Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and olympiad-style mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed. To bridge this gap, we introduce AdvancedMathBench, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate advanced mathematical reasoning capabilities. Its core proof-generation benchmark, ProverBench, contains 296 problems spanning undergraduate and doctoral qualifying-exam levels. To provide reliable evaluation of the proofs, we develop a dedicated automatic verification pipeline trained on large-scale expert annotations to produce both correctness verdicts and fine-grained assessments of proof errors, which exhibits strong agreement with human experts on held-out proof trajectories. We further introduce VerifierBench, consisting of 888 model-generated proof trajectories paired with expert ground truth, to evaluate whether models can correctly judge proof validity and provide sound verification rationales. Experiments show that AdvancedMathBench remains challenging for frontier models. On proof generation, the best-performing model, GPT-5.5-xhigh, achieves only 75.8 and 66.1 on the UGD and QE splits, respectively, indicating substantial room for improvement on advanced mathematical proof construction. On proof verification, the best model attains a Balanced F1 of only 65.1, and models generally exhibit low true negative rates, suggesting that critical error detection remains a major bottleneck.
These results indicate that while CoT-augmented LLMs achieve strong performance on deductive reasoning tasks up to five hops, solver augmentation remains valuable for deeper multihop deduction and for applications requiring robust and verifiable reasoning.
Ya Wang, Raja Havish Seggoju, A. Paschke· Neurosymbolic Artificial Int...· 0 citations
Formal theorem proving has emerged as a frontier challenge for machine learning, yet the ecosystem is fragmented: proofs remain siloed across incompatible systems, limiting both training data for learning-based provers and the portability of verified results. We present ITPEval, the first benchmark for evaluating automated formal proof translation across four major ITPs (Lean 4, Rocq, Isabelle, and HOL Light), spanning two distinct logical foundations. Our benchmark comprises 1,560 source files and 6,848 theorems organized into a controlled tier of axiomatized files that isolates foundational translation difficulty, and an ecosystem tier drawn from real libraries that exposes API and proof-style mismatches. We release itpeval, a unified multi-ITP verification infrastructure with state-isolated warm backends that preserve per-artifact native checking semantics. We evaluate both statement and proof translation across five frontier and open-weight LLMs on 12 directed translation pairs: statement translation peaks at 29.1% pass@1 and proof translation at 10.5%; controlled theorems reach 29.7% proof pass@1 versus 5.2% for ecosystem-level translations, confirming that library mismatch is the dominant bottleneck. In addition to pass@k evaluation, a deterministic Lean 4 BEq check establishes equivalence for 54.0% of verified source-to-Lean 4 miniF2F statement translations, showing that native type-checking alone can substantially overestimate semantic fidelity; in an autoformalization/auto-informalization round-trip study, Rocq and HOL Light are easier formalization targets than Lean 4 and Isabelle, while multi-ITP context improves pooled Lean 4 success from 4.8% to 10.6%. Our benchmark, verification infrastructure, and evaluation pipelines are publicly released.
Jiayi Wu, Robert Joseph George, Anima Anandkumar· 0 citations
We introduce ClosureBench, a constructive benchmark for compositional graph-relational reasoning with programmatically verified ground truth. Unlike fixed-test-set benchmarks vulnerable to data contamination, ClosureBench generates instances on demand: each task's reference answer is computed by executing a program in the Ein tensor-logic language, ensuring machine-verified correctness. The benchmark spans 26 task categories at three compositional levels (L1-L3), with difficulty controlled along three independent axes: graph size, edge density, and query depth. We evaluate models from 1.5B open weights to frontier systems (o3, GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5, Claude Sonnet 4) and report three findings. First, because the benchmark can always supply fresh instances, it measures memorisation directly: a model fine-tuned on a fixed test set shows a 19.3 percentage-point gap between its accuracy on seen and on fresh instances, which a static test set cannot reveal. We scope this to supervised fine-tuning on answer pairs, not pretraining contamination. Second, accuracy falls as graph size and query depth increase, and the two interact: models misread the graph from its natural-language description and then reason correctly over the wrong graph, so even the strongest frontier model degrades from atomic to compositional queries. This bottleneck is a property of the reasoning rather than the input format: it persists when the graph is given as a JSON edge list or an adjacency matrix instead of prose. Third, a 4B model fine-tuned to emit executable programs rather than answers stays nearly flat across compositional levels and approaches frontier accuracy (94.3% on held-out instances) at a fraction of the token cost. This holds for two program targets, Ein and Python+NetworkX, so it is a property of verified program synthesis rather than of one language.
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 *Theo*, 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 seven research papers---five from the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) and two recent OpenAI manuscripts---spanning combinatorics, communication complexity, mechanism design, learning theory, number theory, discrete geometry, and graph theory. We successfully formalize their main theorems and proofs and validate the generated formalizations with human experts; notably, two developments require no axioms beyond Lean's kernel. All of our formalizations are available at https://beyondthelibrary.github.io/formal_arxiv/.
Arshia Soltani Moakhar, Iman Gholami, Max Springer et al.· arXiv.org· 2 citations
Large language models (LLMs) have shown growing potential for automated theoretical computer science (TCS) research, yet existing benchmarks remain far from realistic research settings. We introduce \ourbenchmark, an expert-validated benchmark for evaluating LLMs on frontier, end-to-end TCS research. \ourbenchmark contains $175$ instances drawn from papers accepted to STOC, FOCS, SODA, and COLT in 2025-2026, preserving paper-specific definitions, assumptions, and proof dependencies, with expert-verified Lean formalizations and proofs. Evaluations of leading LLMs reveal that current models remain far from reliably completing the full research pipeline. In particular, autoformalization is the sharpest bottleneck: the best model achieves only $11.5$ on translating natural-language claims into formal theorem statements, compared with $28.6$ Pass@8 when proving human-provided formal statements. Building on \ourbenchmark, we further develop an automated TCS research framework that generates, formalizes, filters, and proves new claims. Of $64$ generated claims, only $6$ ultimately pass expert evaluation and proof verification, indicating that beyond formalization, limited research taste remains another major barrier to autonomous TCS research.
Dingzirui Wang, Xuanliang Zhang, Keyan Xu et al.· 0 citations
Recent developments in AI for Mathematics (AI4Math), especially Large Language Model (LLM)-driven theorem provers, has achieved remarkable success in formal proof generation for well-defined mathematical problems through Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP) languages. However, current systems remain fundamentally limited in tackling frontier research mathematics, such as discovering new theorems or resolving open conjectures, which are often open-ended, under-specified, and involve multiple layers of abstraction. We argue that the next leap in AI4Math systems requires a decisive shift from predefined problem-solvers to research agents that can address frontier mathematical challenges with rigorous formal mathematical reasoning. In this position paper, we provide a systematic review of the field, covering datasets, auto-formalization, and proof synthesis. More importantly, we identify core limitations of existing systems in serving as mathematical research agents, examining issues across datasets, relational structure, mathematical exploration, tool ecosystem, and human-AI collaboration, outlining a strategic road-map for the future of AI4Math.
E. Jiang, Xiao Liang, Yikai Zhang et al.· 1 citation