CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.LOcs.AIcs.CL2026-06-27

LAMP: Lean-based Agentic framework with MCP and Proof Repair

Santhana Srinivasan R, Maithilee Patawar

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.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.LO2026-06-30

Beyond Compilation: Evaluating Faithful Natural-Language-to-Lean Statement Formalization

Ke Zhang, Patricio Gallardo Candela, Sudhir Murthy, Yi Xie, Zhi Wang, Maziar Raissi

Theorem-proving benchmarks evaluate proof search against fixed formal statements, but natural-language-to-Lean formalization must generate the formal statement itself. In this setting, compilation is only a validity check: a Lean declaration may type-check while omitting hypothes…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.FLcs.AIcs.CLcs.LO2026-06-29

Destination-Labeled Self-Looping Systems with Dwell: Intrinsic Characterization, Realization Cost, and Recognition

Reda Belaiche

We study a finite-state symbolic controller for systems in which the admissible visible transitions are fixed in advance and each visible state carries a minimum dwell requirement. The resulting model, which we call a destination-labeled self-looping system with dwell (DLSL syste…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.LO2026-07-11

Interventional Grounding Audits: Black-Box Premise-Dependency Tests for LLM Chain-of-Thought via Predicate Substitution

Hironao Nakamura

Large language models produce chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning that appears logically sound yet may not genuinely depend on its stated premises. We introduce interventional grounding audits, a black-box, step-level test of premise dependency: we intervene on a single premise by s…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.LGcs.LOcs.SE2026-07-01

Theoria: Rewrite-Acceptability Verification over Informal Reasoning States

Michael Saldivar, Ben Slivinski

When should an AI system's answer be trusted? Formal proof assistants offer certainty but cannot reach most of the problem distribution; scalar LLM judges offer coverage but produce opaque scores that cannot be audited after the fact and are subject to the same coherence issues a…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.LOcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-02

ADVENT: LLM-Driven Automatic Predicate Invention for ILP

Tingting Yu, Pei-Cing Huang, Chan Hsu, Chan-Tung Ku, Yihuang Kang

Predicate invention (PI), the creation of new predicates to extend the hypothesis space, remains a critical bottleneck in Inductive Logic Programming (ILP). Existing methods rely on domain expertise and produce semantically opaque predicates, hindering adaptation to unfamiliar do…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.LOcs.AIcs.CCcs.CL2026-06-26

The Unverifiability of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) Alignment, Static and Dynamic: From Trakhtenbrot's Wall to the Safety-Generality Tension

Jose Pascual Gumbau Mezquita

We establish the mathematical limits of AGI safety in two forms: verifying a fixed system, and verifying that a certified safety property persists once the system self-modifies. In the static case, no algorithm can certify a highly expressive AGI's safe behaviour infallibly, comp…

View free PDFSource page