Papers for

automated reasoning tool developers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

MechAlign checks math claim matches formal proof across projects

MechAlign: Evaluating Semantic Alignment at the Project Level in Mathematical Formalization

Abstract: Lean verifies that a formal proof establishes its stated proposition under declared assumptions, but does not check whether that proposition faithfully expresses the mathematical claim in a manuscript. Assessing this correspondence requires interpreting the main theorem through its project dependencies, which may be scattered throughout a large development. We introduce MechAlign, a framework for project-level semantic alignment review that combines formal dependency extraction with LLM-based assessment. Its extraction tool, LeanTrace, constructs a statement dependency graph from elaborated declarations, retaining definition bodies and structure constraints while excluding proof bodies and stopping at an explicit library boundary. The reviewer uses this context to investigate alignment and report discrepancies with localized evidence. We conduct a preliminary review of 201 main results from 173 OpenAI Math projects, using supplied informal descriptions and available paper context. A hyperbolic-group case illustrates how dependency inspection localizes a missing dimensional constraint relative to the manuscript, consistent with the upstream declaration of formalization scope. We also construct LeanReviewBench, comprising 501 fixed claim-statement-context triples from OpenAI Math, Fermat's Last Theorem, and Kakeya, with description provenance recorded. The resource supports controlled comparisons of more project-level semantic alignment evaluations.

Mon 26 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Formal proof software can tell if a proof is correct but can't say if the formalized statement really matches the math claim in a paper. The authors created MechAlign to review this match by tracing all the linked formal math parts and using AI to spot differences. They tested it on hundreds of math formalization projects, finding cases where details in the formal proof didn't align with the paper. They also built a benchmark dataset to help compare future tools for checking this kind of alignment.
Open → 2610.35269v1

Propositional formula minimization problem proven complete for a complex class

Propositional formula minimization is $Σ_2^p$-complete under many-one reductions

Abstract: The Minimum Equivalent Expression problem (MEE) asks, given a propositional formula $φ$ and an integer $k$, whether $φ$ is equivalent to a formula with at most $k$ occurrences of propositional variables. While the problem is clearly in $Σ_2^p$, its completeness under polynomial-time many-one reductions has remained open since at least 1979. Buchfuhrer and Umans showed in 2008 that it is $Σ_2^p$-complete under polynomial-time Turing reductions. In this note, we present a proof discovered by GPT-Sol-6.1 which establishes that MEE is $Σ_2^p$-complete also under polynomial-time many-one reductions.

Sun 25 OctComputational ComplexityLogic in Computer Science
The gist
Figuring out the simplest form of a logical expression has been a tough puzzle studied since the 1970s. The problem asks if you can rewrite a logical formula using fewer variable uses but without changing its meaning. Previous work showed this problem is very complex but left some details open about exactly how complex it is. The authors present a new proof that confirms the problem belongs to a particularly challenging complexity class, resolving a long-standing open question.
Open → 2610.34516v1

Non-wellfounded and cyclic proofs improve temporal logic reasoning

Non-Wellfounded and Cyclic Proofs for LTL: A Syntactic Correspondence with Linear Nested Sequents

Abstract: We introduce the formalism of non-wellfounded and cyclic linear nested sequent calculi, developing concrete systems for linear temporal logic (LTL). The paper addresses two central problems, which we call "cycle recognition" and "unraveling." Cycle recognition concerns identifying cycles in non-wellfounded proofs in order to extract corresponding cyclic proofs, while unraveling studies the converse transformation, from cyclic proofs to non-wellfounded ones. Although these processes are well understood for Gentzen sequents, they have received little attention for more expressive sequent formalisms and become more challenging in the linear nested sequent setting. To address cycle recognition, we show the completeness of non-wellfounded proofs relative to a particular normal form exhibiting a property we call "saturation recurrence," which enables the systematic extraction of cyclic proofs. To address unraveling, we introduce a specialized procedure that shifts rule applications forward along linear nested sequents, allowing non-wellfounded proofs to be reconstructed from cyclic ones. Overall, our work provides new proof-theoretic techniques for cycle recognition and unraveling in expressive multisequent formalisms.

Tue 13 OctLogic in Computer Science
The gist
Linear temporal logic (LTL) helps describe how things change over time. The paper looks at special types of logical proofs that involve cycles and infinite structures, which can be tricky to understand and transform. The authors provide new ways to identify cycles in these proofs and to convert between different formats, making reasoning about time-based logic more organized and reliable. Their work focuses on complex proof systems called linear nested sequents, which are more expressive but harder to manage than simpler forms.
Open → 2610.18798v1

Sequent-Prover improves accuracy and efficiency in formal reasoning agents

Sequent-Prover: Training Agents for Formal, Checkable SMT-based Reasoning

Abstract: We introduce Sequent-Prover, a family of verifier-using language-model agents, and the post-training framework that produces them. Agents reason in an executable SMT-LIB scratchpad: they write complete SMT-LIB programs, query Z3 across turns, inspect solver feedback, repair formalizations, and terminate with an explicit answer. Our recipe, verifier-conditioned trajectory distillation, bootstraps from a noisy teacher proposal policy by sampling multi-turn trajectories, retaining the successful tail that is correct, non-trivial, grounded, and executable, then applying supervised fine-tuning and trajectory-level preference optimization. Because solver success alone does not guarantee semantic faithfulness, we evaluate task accuracy, k-sample reliability, and SMT program quality. Across 37 benchmarks and 7,254 problems per model family, post-training raises the 4B model's per-attempt accuracy from 85.6% to 97.0% and four-sample all-correct reliability (pass^4}) from 64.1% to 91.7%. It also reduces average SMT calls from 4.10 to 2.52 and tokens per attempt from 18.97k to 12.72k. Sequent-Prover agents give answers backed by executable formal artifacts.

Sun 11 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
Formal reasoning with computers means writing very precise logical statements that a solver like Z3 can check. The paper presents Sequent-Prover, a system that trains language models to write these precise statements step-by-step and correct them by consulting the solver repeatedly. This training method greatly improves the model’s accuracy and reliability in producing correct formal proofs. As a result, Sequent-Prover agents provide answers backed by formal, executable code, making their reasoning more trustworthy.
Open → 2610.15258v1