Formal Verification

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.

LLM agents handle user requests on behalf of organizations through tool calls and must follow the company policies stated in their system prompts. Prior work approaches this as a safeguarding problem -- external checks that block non-compliant agent actions. We argue that policy adherence is a broader problem: real workflows unfold across many turns, require explicit user confirmation and prerequisite reads, and hinge on the content of the dialogue rather than on any single argument value. Meeting this bar requires (i) full conversation context, (ii) self-reasoning over the policy and the current dialogue, and (iii) conversation-specific remediation that guides the agent's next turn -- three capabilities that prior safeguard work has often underestimated. We introduce POLICYGUARD, a sub-agent verifier that shares the agent's view of the dialogue, reasons over the policy in context, and provides actionable feedback for the agent's next turn. On tau^2-BENCH airline across three vendors (GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro) with four trials per setting, POLICYGUARD improves PASS4 by +12.0 / +6.0 / +12.0 pp. Per-call analyses show POLICYGUARD achieves higher policy-violation recall while blocking roughly half as often as argument-level guards.

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.

The axiom of choice has divided the foundations of mathematics for over a century, but the distinction between classical and constructive proofs has remained a philosophical and methodological one. We use Lean 4's kernel-level tracking of axiom dependence to show that the axiom of choice has a measurable geometric correlate in proof space that obeys a one-parameter mixture law and has operational consequences for neural theorem provers. To do this, we partition $471{,}260$ declarations of Mathlib by transitive dependence on the axiom of choice and represent a filtered population of $42{,}355$ traced theorems by their sequences of tactic invocations. We use the constructive proofs in this dataset to train a self-supervised proof encoder and show that when using it to measure classical proofs, three complementary measurements (anomaly score, reconstruction loss, and density-superlevel containment) exhibit a common decline with the proof's distance from the axiom in the dependency graph, from sharp separation at the shallow boundary (AUC $0.847$ at distance $2$) to indistinguishability at distance~$9{+}$. Robustness controls show that the signature survives length, file, author, and topic controls, and replicates under full-source encoders trained on normalised proof source. Operationally, we show that on an evaluation sample of $251$ Mathlib theorems, Lean's \texttt{aesop} tactic solves constructive theorems at $13\times$ the rate of classical ones, and a neural-guided hybrid using the ReProver tactic generator compresses the gap to $5\times$. The geometric anomaly score predicts \texttt{aesop} failure beyond proof length, providing an operational link between the geometric signature and prover performance.

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.

Geometry Problem Solving have increasingly adopt the neuro-symbolic paradigm, combining neural intuition with symbolic rigor. However, current frameworks suffer from severe bottlenecks in two core stages: autoformalization, which treats multimodal translation as a static task decoupled from downstream solver compatibility, and theorem prediction, where solvers frequently hit a deductive impasse due to fixed rule libraries. To address these, we propose SD-GPS, a solver-driven framework that treats the symbolic solver as an execution oracle throughout both formalization and deduction. First, Solver-Driven Autoformalization unifies supervised formal-language adaptation and solvability-guided reinforcement learning into a single module built on QwenVL3-2B, making executability the central training signal. Second, Verified Theorem Proposing introduces an impasse-aware agent that proposes local auxiliary lemmas from current proof states, ensuring soundness by filtering all proposals through symbolic verification. Empirical evaluations on Geometry3K and PGPS9K demonstrate that SD-GPS consistently outperforms existing MLLM, neural, and neuro-symbolic methods across standard completion, multiple-choice, and cross-modal reference regimes, proving that closing the loop between multimodal perception and symbolic execution significantly improves geometric reasoning, offering profound insights into how neural agents can be grounded by formal systems to achieve verifiable problem-solving capabilities.

Program verifiers play a central role in training coding agents, including selecting trajectories for supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and providing rewards for reinforcement learning (RL). Standard execution-based verification requires running unit tests inside per-repository environments such as Docker images, incurring substantial environment setup costs. We propose Dockerless, an environment-free agentic patch verifier that evaluates generated code patches without executing them. Rather than simply matching candidate patches to references, Dockerless judges patch correctness using evidence gathered through agentic repository exploration. On a verifier evaluation benchmark, Dockerless outperforms the strongest open-source verifier by 14.3 AUC points. Using Dockerless as both the SFT trajectory filter and the RL reward enables a fully environment-free post-training pipeline. The resulting model reaches 62.0%, 50.0%, and 35.2% resolve rate on SWE-bench Verified, Multilingual, and Pro, respectively. It surpasses the Qwen3.5-9B baseline by 2.4, 8.7, and 2.9 points, matching environment-based post-training.

Vision-language models (VLMs) often produce hallucinated or inconsistent outputs, where text and images are not properly aligned. Addressing this issue requires not only detecting misalignment but also explaining the discrepancy and localizing its visual evidence. We introduce GAVEL (Grounded Caption Error Verification and Localization), a task that jointly addresses verification, explanation, and localization for image-text pairs. To support systematic evaluation, we also present a corresponding dataset and benchmark. We further train a supervised baseline on the human-annotated training split to assess whether GAVEL provides learnable supervision for these abilities. Experiments show that even strong closed-source models struggle on GAVEL, while the supervised baseline yields consistent improvements across grounding and explanation metrics.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems often rely on verifier and critic agents to suppress hallucinations, but verification is delayed. During this delay, false claims can propagate through the agent network. We model this process as delayed consensus on a graph with grounded corrector nodes. Spectral decomposition by the grounded Laplacian yields a closed-form stability threshold for the verification dose: correction that is too strong or too delayed can turn consensus into oscillation. The most unstable regime occurs when the communication and verification delays coincide; for delay two, the threshold is the inverse golden ratio. The same framework gives a supermodular placement objective and a greedy (1-1/e)-approximation rule for assigning a limited corrector budget to influential nodes. Experiments across five open models confirm the predicted dose-delay oscillations. By contrast, grounded factual answering makes truth an absorbing boundary and eliminates the effect, suggesting that the instability is specific to signed-belief tasks while grounded verification remains stabilizing

Agent safety in high-stakes domains requires formal policy enforcement, but most existing approaches either rely on probabilistic guardrails (fine-tuned classifiers, prompt-based steering) that offer no formal guarantees, or on hand-coded symbolic enforcement that does not scale to the breadth of real policy specifications. We present an autoformalization pipeline that translates agent prompts, MCP tool descriptions, and natural language policy documents into formally verified policies using an LLM-based generator-critic loop. The resulting policies are written in the Cedar Policy Language. On the MedAgentBench benchmark, our autoformalized policies cover substantially more of the source natural-language specification than the hand-coded symbolic enforcement in prior work.

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.

Static verification tools can assure industrial scale software, but require significant human labor to write specifications. This is particularly true of static verifiers based on separation logic (SL verifiers), which excel at verifying heapmanipulating programs, but require many complex auxiliary specifications to reason about heap structure. Recent work applies large language models (LLMs) to generate code, tests, and proofs, including specifications for verifiers, but mostly targeting non-SL verifiers. To address this gap, this paper thoroughly evaluates how well LLMs perform when prompted to generate specifications for verifying 303 C functions with the SL verifier VeriFast. We explored eight prompting approaches, ten LLMs, and three input types in two stages. Quantitative and qualitative analyses are used to assess the LLM-generated code and specifications for functional behavior, verifiability and errors. The results show that LLMs preserve functional behavior in source code and specifications (both over 91%), but achieve modest verification success (31.4%). Using Gemini 2.5 Pro and providing formal contracts lead to higher success rates in our setting. Moreover, most errors (94%) come from LLMs' mistakes in the domainspecific knowledge of SL verifiers such as VeriFast. These findings provide guidance for optimizing LLM-generated specifications for SL verifiers.

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.

A classical intuition holds that verifying a solution is easier than producing one. For today's coding agents, this intuition is being inverted: as foundation models develop stronger reasoning capabilities and engineering harnesses grow more sophisticated, generating complex candidate solutions is no longer difficult -- reliably verifying them has become the harder problem. Every verifier we can build is only a proxy for human intent, never the intent itself. This makes verification subject to a twofold difficulty: first, intent is underspecified by nature, making it inherently hard to faithfully check whether it has been fulfilled; second, during model training, optimization widens the gap between proxy and intent -- manifesting as reward hacking or signal saturation. To address this, we characterize the quality of verification signals along three dimensions -- scalability, faithfulness, and robustness -- and argue that achieving all three simultaneously is the central challenge. We further study four reward constructions: a test verifier for general coding tasks, a rubric verifier for frontend tasks, the user as verifier for real-world agent tasks, and an automated agent verifier for long-horizon tasks. Across different task types and policy capability levels, we conduct in-depth analysis and experiments on the core challenges of reward design and how to more effectively leverage reward signals. Experiments show that targeted verification design can effectively suppress reward hacking, improve task completion quality, and achieve significant gains across multiple internal and public benchmarks. These experiences collectively point to a core observation: no fixed reward function can remain effective as policy capability continues to grow; and verification must co-evolve with the generator.

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.

Runtime assurance (RTA) protects a safety-critical system by switching from an advanced controller to a verified safe controller when a monitored condition is violated. The standard latching rule, which trips on the first breach of the safe set and then coasts, is correct for a diverging controller but pathological for a capable online-adapting one. Such a controller is unsafe by design during a bounded recovery transient. It must excite the plant to identify the fault before it can correct it, so a latching shield trips on that transient and suppresses a controller that would have recovered. We introduce the conformal recovery-deadline certificate, a split-conformal, distribution-free, finite-sample upper bound on the adapting controller's recovery time that licenses delayed fallback with a coverage guarantee, backstopped by a verified monitor at a hard critical limit. The certified deadline discriminates capable from incapable controllers, keeping the recoverer autonomous while catching the diverger. The construction separates autonomy, governed by statistical coverage, from safety, governed by the verified backstop, as an instance of reliability-asymmetric design. We prove marginal coverage, a weighted extension that restores coverage under a known fault-distribution shift, and group-conditional Mondrian coverage. We demonstrate all three on two unrelated Simplex testbeds: a 6-DOF spacecraft attitude controller and a torque-controlled inverted pendulum. Both show the same suppression pathology and the same cure, making the certificate a domain-general mechanism rather than a single-system trick.

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.

Post-training a code generator against a learned judge can optimize proxy features that raise the score without improving the artifact. We study the opposite signal: a deterministic, judge-free, ungameable filter -- whether a generated project launches cleanly under a headless engine (strict-launch). Under this gate, rejection-sampling self-distillation compounds out-of-family generalization. On GameCraft-Bench (mapping a natural-language brief to a complete Godot project), a 14B model (Qwen3-14B+LoRA) distilled under strict-launch raises clean generation on four unseen game families from 8.8% to 42.2% per-candidate and best-of-K coverage from 18/25 to 25/25 (the gold ceiling) over three rounds, each a significant gain (p=0.0019, p<1e-4, p<1e-4). The gain is not from merely adding data: an exactly-matched gold-duplication control regresses below the base model (5.6% vs. 8.8%, p=0.019), while a count-matched decomposition splits the round-1-to-2 jump into comparable quality (+8.8pp) and quantity (+8.5pp) channels. Most directly, rerunning the loop with only the filter swapped -- the lenient BUILD check, which passes 99.9% of generations, in place of the launch gate -- erases the gain entirely (back to base, p=1e-3 vs. the launch-gated round), isolating verifier precision rather than the optimizer. A second ungameable signal, headless execution grounding, rises monotonically across rounds and yields far more grounded candidates than gold-duplication at a matched budget (16 vs. 5), confirming the gains are functional, not launch-but-empty. Game generation is a verifiable testbed for one lesson: the verifier is the curriculum -- what it certifies is what the model learns.

Formal verification produces machine-checkable certificates that attest to the satisfaction or violation of temporal properties, yet these certificates remain opaque to non-specialist stakeholders. We propose a cycle-consistent neural architecture that generates faithful natural language explanations of verification certificates. A forward network NN1 maps certificates to explanations, and an inverse network NN2 reconstructs certificates from explanations; a symbolic verifier closes the loop, providing a differentiable faithfulness proxy. A pointer-generator mechanism ensures lexical grounding by copying state names directly from the certificate. We evaluate on 420 test certificates spanning six verification methods (bounded proof, k-induction, inductive invariant, lasso, reachability, witness pair) in both YES and NO verdict variants, drawn from a financial compliance domain with 207 named states. Our trained architecture, combined with a hybrid inference-time routing strategy, achieves 90.0% cycle-verified soundness, surpassing a multi- LLM few-shot baseline (76.1% for the best of 16 LLM combinations across four frontier models) by 13.9 percentage points. The neural model wins on 10 of 12 verdict/kind categories, with three categories reaching 100% soundness. The architecture offers 860x faster inference (185 ms vs. 160 s per certificate for the full multi-LLM baseline), offline operation, deterministic outputs, and zero per-inference cost. These results demonstrate that trained specialization outperforms general-purpose LLM prompting for structured certificate explanation, while eliminating the deployment constraints of cloud-based inference.

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.

A single forward pass of a capable model is a fast, fluent, and unreliable problem-solver: it is right often enough to be useful and wrong often enough to be dangerous; in language models, such confident errors are known as hallucinations. We present Maestro Order, a model-agnostic orchestration harness that turns unreliable solvers into reliable problem-solving systems by composing them according to four structural primitives (decompose, ensemble, verify, and recurse) and a budget-aware controller that decides where to spend compute. The harness treats any model as a black-box base solver behind a uniform interface, layers a verifier ensemble whose discrimination is measured online, and allocates verification and voting to the stages with the highest marginal reliability per unit cost. We give the architecture, the message and state schema, the controller algorithm, and the engineering that makes it deterministic, observable, and fault-tolerant. We then specify an evaluation methodology (reliability at fixed cost, coverage, calibration, and ablations) and report results from a faithful Monte Carlo simulation of the harness over a parameterized solver/verifier model. The simulation reproduces the predicted laws quantitatively: verification amplifies reliability geometrically (e.g. $0.55\to0.98$ with two gates, $\to0.999$ with four), voting helps only above chance and is limited by shared errors, and a budget-aware controller reaches a target reliability at a small fraction of the cost of voting alone by selecting the cheapest mechanism for each regime. We close with failure modes (verifier gaming, correlated errors, and decomposition error compounding) and concrete guidance: build robust checkers, diversify solvers, and let the controller put compute where the information is.

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 article develops an architecture that creates a formally verifiable reward signal to train legal AI, adapting the LLM proposes, verifier disposes paradigm from mathematical AI to the distinctive demands of law. We present an architecture comprising LLM-driven autoformalization into a formal legal calculus extending Catala, a verification kernel, and explanation generation grounded in formal proof traces. For the computational components of law, the architecture provides provable correctness. For open-textured legal analysis, it provides structural guarantees: every required stage of the legal argument is addressed, argumentation is exercised at the correct stages and not omitted, and the deductive links between steps are valid. We demonstrate the architecture on procedural deadline calculations in German law, Commerce Clause analysis in U.S. constitutional law, and cross-jurisdictional sanction proportionality. We further show that the same architecture has a structural advantage for legal AI training: a deterministic external verifier supplies verifiable outcomes for legal problems and thereby closes the traditional reinforcement-learning loop gap in law.

PLCverif is the most mature open-source platform for PLC formal verification, developed at CERN and in production use since 2019. Yet it has two fundamental limitations: no support for Ladder Diagram (LD) programs, the dominant PLC notation, and reliance on CBMC as its primary backend, which restricts verification to bounded proofs. The PLCverif authors themselves identified ESBMC as the appropriate backend improvement. Prior work established ESBMC-PLC (a textual LD frontend with k-induction) and ESBMC-GraphPLC (graphical PLCopen XML support); together, they cover LD with unbounded proofs but not Structured Text (ST), and graphical LD with timer/counter function blocks remains unverifiable. This paper presents ESBMC-PLC+, a unified framework that closes both gaps: (1) an ST/SCL frontend via the MATIEC IEC 61131-3 compiler, routing C-compiled ST to ESBMC with nondeterministic input modeling and YAML property injection; (2) function block state semantics for graphical LD, extending the DFS resolver to model TON/TOF/TP timers, CTU/CTD counters, and R_TRIG/F_TRIG edge triggers as persistent scan-cycle state variables in the GOTO IR. ESBMC-PLC+ is the first open-source PLC verification framework to support all three major IEC 61131-3 input formats via a single ESBMC backend, enabling k-induction-unbounded safety proofs. A feature comparison with PLCverif and experimental evaluation on 8 benchmark programs, including programs with up to 8 integer timers, shows that ESBMC-PLC+ matches PLCverif's input coverage while providing stronger guarantees. Against nuXmv's BDD backend, ESBMC-PLC+ is 400-2,000x faster on timer programs and completes proofs where nuXmv BDD times out at 120s.

We propose cryptographic certificates of validity for agentic AI systems. The core idea is to formally specify a correctness or policy condition as a logical predicate, compile this predicate to a witness-checking problem over polynomial constraints, and use a succinct cryptographic proof system (and optionally zero-knowledge) to certify that the condition holds. This offers a middle ground between formal verification of source code, and cryptographic authentication. An agent's action can be accompanied by an independently checkable proof that it satisfies an agreed formal policy, without requiring the verifier to trust the agent or to re-execute computation. We outline the approach at a high level, give the core mathematical translation, relate the proposal to proof-carrying code, zkVMs, formal methods, and agent governance, and note the specification, auditing, and deployment questions that a full implementation must answer.

Scaling reinforcement learning for visual mathematical reasoning requires more than generating harder questions: as data volume grows, the reward labels themselves must remain reliable. Yet existing data pipelines scale supervision while trusting the labeller, and policy-side methods assume the underlying answers are already correct. We instead treat scaling as a verifiable data-construction problem and decouple two axes before any policy update: prompt difficulty, expanded by route-specific evolution operators, and answer reliability, enforced by offline hypothesis-test falsification. We instantiate this as VeriEvol, an iterative framework with two extensible components: a type-aware evolution module that rewrites low-difficulty image-question seeds into harder, image-grounded prompts; and HTV-Agent, a verifier that accepts an answer only after multi-source counter-evidence has failed to refute it. The resulting verified data scales in volume, extends by adding evolution routes or verifier channels, and plugs directly into existing GRPO-style RL recipes. On a five-benchmark visual-math suite, scaling evolved SFT data from 10K to 250K samples raises the mean accuracy from 35.42 to 54.73; then, with backbone, SFT initialization, and GRPO recipe held fixed, VeriEvol adds a cumulative +3.88 over an un-evolved RL baseline, of which +1.82 comes from evolved prompts and +2.06 from the HTV-Agent verifier. We release the prompts, data, models, code, and the full verifier trace of every sample, so that downstream work can scale and audit the pipeline rather than only inspect its outputs.

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.

Training Latent Diffusion Models (LDMs) within Federated Learning (FL) has attracted increasing attention due to its ability to combine the powerful generative capacity of LDMs with the privacy-preserving properties of FL. However, FL requires sharing the global model with multiple participants, which risks unauthorized model distribution or resale by malicious clients. While an intuitive approach is to adopt existing VAE-based watermarking techniques for LDMs in FL, this strategy falls short in addressing such threats due to two fundamental challenges: (1) Existing methods support ownership verification but lack the ability to trace model leakage to a specific malicious client; (2) VAE-based watermarks are vulnerable, as they can be removed simply by replacing the decoder with a clean counterpart. In this paper, we propose FedOT, the first framework for ownership verification and leakage tracing in federated LDMs. Specifically, to address the first challenge, we design a chunked watermark, where the first part is for ownership verification, and the second part is used for client identification. Furthermore, to overcome the second challenge and secure the model against VAE replacement attack, we introduce Latent Vector Transformation (LVT), which strengthens the connection between the VAE and U-Net latent spaces by modifying the original latent distribution of the VAE. Consequently, any attempt to replace the VAE for watermark removal leads to significant image quality degradation, making the LDM model unusable. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FedOT achieves superior performance in both ownership verification and traceability. Project page: https://spyzixuan.github.io/FedOT/.

Large Language Models (LLMs) generate fluent long-form text, however, often add unsupported factual claims. Existing verification techniques improve factuality by grounding generation in external evidence. However, the same verification policy usually applies to all claims despite being differences in hallucination risks. We propose \textit{FACTOR} (\textit{FACTuality-Oriented Risk-aware Verification}), an inference-time model that adapts verification criteria according to claim-level uncertainty. FACTOR combines uncertainty estimation, adaptive language inference verification, and candidate re-ranking to allocate verification effort where it is most needed. We evaluate \textit{FACTOR} on FactScore benchmark showing that adaptive verification improves factuality while reducing verification cost simultaneously. We further perform different ablation studies to identify the primary driver of these gains. Our results show the effective and model-agnostic performance of \textit{FACTOR} for improving factuality in long-form generation.

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.

Current evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) on logical fallacy detection focus on predicted labels, but do not establish whether those labels are supported by the reasoning the models provide. We propose ForEx (Formal Verification for Explainable Reasoning), a framework that translates LLM-generated explanations into Lean4 and verifies whether the translated rationale is derivable under encoded premises, not the logical validity of the original natural language argument. To distinguish prediction outcomes from the formal status of the supporting reasoning, we introduce the LLM Argument Verification Matrix, which separates label consistency from formal verification status. Experiments on LOGIC-Climate show that over 90% of LLM outputs can be translated into formal reasoning chains that pass verification, while agreement with human annotations remains around 20%. These results expose a systematic gap between formal derivability and label agreement, a distinction invisible to prediction-based metrics. ForEx moves LLM evaluation beyond label correctness toward machine-checkable analysis of formalized reasoning chains.

LLM agents in knowledge intensive question answering take retrieval and reasoning actions with incomplete knowledge about whether their current answer is uncertain, unsupported, or already complete. This produces two failure modes: committing to confident but unsupported answers, which hurts accuracy, and over-retrieving when the evidence in hand already suffices, resulting in wasted compute. To give agents a more complete picture of the state space they are operating in, we introduce calibrated verifier telemetry (CalVerT), which augments the agent's state with additional telemetry: a calibrated self-confidence score and a grounding verifier score. We show that CalVerT can improve agents in both training-free and training-based settings. On four QA benchmarks, we find that CalVerT raises F1 by triggering retrieval in cases where agents over-rely on parametric knowledge, while cutting redundant retrieval in cases where agents have sufficient context to answer. We show that CalVerT can augment existing QA frameworks without training. Moreover, CalVerT also improves trained systems: by simply augmenting an agent's state with telemetry, we observe improvements after reinforcement learning, as compared to an agent with identical training but no CalVerT telemetry.

Large language models produce fluent but often incorrect multi-step reasoning, and naive correction methods risk degrading already-correct answers. We introduce Denoising Iterative Self-Correction (DISC), a test-time procedure that treats verification question outputs as noisy measurements of where a solution may be corrupted. Using these signals, DISC progressively reduces errors across multiple verify-judge-correct passes, analogous to traditional iterative denoising. A binary judgment gate controls correction precision by blocking rewrites that would damage already-correct answers while the verifier and corrector together repair errors. We evaluate this trade-off using two paired diagnostics: an improvement-to-degradation ratio (precision) and a repair rate (recall). Across three benchmarks (BIG-Bench Mistake, HotpotQA, GPQA Diamond) and four models, DISC dominates Chain-of-Verification and Self-Refine on the precision-recall trade-off, reaching 81.6% accuracy with 13x more improvements per degradation than Chain-of-Verification and 5x more than Self-Refine on BIG-Bench Mistake (Sonnet~4.5). On GPQA Diamond, we identify a capability floor below which judges acknowledge contradictions in evidence but cannot translate that recognition into a correction. We further show that cross-model role allocation -- assigning verification and judgment to a model different from the generator -- mitigates self-confirmation bias.

Language models can generate plausible rationales for their predictions, but these explanations may not faithfully represent the model's internal reasoning. We propose verifier-coupled reasoning, a framework that inserts inline claims into reasoning traces and trains an auxiliary consistency head to predict programmatic verifier outputs from rationale-span hidden states. The central finding is a gap between decodability and faithfulness: consistency training reliably makes verifier information decodable from rationale representations, but decodability does not guarantee faithful generation. In LeanCheck (formal theorem proving), rationale-only and proof-only pooling achieve perfect directional separation under counterfactual conflict. In KataGo (Go engine), commentary spans encode 10-way win-rate buckets at 81% accuracy. Yet in a code setting, the model achieves 98.6% coupling while its generated explanations remain unfaithful: fluent prose with correct structured claims, but describing unrelated algorithms; a controlled pretrained-vs-from-scratch comparison shows the gap is not capacity-driven. Synthetic activation patching confirms causal influence (73-89% vs. 31% baseline), FEVER reveals that evidence-only pooling isolates genuine evidence sensitivity at the cost of raw accuracy, and per-claim analysis shows that consistency loss disproportionately benefits fine-grained claims over binary ones. These results establish that consistency losses are effective diagnostics and representation-shaping tools, but not sufficient conditions for faithful reasoning.

Generating formal specifications for C programs remains a challenge in formal verification due to the manual effort, expertise, and semantic precision required. While recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer promise in automating specification synthesis, current approaches often lack semantic depth and produce unverifiable or incomplete contracts. To address these limitations, we introduce AutoACSL, a novel framework that integrates LLM prompting with semantic features extracted from Code Property Graphs (CPGs). AutoACSL performs static analyses to extract key semantic elements, including arithmetic operations, loop and recursion structures, and return value propagation, which are encoded into structured prompts. These prompts enable the LLM not only to generate normal behavioral specifications but also to include constraints that prevent inputs leading to runtime errors. AutoACSL employs a feedback-driven synthesis loop, where candidate specifications are verified using Frama-C/WP and refined iteratively until verification succeeds or a termination condition is met. Evaluated on 604 programs drawn from diverse datasets, AutoACSL achieves a 98% specification generation success ratio and a 96% full proof ratio when paired with Gemini-3. Compared to a code-only baseline, AutoACSL improves the full proof ratio by 24.7% to 51.7% across four LLMs (GPT-o4 Mini, GPT-5.2, Grok-4.1, and Gemini-3), demonstrating that integrating large language models with CPG-based static analysis substantially enhances both generation robustness and verification effectiveness for automated ACSL specification synthesis.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising path to automate Clinical Trial Matching (CTM), but still struggle with the deterministic verification required for complex eligibility criteria. Conversely, purely symbolic methods provide formal rigour but break down when faced with incomplete patient records and noisy clinical evidence. To bridge this gap, we investigate a hybrid framework for CTM combining LLMs with logical verification. In particular, we introduce an abductive neurosymbolic CTM framework (αNeSy-CTM), which leverages the linguistic and world knowledge in LLMs to support reasoning over noisy and underspecified clinical text. Extensive evaluation demonstrates that αNeSy-CTM substantially outperforms standalone LLM baselines, achieving up to 30% relative improvement over zero-shot baselines. In addition, our analyses confirm the impact of abductive reasoning on CTM, with αNeSy-CTM exhibiting improved accuracy, specificity, and robustness over a non-abductive neurosymbolic setting. Furthermore, αNeSy-CTM and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning prove highly complementary, highlighting the potential for a hybrid routing policy. Ultimately, this paper demonstrates the impact of neurosymbolic methods for automating CTM, providing a path toward the next generation of auditable, LLM-driven clinical applications.

Scientific discovery increasingly relies on automated systems that generate hypotheses, inspect multimodal evidence, and validate claims at scale. Yet scientific claim verification is not well served by asking a vision-language model for a direct binary judgment: claims often combine numerical results, comparisons, scope qualifiers, and explanatory context, while evidence is encoded in tables and figures with distinct grounding structures. We present SciLens, an evidence-conditioned atomic entailment framework for multimodal scientific claim verification. SciLens decomposes each claim into central empirical atoms and background atoms, grounds the central atoms to modality-specific evidence witnesses, and predicts the final label with an atom-level entailment rule. For tables, atoms are grounded to rows, columns, cells, arithmetic relations, and table scope; for figures, they are grounded through panels, axes, legends, visual encodings, categories, trends, ranks, and qualifier checks. This yields a unified validation procedure in which a claim is supported only if every central empirical atom is entailed by the current evidence. On the SciClaimEval development set, SciLens achieves 79.2% macro-F1 and 63.1% pair accuracy, showing that structured agentic validation improves both evidence sensitivity and interpretability.

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.

In this work we present a LLM powered, evolutionary code synthesis system for structured data translation in a Medical Internet of Things settings. A key challenge in this domain is ensuring that the synthesized code is trustworthy and reliable. To this end, we integrate a formal verification step into our code synthesis pipeline to ensure that any generated code is guaranteed to satisfy predefined requirements. In particular, we present a case study of integrating a novel device (a pulse oximeter) into the existing network of devices. Our system generates a formally verified translation between the device's JSON schema and the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) format used by the wider system. This formal verification stage ensures structured data translated by the generated code will always be in the target output schema. We provide a set of experimental results which demonstrate that our system is able to consistently generate correct translation at low cost.

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.

Test-time reasoning is increasingly used as a serving-time control knob, but extra reasoning is not uniformly valuable: it can repair failed attempts, waste compute on already-correct answers, or introduce harmful answer changes. We study this as a deployment allocation problem rather than a new-verifier problem. We introduce \sevra, Selective Verification for Reasoning Allocation, a serving-layer controller that decides whether to preserve a frozen solver's initial answer or invoke active verification. Using a frozen Qwen3-4B solver, we log intervention outcomes and train recoverability-aware gates from serving-visible attempt state. On \mathfive, selective verification reaches 76.3% accuracy, compared with 75.5% for always verifying, while reducing post-generation tokens by 26.8% and harmful flips from 2.2% to 1.0%. However, an 8,192-token initial solve reaches 76.0% accuracy with 28% fewer total model tokens, showing that selective recovery is useful but not the best tested cost frontier. In frozen transfer to \gsm, the selective policy verifies only 3.0% of examples, improves accuracy from 93.4% to 94.5%, and reduces verification tokens by 91.2% relative to always verifying; again, a longer initial solve matches its accuracy with fewer realized tokens. On CommonsenseQA, always-on verification hurts, while Self-Consistency@5 improves accuracy at about five times the realized token cost. The resulting deployment rule is: tune the initial budget first, then use selective recovery when explicit checks, bounded retries, auditability, or regression-risk control matter.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) enables agents to develop coordination strategies through emergent communication, but neural policies lack the formal safety guarantees required for safety-critical robotic deployment in drone swarms and autonomous vehicle fleets. We present the first end-to-end framework for safety verification of learned multi-agent communication policies through policy abstraction: neural policies are distilled into interpretable decision trees, then formally verified, with empirical validation confirming that verified safety properties transfer to original networks. Our four-stage pipeline consists of domain-specific feature extraction from agent observations, decision tree distillation achieving 97.9% +/- 1.2% fidelity to neural policies, automated translation to PRISM probabilistic model checker specifications with complete feature-to-state-variable correspondence, and compositional verification of Probabilistic Computation Tree Logic (PCTL) properties via pairwise decomposition with union-bound aggregation and empirical neighbor modeling. Evaluating Vector-Quantized Variational Information Bottleneck (VQ-VIB) policies for multi-drone coordination with 5-7 agents, we verify 18 temporal logic properties across safety, liveness, and cooperation, achieving 88.9% property satisfaction with all five safety thresholds satisfied (0.3% collision probability vs. 1% threshold). Monte Carlo validation of original neural policies confirms that verified safety properties transfer with <=0.6 percentage-point deviation (95% CI). Discrete VQ-VIB messages provide +11.6 to +13.6 percentage-point fidelity advantages over continuous methods, enabling 3-4x faster verification. Our framework provides empirically validated safety verification for distilled policy abstractions, serving as a practical bridge between deep MARL and formal safety workflows for multi-robot deployment.

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.

Process Reward Models (PRMs) provide step-level verification for Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, yet their training data acquisition remains a bottleneck: human annotation is costly and Monte Carlo roll-out estimates are noisy. A recent approach, FOVER, trains PRMs on step-level error labels automatically annotated by formal verification tools such as Z3 and Isabelle, and empirically observes cross-task generalization from symbolic tasks to diverse reasoning benchmarks. However, this generalization phenomenon lacks any theoretical explanation, and no formal bounds exist on the generalization error, sample complexity, convergence rate, or downstream Best-of-K performance of such PRMs. We propose VeriBound, a theoretical framework that provides PAC-Bayesian generalization bounds for PRMs trained with formal verification tools. We establish four main results: (i) a PAC-Bayesian generalization bound that relates the empirical verification error on formal-verification-annotated training data to the expected error on unseen reasoning tasks, with the bound depending on the formal verification accuracy and the divergence between training and test task distributions; (ii) a sample complexity result showing that $O(d \log(d/δ) / ε^2)$ formal-verification-annotated examples suffice to achieve generalization error $ε$ with probability $1-δ$, where $d$ is the complexity of the PRM hypothesis class; (iii) a convergence analysis proving that PRM training with formal verification labels converges at a linear rate under $L$-smoothness and bounded variance conditions; and (iv) an error propagation bound that relates step-level verification error to Best-of-K performance degradation.

Enhancing the formal math reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) has become a key focus in both mathematical and computer science communities in recent years. While significant progress has been made in using state-of-the-art Auto-Regressive (AR) LLMs for formal theorem proving, these models suffer from inherent limitations. Their next-token prediction generation methods may yield suboptimal performance due to the challenges of long-range coherence and the compounding of errors over long sequences. Recent advancements in diffusion LLMs (dLLMs), which generate text through iterative denoising of a multi-token block, offer a promising alternative. However, the application of dLLMs to formal mathematics, where maintaining long-range coherence is critical, remains largely understudied. To address the challenges above, we propose Diffusion-Proof, to the best of our knowledge, the first framework to train and apply dLLMs for formal theorem proving. Our frameworks contain training and inference methods for two models. The first one is dLLM-Prover-7B, which performs whole-proof writing with long-range coherent tactic usage. The second one is dLLM-Corrector-7B, which is a novel large block diffusion-based correction model. It leverages the in-filling capabilities of dLLMs to perform local proof correction using bi-directional information. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Diffusion-Proof relatively significantly outperforms the AR LLM baseline trained under the same dataset. Diffusion-Proof achieves an absolute improvement of 1.61% on ProofNet-Test and 6.14% on MiniF2F-Test benchmarks compare to the baseline. Notably, Diffusion-Proof successfully resolves one IMO problem that more advanced thinking model DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B could not solve, showcasing the unique advantage of dLLMs in formal theorem proving.

PLCopen XML defines two encoding formats for IEC 61131-3 Ladder Diagram programs: a textual encoding using <rung> elements, and a graphical encoding that represents rung logic as a directed graph of localId/refLocalId connections. ESBMC-PLC supported the textual format but parsed graphical exports from CONTROLLINO, Beremiz, and OpenPLC Editor into an empty GOTO intermediate representation, causing vacuous verification success. This paper presents ESBMC-GraphPLC, which closes this gap with a DFS-based graphical LD resolver. The resolver traverses the connection graph from leftPowerRail to each coil, extracts rung paths as Boolean contact conjunctions, and applies a three-tier I/O inference scheme. Ordering coils by rightPowerRail connectionPointIn sequence ensures SET coils process before RESET coils, matching IEC scan-cycle semantics. The graphical-to-IR conversion leaves the ESBMC backend unchanged. Validation on 3 graphical LD programs from CONTROLLINO/OpenPLC Editor shows all produce full GOTO IR with nondeterministic inputs and rung logic, versus the empty IR previously. All 3 verify SAFE at k=2 under 70ms. The 11 textual LD benchmarks are fully preserved, with no regression. Two Beremiz examples with no LD content or unsupported timer semantics are reported as discovered limitations. Artifact at Zenodo (DantasCordeiro2026graphical, doi:10.5281/zenodo.20699856).

LLM-based formal provers often collapse rich verifier signals (syntax errors, type mismatches, partial goal progress) into a binary pass/fail bit. We present VERITAS, a zero-shot framework that routes every verifier signal back into proof search through a two-phase protocol: Best-of-N sampling first, then a critic-guided MCTS pass that ingests Phase 1 failures as explicit negative examples. The protocol preserves every theorem solved by its own Phase 1 sweep, so Phase 2's additional solves are attributable to feedback-driven exploration. VERITAS reaches 40.6% on miniF2F (vs. an independently run Best-of-5 at 36.9%, Portfolio 26.2%) and 7.3% on VERITAS-CombiBench, a 55-theorem combinatorics benchmark we release on which Best-of-5 (1.8%) falls below Portfolio (3.6%), exposing that unguided sampling hurts when correct lemma names must be recovered iteratively from verifier feedback. Artifacts are available on GitHub.

Though robotic systems are now being commercialized and deployed in various industries, many of these systems are highly specialized and often require an advanced skill set to operate and ensure they perform as instructed. To mitigate this problem, we recently introduced a mission planner leveraging LLMs to synthesize mission plans in precision agriculture based on mission descriptions provided in natural language. While the system demonstrates impressive performance, it also suffers from the inherent ambiguities of natural language. In this paper, we extend our system to address this issue by introducing multiple feedback loops in the planning architecture that leverage linear temporal logic (LTL) to ensure the mission planning system meets the specifications formulated by the user while still using natural language. To mitigate potential bias, this is achieved by using two different commercial LLMs in charge of the specification and verification subtasks. Through extensive experiments, we highlight the strengths and limitations of integrating mission verification into a fully autonomous pipeline, particularly regarding an LLM's ability to generate valuable LTL formulas, and show how our proposed implementation addresses and solves these challenges.

Software practitioners increasingly use AI coding agents that generate test code alongside production code in open source pull requests (PRs). Recent studies report more than 932,000 agent-authored PRs across more than 116,000 repositories, yet whether their test files contain meaningful verification logic remains underexplored. Test files lacking explicit assertions execute code without verifying behavior, so quality gates based on test-file presence overestimate verification strength. The goal of this paper is to help practitioners assess the verification strength of agent-authored patches by characterizing oracle signals and their link to merge outcomes and review effort. We conduct an empirical study of 86,156 test-file patches from 33,596 agent-authored PRs across 2,807 GitHub repositories produced by five coding agents: OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Devin, Cursor, and Claude Code. A qualitative analysis of 384 stratified patches informs a syntactic taxonomy of eight oracle signal categories. Applied at scale, 80.2% of test patches contain weak or no explicit oracle signals. While raw merge rates are lower for strong-oracle PRs, a regression analysis adjusting for agent, PR size, repository popularity, task type, and language shows strong oracles significantly improve merge likelihood (OR = 1.28, p < 0.001). Our findings suggest that test file counts substantially overestimate verification strength and that practitioners can adopt oracle-aware quality checks to more accurately evaluate agent-authored contributions.

Modern AI systems increasingly solve a task not with a single model call but with several imperfect agents working together: some propose pieces of a solution, others verify them, and the results are combined. These systems often outperform any single model, yet it is rarely clear why they succeed or when they will fail. We model such a system as message passing on a sparse graph, the structure that underlies low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes, and extend the density-evolution machinery of coding theory to this richer setting. In our model a task is a set of coupled binary subclaims, and an agent architecture is a sparse, role-typed factor graph whose check nodes are noisy Boolean verifier nodes, each computing a local Boolean function of the subclaims it touches. Three distinct failure modes, all modeled as erasures (an agent abstaining, a verifier returning no usable output, and a message lost between two agents), propagate as the agents exchange set-valued messages. The check agents combine these messages by a single logical-forcing rule that specializes to XOR, AND, OR, implication, and Horn constraints. This is more than a relabeling of LDPC theory: the verifier functions are nonlinear and value-asymmetric, and the three failure modes do not reduce to a single effective channel, so they require new threshold, finite-length, and converse results rather than a direct reuse of parity-check density evolution. We prove a density-evolution theorem that predicts the asymptotic fraction of unresolved subclaims on random role-typed architectures, with an extension to deterministic, locally tree-like graph sequences. The XOR case recovers the classical LDPC recursion on the binary erasure channel (BEC); the AND case exposes an asymmetry between positive and negative verifier certificates.

To assess the ability of current AI systems to correctly solve research-level mathematics problems, we tested several AI systems on a set of ten problems in a broad range of mathematical fields; these problems arose naturally in the research process of the contributors. This document includes the problems, our methodology, and the results of our testing. We provide links to supplementary documents including the human solutions, the AI-generated solutions, and the referee reports and logs for the AI-generated solutions. The ten problems were contributed by the following mathematicians: (1) Dariusz Kalociński and Theodore A. Slaman, (2) Richard Schwartz, (3) Aleksa Milojevic and Benny Sudakov, (4) Larry Guth, (5) Oleg Butkovsky, Jonathan Mattingly, and Lorenzo Zambotti, (6) Joshua Evan Greene and Duncan McCoy, (7) Sucharit Sarkar, (8) Sam Payne and Jidong (Jayden) Wang, (9) Sylvie Corteel and John Lentfer, (10) Srivatsav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli.

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.

We present a dependent-type-based prover designed around the way LLMs (and humans) tend to write mathematics, complementing existing systems such as Lean and Rocq. Its core design choices are a surface that imitates mathematical natural language and a rule-driven automation layer that closes the routine steps a textbook would omit, so that an accepted proof can be re-emitted as a checked Lean file. Early experiments suggest that, even without any prover-specific training data, LLMs can learn to use it effectively on the miniF2F benchmark. Lean output excerpts: https://github.com/xiyuzhai-husky-lang/visored/

Multi-agent LLM systems share state through memory stores, vector indices, and tool registries. We model such sharing as long-running read-generate-write operations under deterministic-generation semantics -- the regime durable-execution engines enforce by deterministic replay -- and formalize four concurrency anomalies in TLA+: stale-generation, phantom-tool, causal-cascade, and tool-effect reordering, structural analogues of classical isolation anomalies, each with a TLC counter-example. The exclusion lattice over these anomalies is trivial; the contribution is the mechanically verified realizability and strict separation of one maximal chain within it, $L_0 \subsetneq \cdots \subsetneq L_4$, to our knowledge the first machine-checked consistency hierarchy for such runtimes. A development of 274 Verus obligations (zero assume, zero admit; trust base: two structural axioms and a mutex correspondence) proves the detectors sound and complete against the specifications and each runtime its avoidance set. Three deployed Rust runtimes realize L0-L1 (pessimistic locking, serializable snapshot isolation, default-SI), each verified against stale-generation and refined to its state machine; L2-L4 are exec-mode-verified with dependency-free prevention twins (A3, A6, A2: 0/1000 versus 1000/1000), and L2 is run live across three model families (A3 prevented in all 120 retracted sessions). We reproduce a silent lost update in ByteDance's deer-flow, formalizing its fix as a verified $L_0 \to L_1$ refinement, and exhibit tool-effect reordering in LangGraph's ToolNode on unmodified output, removed by an L3 commit-order sequencer. The verified detector, refinements, and realizability artifacts are the contribution; the phenomena and lattice are classical.

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.