Date
Publisher
arXiv
Mathematical reasoning is central to artificial intelligence, with
applications in education, code generation, and research-level mathematical
discovery. Mathematical competitions highlight two problem types: theorem
proving, requiring rigorous proofs, and answer construction, requiring creative
generation and formal verification of mathematical objects. Existing research
reveals that LLMs can tackle difficult answer-construction tasks but are prone
to errors from hallucinations and unverifiable steps, while symbolic methods
guarantee rigor but falter in creative answer construction. This raises a key
understudied question: how to solve answer-construction problems while
preserving both LLM creativity and mathematical rigor? To address this problem,
we introduce the Enumerate-Conjecture-Prove (ECP) framework, a modular
neuro-symbolic method integrating LLM-based enumeration and pattern-driven
conjecturing with formal theorem proving in Lean, and ConstructiveBench, a
dataset of 3,640 formal answer-construction problems from math competitions.
ECP is model agnostic and shows consistent improvements over pure LLM
baselines: on the subset of PutnamBench for answer construction, ECP formally
solves 6 out of 337 answer-construction problems end to end (up from 4 without
ECP) using GPT-5 mini and DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B. On ConstructiveBench, ECP
achieves 33.1% end-to-end state-of-the-art accuracy (up from 32.5%),
demonstrating its potential to advance formal mathematical reasoning by
combining LLM conjecturing with formal verification. Our code and dataset are
publicly available at GitHub (https://github.com/sunjia72/ECP) and Hugging Face
(https://huggingface.co/datasets/sunjia72/ConstructiveBench).
Study at a glance
- Question: Can combining computer code search, mathematical guessing, and formal proof checkers solve math competition answer-construction problems?
- Setting and data: 75 high school math problems from MathArena 2026 and 346 undergraduate problems from PutnamBench.
- Method: System development and benchmark evaluation (neuro-symbolic framework using LLMs, Python execution, and Lean 4 verification).
Why it matters
Math AI models mainly tackle theorem proving, leaving answer-construction problems less studied because standard Lean proof verification cannot prevent circular answers.
Key findings
- ECP formally solved 18 of 75 MathArena problems and 17 of 346 PutnamBench problems, outperforming baseline models under aligned budgets.
- ECP improved answer-only accuracy from 58 to 68 on MathArena and from 290 to 303 on PutnamBench using GPT-5.4.
- Without admissibility checking, direct baseline models generated dozens to over a hundred spurious proofs that relied on circular answers.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
