstrate knowledge of the proverbs through successful completion tasks, performance drops dramatically when transitioning to multiple-choice formats without correct answers, with even state-of-the-art reasoning models showing substantial degradation. Through detailed Chain-of-Thought analysis of two LRMs, we uncover that models exhibit a strong bias toward selecting literal synonyms and frequently mention correct proverb endings during reasoning without successfully identifying their absence from the given options. These findings suggest that current LLMs rely heavily on memorized patterns rather than deeper semantic understanding of culturally grounded expressions, highlighting important limitations in their reasoning capabilities for figurative language comprehension.

Long-term memory is essential for LLM-based agents to sustain interactions and reliably leverage distant history. However, existing memory systems typically process heterogeneous dialogue content through a uniform summarization and retrieval pipeline, leading to either excessive token consumption or irreversible loss of fine-grained evidence. We argue that historical dialogue content should be handled differently according to its compressibility, temporal dynamics, and fidelity requirements. Based on this insight, we propose LeanMem, a lightweight long-term memory framework. LeanMem first filters out low-value content, then stores informative segments as compact profile memory, temporally structured event memory, or source-grounded record memory, depending on the nature of the information. During maintenance, only dynamically evolving event memories are selectively updated, avoiding redundant consolidation of stable profiles and immutable records. During inference, LeanMem dynamically selects memory types and allocates retrieval budgets according to query-specific evidence demands, assembling relevant evidence on demand. On LoCoMo and LongMemEval-S with GPT-4.1-mini and Qwen3-8B, LeanMem improves accuracy over the strongest memory-based baseline in every setting, by up to 15.1 points, at the lowest or near-lowest construction cost, inference tokens, and latency. The code and datasets are included in the supplementary materials.

Tool calling allows large language models (LLMs) to invoke external computation during problem solving, a useful capability in various fields including AI for mathematics. We study this setting through weighted sum-of-squares (SOS) decomposition, a machine-checkable route to proving polynomial nonnegativity and hence polynomial inequalities. A candidate decomposition can be checked exactly, but finding one requires choosing among non-unique regroupings and coordinating multiple symbolic transformations. We develop an agent that combines algebraic task training, symbolic tools, and verifier-grounded optimization for this task. Rather than training only on the composite SOS task, we construct 1.35 million synthetic examples covering eight supporting polynomial tasks together with weighted-SOS decomposition. We first apply supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to direct algebra problems and simulated symbolic traces, and then use Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with task-specific symbolic rewards. The SFT corpus contains no native tool-calling messages; at evaluation, the agent uses native SymPy calls for expansion, collection, reordering, and factorization. Every final SOS answer is checked by exact expansion and coefficient comparison. On held-out, same-generator synthetic problems, the full SFT+GRPO+tools system is the strongest of four evaluated configurations, reaching 78.96% verified success on weighted SOS, compared with 44.73% for the base model with the same tools, and 91.75% macro accuracy across nine polynomial tasks. Within this controlled setting, our work provides a case study of combining domain-specific skill training, executable tools, and verifier feedback, and may inform the design of tool-calling agents in other domains with exactly checkable outputs.

Constraint programming is a core technology for solving complex combinatorial problems in scheduling, planning, configuration, and verification. Trusting its results therefore demands guarantees at two levels: that reformulations applied beforehand are semantics-preserving, and that solvers produce correct answers. In this work, we introduce a framework that addresses both verification levels in the Lean theorem prover: it can be used to prove formulation-level properties, such as equivalence, equisatisfiability, and the correctness of symmetry-breaking constraints, parametrically for entire problem families; and to check solver-produced certificates for individual instances via translation backends to external formats such as MiniZinc, SMT-LIB, and OPB. Combining both levels yields an end-to-end workflow that establishes the satisfiability or unsatisfiability of a constraint problem without trusting the external solver. Experimental results show that our framework's verified symmetry breaking also pays off in practice: a single parametric proof per problem family, reused across all instance sizes, reduces solver search effort by a factor of up to 2x10^7, while the entire in-Lean certification stays affordable, taking at most a few minutes for our largest instances.

LLM-based Lean proving systems increasingly organize a proof as a blueprint: a dependency graph of formal statements. We introduce BlueprintRepair, a repair interface that lets a model change this graph through ten schema-checked local operations. An operation names the node it edits, so the target theorem cannot be changed. Lean checks every applied change, and an accepted repair must declare every blueprint lemma its proof uses. We also construct BlueprintTrace, a benchmark of 142 controlled failures with complete accepted and rejected repair trajectories. We compare typed edits, exact source patches, and complete module rewrites under matched source, feedback, model, and budget, one episode per state and interface. With DeepSeek-V4-Flash, the three interfaces solve almost the same number of the benchmark's localized failures. Typed repair is the cheapest per solved state (patching is 1.30x as expensive, rewriting 2.06x), and within 10,000 completion tokens per task it reaches almost all of its final coverage, while both free-form interfaces are well behind. A second model, Qwen3.6-Flash, solves fewer states but keeps typed repair cheapest, puts it ahead on the proof-authoring states, and repeats the localized pattern.

Writing Answer Set Programming (ASP) theories from scratch is a difficult and time-consuming task. We take a neurosymbolic approach to study whether a model can distill complete and correct theories, given a fixed agent harness with the solver in the loop. The protocol is dataset-agnostic: with a single prompt and an empty file as the starting point the model is given a 1-hour time limit to derive a complete theory. We chose VQA as the application domain, three benchmarks (CLEVR, GQA, CLEVRER), as these are publicly available and non-trivial. In order to study the model scale required for solving this task we nine different models: four frontier (Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5, DeepSeek V4 Pro), two mid-tier (DeepSeek V4 Flash, gpt-oss-120b), and three open-weights (qwen3.6-27b, gpt-oss-20b, qwen3.5-9b). Three of four frontier models reach 100% on CLEVR and 92.8%-98.8% on GQA; on CLEVRER, Sonnet, Opus, DeepSeek V4 Pro score 92.7%-95.3%. GPT-5 reaches 98.7% on CLEVR but drops to 41.8% on GQA and to 86.7% on CLEVRER. Adding handwritten reference theories from other datasets moves the other three frontier models by at most +/-3.4 pp but reduces GPT-5's accuracy by 3-19 pp. We release the code, prompts, and theories distilled.

Automatically constructing well-specified and valuable mathematical conjectures remains a central challenge in AI-assisted mathematical discovery. Many existing open problems and conjectures are often too broad, underspecified, or difficult to connect to plausible proof or refutation strategies. We view a mathematical mechanism as a structure or reasoning principle that connects the assumptions of a candidate problem to its target conclusion, such as an inequality, invariant, decomposition, or reduction to an intermediate claim. We present MECA (MEchanism-centered Conjecture Agent), a multi-agent framework that constructs conjectures by jointly developing candidate statements and their supporting mechanisms. Explorer agents propose mechanisms, test how they apply, and revise the candidate conjecture accordingly, while critic agents assess their mathematical validity and research value. Their feedback guides changes to the assumptions, scope, and conclusion. Through this process, MECA transforms broad research directions into precise conjectures with substantive mathematical support while retaining a clearly identified unresolved core. We evaluate MECA in two complementary settings. First, we compare it with a generate-and-revise baseline on reconstructing preselected target-paper conclusions from target-conditioned but article-blind source materials. Second, we construct 100 semi-open problems from literature-derived seeds and existing open problems and evaluate them through independent proof and refutation attempts by automated provers. Our results indicate that mechanism-centered refinement produces well-specified and research-worthy conjectures that remain challenging for current automated provers.

Razborov's flag algebra method is a powerful tool for proving asymptotic inequalities in extremal graph theory, often reducing the task to finding a finite certificate by semidefinite programming. We present a machine-checked formalization of the method for finite simple graphs, together with a certificate-to-proof compiler that turns externally generated certificate data into algebraic proofs checked by Lean. The formalization covers the foundations of the method: partially labeled graphs, their densities in large graphs, the quotient algebra of density expressions, graph-limit semantics through positive homomorphisms, and the downward operators used to average out labels. The compiler treats the external semidefinite programming output as candidate data rather than trusted input: Lean independently computes the required density and multiplication facts, verifies positive semidefiniteness exactly over $\mathbb{Q}$, and carries out the algebraic normalization steps of flag-algebra proofs. Our case studies yield formal proofs of seven Turán-type upper bounds, including Mantel's theorem and the Erdős pentagon theorem, a $C_4$-density bound for triangle-free graphs, and edge-density bounds for $K_4$-free, $K_5$-free, and $C_5$-free graphs. Independently of the compiler, we formalize the matching constructions that complete the exact Turán densities of Mantel's theorem and the Erdős pentagon theorem, and prove two inequalities of Goodman. Our constrained semantics also prompted a meta-theoretic comparison of two ways of imposing graph constraints: building a hereditary constraint into the flag algebra from the start, or testing inequalities afterward on constrained graph limits with labels chosen at random. We state the resulting root-plantability criterion characterizing when the two approaches agree; a forthcoming paper will present the complete account.

Lean 4's grind tactic combines congruence closure, E-matching, and case-splitting into a single automated solver, and like any such solver, it relies on hand-tuned heuristics to decide what to instantiate and where to case-split. These heuristics are tempting targets for learning, but there is a catch: because grind's search is non-monotone, a learned heuristic that helps one proof can break another, and an always-on replacement usually nets out near zero. We avoid this by invoking a learned intervention only after stock grind has already failed: a failure-triggered cascade that, by construction, cannot lose a proof grind already had. We apply it to two of grind's internal decisions. A cost-aware E-matching filter solves slightly more problems and runs about 5% faster. A lookahead step proves five theorems it otherwise times out on. We also report the negative result that motivated the design: across four feature-based models, statically predicting the correct case split is no better than random, because whether a split explodes is a runtime property that the features do not capture. Our results suggest that learning within theorem-proving tactics is most effective as a mechanism for deciding when and how to spend bounded search, backed by a reliable symbolic fallback.

Automating theoretical research requires generating candidate results and evaluating them reliably. Models keep getting better at the first, while the second remains hard. A common approach asks one large language model (LLM) to review what another produced, yet such reviewers are empirically unreliable: they may accept fabricated papers and catch the fabrication at close to chance rates~\citep{badscientist2025}. We present \textsc{CausalSmith}, a framework for automated theoretical research in causal inference built on the Lean proof assistant, where a proof is checked by a program rather than read by a referee. \textsc{CausalSmith} rests on \textsc{Causalean}, a foundational Lean library for causal inference holding 8,179 machine-checked definitions and theorems, developed with language-model assistance under human design and review. Around it, we build a self-improving agentic pipeline that selects research topics, proposes results, formalizes statements, constructs proofs, and presents the resulting artifacts for human inspection. Moreover, the pipeline pairs Lean verification with a statement audit that compares each formal theorem against the informal claim behind it. We evaluate the system using artifacts produced by completed autonomous research runs. The source code, formal library, and run records are available at https://github.com/Jiyuan-Tan/CausalSmith.

Ninety-Nine Prolog Problems (P-99) is a famous set of Prolog exercises. We solved the first thirty three just by prompting an LLM (Large Language Model). We used Claude from Anthropic. By solved we mean: generate the Prolog code and a test file, run the tests and check whether they pass, then formally prove types, groundness, termination, uniqueness, existence and also sometimes functional correctness with LPTP (Logic Program Theorem Prover). Hence our approach is an experiment in vibe-coding/vericoding of P-99. It is a vibe-coding experiment because we started from informal specifications written in English and let Claude generate the Prolog code. It also fits within vericoding because the LLM proved reliability guarantees on the generated Prolog code. Claude wrote 58 logic procedures, 508 tests, 257 lemmas for a total of 11800 proof lines. We manually checked each file generated by the LLM. We checked the Prolog code, ran the tests, examined the logical statements generated by Claude and proof-checked Claude's proofs with LPTP. This paper describes this experiment and provides the main details so that it can be reproduced by the interested reader.

Event-B is a formal method rooted in predicate logic and set theory. We encoded over 600 proof rules in Prolog, enabling a systematic, comprehensible proof analysis and construction. By integrating the proof rules into the Prolog-based validation tool ProB, we obtain an interactive proof system with proof tree visualisation. This has advantages in teaching, giving students direct control over the selection of proof rules. Our tool can import proof obligations from the Rodin platform and provides multiple exports: a trace file for proof replay in ProB, an interactive HTML document for tool-independent exploration of the proof tree, and an export back to Rodin, allowing the ProB prover to be used as second chain. Compared to the previous implementation of the proof rules in Java, the encoding in Prolog is more compact, maintainable and extensible. While a preliminary iterative deepening prover with simple heuristics is already available and useful for finding short proofs, we aim to obtain fast automatic provers in the future.

We present the interactions with an LLM (Large Language Model) aiming at proving that the square root of 2 is not a rational number in an LP (Logic Programming) context. We start from a few basic pure logic programming predicate definitions. We rely on the LPTP (Logic Program Theorem Prover) system for stating and proving properties about logic programs. As the proof language of LPTP is based on natural deduction, the proofs are human readable. In our case study, we sketch in LPTP the usual proof showing the irrationality of the square root of 2. Then we describe the interactions we had with the LLM. We end up with a complete formal proof, partially generated by an LLM and fully proof-checked by LPTP.

Outsourced Transformer inference exposes clients to model substitution and incomplete execution, while direct replay removes the computational benefit of delegation. We present GKR-HND, a registered-model protocol for verifying the polynomial backbone of Homomorphic--Nonhomomorphic Decomposition Transformers. The retained verifier checks the GKR transcript and registered-weight openings, but delegates expensive public evaluations to an assigned computation worker. Assuming an honest retained verifier and prover--worker non-collusion, the verifier accepts only when the worker's signed, request-bound response agrees with the proof claims. Experiments with pretrained HND models validate the proof path and the delegated public computation without dense-matrix replay.

Designing effective Lean proof agents is a central challenge in formal mathematical reasoning. Beyond building stronger provers, recent work emphasizes the workflow around Lean: how an agent decomposes proof obligations, uses tools and compiler feedback, diagnoses failures, repairs proofs, and maintains structured proof context. Motivated by code-level self-evolving agents, we study whether such workflows can be evolved rather than hand-designed. We present a self-evolving Lean proof agent in which a small fixed, trusted runtime wraps a fully mutable workspace: the proof workflow, prompts, and tools. Unlike most self-evolving systems, which optimize against a fixed external benchmark, our system coevolves the agent and its benchmark. Between generations, the highest-scoring agent (the champion) revises the active task distribution through a mastery-throttled curriculum update that introduces harder proof obligations only after the current level is mastered, and a single-anchor recalibration re-runs the champion on the updated benchmark to keep scores comparable as difficulty rises. All evolution stays inside a Lean-grounded verification loop: however the agent rewrites itself, a success counts only when its behavior yields Lean-verified proofs under a trusted snapshot, and each attempt must emit a machine-readable, Lean-grounded proof context whose representation may evolve but whose groundedness is enforced. We run the coevolving trajectory and a fixed-benchmark baseline for 15 active generations and compare them on a held-out miniF2F test split. The best coevolving agent reaches a 45.1% held-out solve rate, versus 12.7% for the seed and 32.0% for the best fixed-benchmark agent, showing that verifier-grounded self-evolution can improve Lean proof workflows under a coevolving benchmark.

Mathematicians distinguish proofs that explain, simplify, or introduce a nonstandard route, but these judgments are difficult to operationalize. We study a deliberately narrower construct: time-relative proof-route nonstandardness in formal mathematics. For a Lean theorem, PriorProof extracts the dependency footprint of its elaborated proof term and scores the weighted surprisal of that footprint under a retrieval-conditioned, hierarchically smoothed prior built only from an earlier quarterly snapshot of Mathlib. The method requires no hand-built technique ontology and no human labels: statement retrieval is learned from proof-derived contrastive pairs, while the scored object is read mechanically from proof terms. In a blinded topology study, 100 presentations collapse to 76 distinct underlying pairs: 12 canonical contrasts shown three times for consistency screening and 64 distinct stratified pairs. Against the majority of three retained domain raters, PriorProof agrees on 53/76 pairs (69.7%, Wilson 95% CI 58.7-78.9%), including 11/12 canonical pairs (91.7%, 64.6-98.5%) and 42/64 stratified pairs (65.6%, 53.4-76.1%). Score-gap quartiles are nonmonotone after repeat collapse; the endpoints are 12/19 (63.2%, 41.0-80.9%) in the smallest-gap bin and 16/19 (84.2%, 62.4-94.5%) in the largest, supporting an endpoint-calibration tendency rather than a resolved staircase. The best language-model condition agrees on 60/76 pairs (78.9%, 68.5-86.6%); on paired outcomes, PriorProof alone is correct on 8 pairs and the model alone on 15 (exact two-sided McNemar p = 0.210), so the difference is not established at this sample size. We therefore present PriorProof not as a replacement for expert or model judgment, but as a decomposable, time-anchored signal whose score gap provides an interpretable reliability indicator.

Interactive theorem proving (ITP) underpins program verification and formalized mathematics, but its manual effort limits scalability. LLM-based proof agents promise to ease this effort, but their heavy token consumption and API cost remain a major obstacle. We trace this cost to a shared root: current agents operate on serialized concrete syntax, emitting proofs as source text and recovering proof states through separate, line-number-based queries, so every edit shifts later lines and forces repeated relocation of errors and states. This same dependence on concrete syntax also blocks adoption of Minilang, a recent proof language that reaches SOTA on LLM-based proving but is too new for LLMs' training corpora. We address both problems by lifting the agent off source text and onto the abstract syntax tree (AST): the model supplies proofs as JSON representations of Minilang's AST -- native to tool-calling LLMs -- and drives the prover through a tree-edit model that fuses proof operations and states into one proof tree, so each operation carries its own subgoal's state, readable directly off the tree. We realize this design in \emph{Agent over AST} (AoA). Against Amazon's Isabelle Agent on miniF2F and NTP4VC-Pearl common success sets, AoA cuts API cost by 2.3--4.7x (normalized input-cache accounting), uses 2.9--6.9x fewer tokens and 3.9--8.9x fewer tool calls, and finishes 1.4--2.0x faster -- while also solving far more problems on the harder verification benchmark.

Existing LLM-based theorem provers have achieved impressive results on formal mathematics benchmarks, yet they remain confined to acting as autonomous agents that prove a stated proposition. In this paper, we propose MathCoPilot, a human-in-the-loop system that embodies a new human--AI symbiotic paradigm for mathematical research, in which the mathematician steers the high-level mathematical direction while AI agents carry out the detailed formalization and proof work under continuous human guidance. MathCoPilot unifies three core capabilities: (1) an interactive workbench where the mathematician and AI agents collaborate through a living proof blueprint that decomposes a proof into navigable steps the human can directly inspect, direct, and refine; (2) automated proving skill orchestration with adaptive knowledge base search and Lean-integrated iterative verification; and (3) topic-driven paper retrieval and automated formalization into a verified Lean knowledge base. Using MathCoPilot, we systematically compare four state-of-the-art LLMs, including Gemini3.1Pro, GPT-5.4, and ClaudeOpus4.7, on a FormalMATH subset and on two real PDE theorems requiring deep domain expertise, evaluating their ability to produce verified Lean~4 proofs and to identify errors in deliberately incorrect proofs. Our results show that while current models can handle undergraduate-level problems with high success rates under favorable autoformalization conditions, substantial challenges remain for domain-specific theorems requiring genuine mathematical understanding.

AI coding agents produce code faster than humans can review it. In our approach, the prover is the judge of whether the code is correct. Under a verifier-driven loop, AI agents wrote and verified bare-metal security software in Ada/SPARK spanning classical and post-quantum cryptography, TLS 1.3, IKEv2, X.509, and a Matrix client. GNATprove discharged 49,280 proof obligations, established functional correctness for selected primitives, and proved the absence of run-time errors for the rest, at roughly 20-40 times lower supervision cost than comparable hand verification. GNATprove alone was insufficient: some defects could not be detected and were resolved using known-answer tests, interoperability, or human review of specifications. Given weak checks, the agent tried to bypass them and reported success. We report where each layer caught faults and draw the central lesson: what an agent can be trusted to establish is bounded by the strength of its feedback.

Reinforcement learning (RL) is traditionally concerned with learning a control policy for a fixed environment. In many engineering systems, however, the environment itself is alterable: physical or operational parameters can be tuned to shape the transition dynamics and costs experienced by the agent. This motivates jointly optimizing both the policy and the environment design parameters. To this end, we establish an Environment Parameter Gradient Theorem -- a formal expression for the gradient of the value function with respect to environment parameters. The key theoretical device is a generalized action-value function $Q_{π,ξ}(s,a,ζ)$, which comprises two copies of the environment parameters: $ζ$ governs the cost and transition dynamics at the current state--action pair, while $ξ$ governs the future rollouts. This decoupling yields a tractable closed-form gradient expression and is essential to the theorem's derivation. Building on this result, we develop a model-free algorithm that simultaneously learns the optimal policy and the environment parameters. We demonstrate the efficacy of our framework on a UAV network design problem, where the optimal UAV placement (environment parameters) and communication routes (governed by the policy) are learned jointly to minimize the total communication cost in the network.

Full-proof autoformalization bridges extensive mathematical proofs in natural language with formally validated reasoning, offering a pathway to elevate the ceiling of verifiable mathematical reasoning. Unlike statement-level formalization, proof autoformalization is a long-horizon challenge requiring coordination of claims, contexts, and dependencies across many proof steps, yet has only recently come under focused study. Current approaches either rely on costly model training or apply excessive, unguided repair at inference time. To this end, we introduce ToMap, a multi-agent framework that structures proof autoformalization as a Decomposer-Formalizer-Prover pipeline with efficient test-time optimization guided by formal verification and semantic rubrics for proof quality. Rather than distributing test-time compute across all agents, we perform bottleneck analysis and identify the Decomposer as the critical bottleneck: the quality of its atomic, self-contained proof units directly determines whether downstream agents can successfully formalize and prove each step. ToMap therefore treats the Formalizer and Prover as downstream executors and efficiently focuses test-time compute on Decomposer refinement. This refinement follows a loop inspired by GEPA, evolving prompts over candidate decompositions and using formal verification progress together with semantic proof rubrics to define a Pareto frontier that guides the next decomposition update. Experiments on ProofFlowBench show that ToMap improves over the best previous method by 19.0% when evaluated by both syntactic correctness and semantic faithfulness, while requiring lower test-time cost. Scaling analysis shows that most gains emerge within a few iterations of decomposition evolution, guiding test-time budget selection.

Tree search algorithms enable systematic exploration of the proof space in neural theorem proving. Existing LLM tree search libraries primarily target natural language reasoning and do not provide native integration with formal verifiers, while theorem proving systems often rely on task-specific search implementations. We introduce TreeThink, an open-source Python library for modular, fully asynchronous tree search in neural theorem proving. It integrates established tree search methods with vLLM-based inference pipelines and diverse node evaluation techniques, ranging from lightweight heuristics to neural evaluators. We support Lean~4, Rocq, and Isabelle/HOL alongside natural language. It connects directly to each language's Read-Eval-Print Loop (REPL) server for real-time verification and proof state extraction. We evaluate TreeThink on miniF2F and MATH500, demonstrating cross-language formal proof search, natural language reasoning support, and up to 8.0$\times$ wall-clock speedup from asynchronous execution. Source code is released under the MIT license at https://github.com/GGLAB-KU/treethink , and the library is accessible as a downloadable package at https://pypi.org/project/treethink/ .

We extend, in Isabelle/HOL, the deep-and-shallow embedding methodology of our prior work from propositional to first-order modal logic (FML) with constant-domain Kripke semantics. Three embeddings of FML into classical higher-order logic (HOL) are provided side by side: a deep embedding, a heavyweight maximal-shallow embedding, and a lightweight minimal-shallow embedding. The minimal-shallow embedding is presented as an Isabelle/HOL locale, parametrised by an accessibility relation, a world-indexed interpretation, a universe of worlds, and a variable assignment; the locale form admits a global faithfulness theorem, stating that quantifying over all minimal-shallow interpretations recovers exactly deep validity. A central technical contribution is a mechanisation, for FML under constant-domain Kripke semantics, of the (countable) downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem, which underpins the automation of our faithfulness proof between the deep and minimal-shallow embeddings. Deploying it inside an extension of the minimal-shallow locale resolves the surjectivity problem that arises against an uncountable domain of individuals -- where the locale's variable assignment, having countable domain V = nat, cannot be surjective onto the domain -- and thereby yields faithfulness over the full domain. Since prior work treats only the propositional fragment, we develop here the substitution machinery (free/bound-variable predicates, the fresh-variable function, capture-avoiding substitution, alphabetic renaming, the substitutability predicate, the substitution lemma, and size-based induction principles) needed for the first-order quantifiers.

Following Alon, Hanneke, Holzman, and Moran (FOCS 2021), we define a partial concept class (PCC) as a family of partial functions $f: V\to\{0,1,\ast\}$; equivalently, its concepts partition the ground set into black ($f^{-1}(1)$), grey ($f^{-1}(\ast)$), and white parts ($f^{-1}(0)$). Its VC dimension is defined by shattering sets on which the value $\ast$ is not taken. We study two geometric PCCs in real Banach spaces, both with a margin $δ>0$: expanded half-spaces, where the grey part is a strip of width at least $δ$ adjacent to a half-space, and expanded balls, where the grey part is an annulus of width $δ$ around a unit radius ball. Our main results are dimension-free upper bounds on the VC dimension of the PCC of expanded balls in $L_p\parenthμ$, $1\le p<\infty$, including the non-Euclidean and algorithmically particularly relevant case $\ell^d_1$. These bounds depend on the margin and on the radii, but not on the ambient dimension or the underlying measure space. These are extensions of the work of Bourneuf, Charbit, and Thomassé (FOCS 2025) who studied the PCC of expanded balls in Euclidean space, that is, $\ell_2^d$. We also prove lower bounds on the VC dimension that match the upper bounds in terms of the margin parameter $δ$. Finally, we derive a Dense Neighborhood Lemma in $L_p$-spaces, again extending the known Euclidean results. Our method relies on the linearization of the distance through a map into a space of non-trivial Rademacher type, and then the use of a balanced signed-sum estimate, or a no-dimensional Radon theorem. The arguments rely on ideas from functional analysis that are clearly explained for the non-expert in that field.

In this system paper, we present OpenProver, an open-source system for LLM-driven automated theorem proving (ATP) with integrated Lean 4 formal verification. OpenProver integrates a Planner-Worker-Verifier architecture inspired by recent ATP agentic systems such as Aletheia. A Planner agent maintains a compact Whiteboard scratchpad and an unbounded Repository of intermediate findings, and decomposes mathematical work into parallel Workers. OpenProver is fully open-source, offers reproducible evaluation through automatic formal verification of generated proofs, and provides an interactive terminal interface for human-guided proof search. In interactive mode, OpenProver allows the human operator to monitor and steer the proof search process, motivated by the established human-AI synergy in interactive code generation. To showcase the potential for quantitative ablation experiments enabled by automatic formal verification, we evaluate OpenProver on ProofNet and compare it with a simple baseline. OpenProver is publicly available at https://github.com/kripner/OpenProver.

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.

Formal verification offers the strongest guarantee of software correctness, but it does not scale: the proofs demanded by interactive theorem provers such as Coq require enormous expert effort. Large language models (LLMs) promise to generate these proofs automatically, yet existing approaches wire a fixed, human-designed proof strategy into the system and constrain the model to follow it (retrieving premises and predicting tactics one step at a time, or splitting goals by divide-and-conquer), and still prove only a fraction of their target theorems. We show that imposing such a strategy is unnecessary and limiting. Handing the whole lemma to a general LLM code agent (for example, Claude Code), free to choose its own approach, and wrapping it in a verification harness is both simpler and more effective, achieving full coverage: every targeted lemma proved, with no failures and no Coq expert intervention. The agent writes the proofs under feedback and hard constraints from the harness that keep each one sound (accepted only when the prover's kernel closes it), complete (no obligation left unproved or silently dropped), and terminating (no divergent tactics). We evaluate this harness plus code agent along three dimensions. (1) Core logic: on Iris, the state-of-the-art separation logic for concurrent and memory-manipulating programs, Aria proves all 4,257 lemmas of the four core modules and the 217 lemmas verifying Rust's standard libraries built on it, fully automatically. (2) Comparison with prior LLM provers: on reglang, where prior provers manage barely one in eight, Aria proves all 318. (3) Generality: on iris-lean, the unfinished Lean 4 port of Iris, it proves 72 not-yet-ported lemmas, showing the approach is not specific to Coq. A state-of-the-art model (Claude Opus 4.7) can write proofs for verified software development fully and automatically.

We present an empirical study of structural routing failure in large language models (LLMs) over a formally verified algebraic corpus. The task requires selecting the correct proof-mechanism label from a fixed closed template set for compact mathematical objects drawn from the FiberRing formalization in Lean 4, where each item is anchored to a Lean-verified artifact and assigned a label from the corresponding certificate family. Our central finding is a mechanism-level routing ceiling: under blind conditions, gpt-oss-120b achieves 80.3% template accuracy on 22 FiberRing items (n=66; temperature=0, seed=0), while Llama 3.3 70B reaches 68.2%. Exposing a mechanism-bearing Lean verdict/witness cue (Condition A2) raises accuracy to 90.9% and 81.8% -- gaps of +10.6 and +13.6 pp termed cue-induced routing uplift. The dominant failure is a CRT-to-ring-equivalence misroute: gpt-oss-120b misroutes 7 of 12 CRT items (58.3%) blind, zero under A2. A cross-model dissociation in Llama is notable: verdict accuracy is identical in both conditions (95.5%), while template accuracy improves 13.6 pp -- confirming that truth inference and proof-mechanism classification are separable capacities. A cross-corpus extension (Set B; 6 POM/CollisionKernel items, 72 evaluations) provides a small cross-module check: CRT-granularity compression reappears with different labels, and an inverse cross-model dissociation emerges. These findings extend the router hypothesis (Cazares 2026) to formal algebraic structures. The full pipeline, manifest, and results are at https://github.com/bytepro-ai/fiber-routing-eval.

AI reasoning has become a central focus in contemporary artificial intelligence, largely driven by the success of large language models. However, mathematical research, which is characterized by non-linear derivation paths, rigorous logical requirements, and protracted exploration cycles, poses severe challenges for existing reasoning systems. To overcome these limitations, we present the MechMath Agent Team (MMAT), which is a large language model driven agent designed to serve as a co-pilot throughout the full cycle of mathematical research. We design a tripartite Harness Architecture that decouples system responsibilities into Control, Execution, and Augmentation planes, thereby reconciling rigorous logical control with the agility demanded by open-ended research. Building upon this framework, we instantiate three specialized agents: a Knowledge Base Manager, a Natural Language Prover, and a Formal Language Prover, all operating in a closed loop to produce formally certified mathematical proofs. We evaluate MMAT on open problems in Number Theory, Algebraic Complexity Theory, Differential Algebra, Operator Algebra, and Inequalities. Across a two-month deployment, 11 problems have been solved, demonstrating its capacity to act as a co-pilot throughout the entire research cycle. The contributions are threefold: a general decoupled Harness Architecture for multi-agent mathematical reasoning, its concrete instantiation in the MMAT system, and empirical validation on a diverse suite of open problems.

We present a case study in reformalization, a variant of autoformalization in which the input proof is not natural language but a formal development in a different proof assistant. Concretely, we report three reformalizations of the Jordan Curve Theorem: from Mizar to Lean, from HOL Light to Lean, and from HOL Light to Agda. We analyse the results and identify pipeline design choices that matter for practical reformalization tasks.

When should an AI system's answer be trusted? Formal proof assistants offer certainty but cannot reach most of the problem distribution; scalar LLM judges offer coverage but produce opaque scores that cannot be audited after the fact and are subject to the same coherence issues as any LLM. We present Theoria, a verification architecture that closes this gap. A candidate solution is rewritten into a sequence of typed state transitions, each licensed by an explicit justification, whether that be a citation, computation, or problem-given fact, and every transition is independently auditable. The foundational invariant is completeness of change: every difference between consecutive proof states must be accounted for, so hidden premises surface as unlicensed mutations rather than passing silently. On HLE-Verified Gold (185 text-only expert problems), Theoria certifies 105 at 91.4% strict precision (Wilson 95% CI [84.5%, 95.4%]). Every certification produces a human readable proof trace in which each step can be independently challenged. Holistic LLM judges achieve comparable precision at matched coverage but fail on different problems (Jaccard 0.14-0.36), making the approaches complementary. On 95 adversarial poisoned proofs across 15 domains, structured judges catch 94.7% versus 83.2% for holistic judging (p= 0.0017). The overall 11.5 pp gap concentrates in hidden premises (90.6% vs. 62.5%, a 28 pp difference) and fabricated citations (100% vs. 90%), the error classes where the formal analysis predicts an advantage; performance is identical on arithmetic and theorem-misapplication errors, where no advantage is predicted. On GPQA Diamond (n= 65), certified precision is 97.1% (Wilson CI [85.1%, 99.5%]).

SAT solvers settle combinatorial problems beyond the reach of interactive theorem provers and produce LRAT certificates for independent verification. We present LRAT-Catcher, a standalone, general-purpose tool that imports a DIMACS formula together with an LRAT certificate into Lean 4 as a theorem. LRAT-Catcher runs the formally verified LRAT checker from Lean core as compiled native code via reflection. This scales to instances where Mathlib's explicit proof-term import exhausts memory. LRAT-Catcher also composes cube-and-conquer solving runs entirely inside Lean. Per-cube refutations are combined with a cover-completeness certificate, itself an LRAT proof, into a single unsatisfiability theorem. Verified encodings connect CNF-level results to the original combinatorial problems. We evaluate the tool against Mathlib's proof-term import and the external checker cake_lpr on establishing the Schur number S(4) = 44 and the Ramsey number R(4,4) = 18 as Lean theorems.

We investigate two approaches for extending CEGAR-tableaux with SAT-shortcuts using a previously known approach called RECAR but also a totally new approach using the modal resolution theorem prover KSP as an oracle. Our experiments using our C++ implementation CEGARBox++ of CEGAR-tableaux show that: (1) CEGARBox++ with RECAR SAT-shortcuts is not competitive (2) CEGARBox++ using KSP to provide SAT-shortcuts is superior to both CEGARBox++ and KSP, particularly on large satisfiable problems. As far as we know, this is the first effective integration of SAT, tableaux and resolution methods for modal satisfiability which performs better than its parts.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in mathematical reasoning, they frequently produce subtle errors that evade human detection. Formal mathematical languages like Lean 4 offer mechanical proof checking, strongly motivating the need for autoformalization: the automatic translation of natural language mathematics into verifiable code. Recent trends indicate that general-purpose LLMs, heavily optimized for standard programming, now outperform smaller models explicitly fine-tuned for Lean. Leveraging this shift, we introduce an agentic autoformalization framework powered by general coding LLMs. At the core of our system is an orchestrator that manages a multi-agent pipeline tailored for research-level mathematics. Because cutting-edge research frequently relies on concepts outside the scope of existing libraries like Mathlib, our system dynamically extends necessary type definitions and validates them via a novel Auxiliary Lemma technique before formalizing the primary theorems. We applied our approach to PutnamBench, producing machine-checked Lean proofs for a random sample of 32 problems. Furthermore, we evaluate our system on five papers from the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) spanning combinatorics, communication complexity, mechanism design, and learning theory, successfully formalizing their main theorems and validating the generated formalizations with human experts; for all five we also formalize the proofs alongside the statements, and notably two of them are proved with no axioms beyond Lean's kernel. All of our formalizations are available at https://beyondthelibrary.github.io/formal_arxiv .

Lean verifies that a generated declaration is well typed, but not that it expresses the statement a user intended. We study two questions for autoformalization without canonical Lean targets: whether LLM judges can provide a usable proxy for human semantic review, and how much compilation overstates faithfulness across systems. Our criterion combines Lean compilation with strict semantic consensus between GPT-5.2 and Gemini-2.5-Pro. On an independently audited random sample, it agrees with human majority on 89.7% of cases (Wilson 95% CI: 82.1--94.3%). Across eight systems evaluated on 400 graduate-level statements, every system has a nonzero compile--faithfulness gap, whose observed magnitude ranges from 3.0 to 29.0 percentage points. The full GPT-5.2 tool-augmented agent shows the largest gap, compiling 89.5% while satisfying the semantic criterion on 60.5%. Human review, an independent third-family judge, and a BEq formal cross-check provide complementary evidence that the accepted core is reliable and that most audited outputs in the gap are genuine semantic mismatches. A secondary $2^3$ factorial analysis shows that elaboration feedback is the largest validity intervention, yet does not eliminate semantic drift. LLM judging is therefore useful as a human-calibrated, conservative aggregate measure, not as an equivalence oracle.

We present a complete formal proof that transformer architectures, when their internal update mechanisms satisfy a Bayes joint-distribution condition, implement exact Bayesian posterior inference. Working within the measure-theoretic kernel framework, we define a hierarchy of abstractions -- from the core Bayesian transformer, through semantic transformers with explicit update kernels, to full transformer blocks with QKV/attention/residual/MLP pipelines, and finally multilayer stacks -- and prove at each level that the Bayes joint semantics implies the update kernel equals the posterior almost everywhere. For the block-level architecture, we derive the explicit Bayes formula through Radon-Nikodym differentiation and prove its normalization. We additionally prove that the softmax attention mechanism induces a valid probability distribution over keys, establishing the bridge between the abstract kernel framework and concrete attention implementations. The framework makes no architectural assumptions beyond the Markov kernel structure and exposes explicit conditions under which a transformer block is provably Bayesian. In essence, when this joint distribution condition is satisfied, the forward computation of a Transformer is formally equivalent to a rigorous Bayesian posterior update.

Benchmarks for LLM-assisted theorem proving in Lean are often treated as intrinsically reliable because every solved instance comes with a machine-checked proof. However, the kernel only checks that a proof establishes a \emph{formal} statement; it does not verify that the statement faithfully encodes the intended informal problem, nor that evaluation harnesses are robust to trivial or adversarial solutions. We audit five widely used Lean theorem-proving benchmarks and their forks, using corpus-scale static checkers to surface 4,833 findings, including 398 mechanically certified issues such as counterexamples, vacuous theorems, and unsound axioms. We also document semantic defects such as missing hypotheses, problem simplification, incomplete or incorrect translations, and Lean-specific specification hazards. Beyond dataset construction, we survey evaluation-time failure modes and show, on corrected subsets, that defects can both inflate and deflate reported prover scores. We propose a fault taxonomy, a suite of automated checkers and recall-oriented semantic audit prompts, and release standards to guide the creation of formal math datasets and to make evaluation more reproducible and trustworthy. Our checkers, audit prompts, and corrected dataset snapshots are available at https://github.com/Shashi456/atp-checkers.

Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify. Interactive theorem provers such as Lean 4 address this by accepting only kernel-checked proofs; however, their reach is bounded by the formalized knowledge available. While Mathlib, a repository of formalized Lean 4 theorems that covers diverse mathematical areas, certain specialized areas remain underrepresented; notably, the domain of Combinatorics on Words (CoW). CoW studies sequences, exploring their properties such as periodicity, borders, conjugacy, and morphisms. As a result, specialized provers, trained on Mathlib-centered data, lack the lemmas to operate in CoW. We present two contributions. First, we introduce a Lean 4 formalization of CoW containing eight modules and \textbf{93} declarations of core definitions and foundational lemmas. Second, we present LAMP, a multi-agent framework that synthesizes kernel-verified Lean 4 proofs by providing explicit, structured domain knowledge at inference time through an ontology, rather than by fine-tuning a prover. LAMP coordinates a Planner, Builder, and Verifier with Model Context Protocol based access to a domain-specific CoW ontology. In a suite of 90 CoW theorems that span all eight modules and three difficulty levels, LAMP synthesizes verified proofs for 96.7% of theorems, substantially exceeding both an unscaffolded baseline and existing specialized provers. An ablation shows that removing LAMP's tool-grounded architecture or its Planner/Builder separation each cost roughly 12 percentage points, even with the backbone model held fixed.

Recent artificial intelligence (AI) systems have shown remarkable progress in mathematical reasoning. Many existing approaches, including large language models (LLMs), draw on human prior knowledge in the form of mathematical text, code, or theorem libraries. Although these approaches are highly effective in practice, it remains an open question whether an agent can autonomously discover useful theorems without such human priors. We study this question in a formal axiomatic system by developing an agent that starts from axioms and inference rules alone and gradually grows a library of useful theorems. Concretely, we propose a self-supervised theorem-discovery algorithm that alternates between proof search and useful-theorem extraction, building a theorem library whose entries are reused as lemmas for subsequent proof search. Experiments show that the agent discovers tens of thousands of theorems and finds proofs for human-written benchmark problems, suggesting that its discoveries include theorems meaningful from a human mathematical perspective. Furthermore, the discovered theorems improve LLM proof performance when provided as prompt lemmas, indicating that they can serve as external knowledge for LLM reasoning. Our results provide evidence that useful theorems can emerge from proof search without relying on human-provided theorem libraries. More broadly, they suggest a path toward self-evolving AI systems for mathematics whose discoveries remain formally verifiable.

We present AXLE (Axiom Lean Engine), a cloud service for Lean 4 proof manipulation, extraction, and verification. Recent progress in AI for mathematics -- reinforcement learning pipelines, agentic proving workflows, dataset curation -- demands Lean 4 tooling that scales to millions of requests while remaining correct and robust; existing infrastructure offers parallel compilation but not scalable proof verification, higher-level proof manipulation, multi-version support, or per-request isolation at the throughput modern AI workflows require. AXLE provides 14 Lean 4 metaprogramming tools spanning strict proof verification, declaration metadata extraction, semantic source manipulation, deterministic proof repair and simplification, and lemma extraction. The service runs as a multi-tenant cloud deployment with per-request isolation and concurrent support for multiple Lean 4 and Mathlib versions, accessible via a Python SDK, command-line interface, web UI, MCP server, and raw HTTP API. AXLE is publicly available and free to use at https://axle.axiommath.ai and via the axiom-axle PyPI package, with no local Lean 4 installation required. It has served over 500 million requests to date and is the underlying infrastructure for Axiom Math's proving efforts, including its 12/12 score on the 2025 Putnam competition.

While reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) typically has relied on a single binary verification signal, symbolic proof assistants in formal reasoning offer rich, fine-grained structured feedback. This gap between structured processes and unstructured rewards highlights the importance of feedback that is both dense and sound. In this work, we demonstrate that the Lean proof assistant itself can serve as a symbolic process oracle, supplying both outcome-level and fine-grained tactic-level verified feedback during training. Proof attempts are parsed into tactic sequences, and Lean's elaboration marks both locally sound steps and the earliest failing step, yielding dense, verifier-grounded credit signals rooted in type theory. We incorporate these structured rewards into a GRPO-style reinforcement learning objective with first-error propagation and first-token credit methods that balances outcome- and process-level advantages. Experiments with STP-Lean and DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5 show that tactic-level supervision outperforms outcome-only baselines in most settings, delivering improvements on benchmarks such as MiniF2F and ProofNet. Beyond empirical gains, our study highlights a broader perspective: symbolic proof assistants are not only verifiers at evaluation time, but can also act as process-level reward oracles during training. This opens a path toward reinforcement learning frameworks that combine the scalability of language models with the reliability of symbolic verification for formal reasoning.

Reliable quantum control in the presence of decoherence requires policies that combat the effect of environmental noise on the controlled dynamics. Open quantum systems under continuous monitoring generate classical measurement records whose drift depends on the noise experienced by the system; the records of two evolutions sharing the same decoherence channels differ only in this drift, so Girsanov's theorem yields a closed-form, differentiable estimator of the KL divergence between their trajectory distributions. We instantiate this estimator with two physically motivated reference measures, yielding two regularizers that both drive the system toward states where the effects of decoherence are minimal: the Wiener KL (KL_W), which is empirically more effective under certain conditions on the noise model, and the drift-variance regularizer (R_DV), which works for all noise models. Both are qualitatively distinct from existing penalties on control fluence or smoothness: they penalize the observable consequences of control on the decoherence channels rather than the control amplitude itself. The regularizers outperform unregularized gradient-based and reinforcement-learning baselines across a range of open quantum systems -- including single- and multi-qubit benchmarks and a multi-qubit chain calibrated to a published snapshot of the IBM Kingston processor -- along several axes of evaluation: final-state fidelity, robustness to mismatch in the assumed noise model (gains grow from +17 pp at training noise to +27 pp under 2.5x noise mismatch), and occupation of forbidden states. The regularizers reduce infidelity by up to 50%, with ~16% gains on the calibrated IBM Kingston chain.