← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2605.10379 · v3
Not All Proofs Are Equal: Evaluating LLM Proof Quality Beyond Correctness
首次提交 2026-05-11 19:23
版本更新 2026-11-03 21:21
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:39
摘要
Large language models (LLMs) have become capable mathematical problem-solvers, often producing correct proofs for challenging problems. However, correctness alone is not sufficient: mathematical proofs should also be clear, insightful, contain transferable knowledge, and be generally useful to the reader. While proof quality is subjective and depends on the reader and context, many of its components can be made concrete. In this work, we identify such components and introduce ProofRank, a benchmark curated from challenging competitions that measures several scalable proxies of proof quality: (i) conciseness - quantifying whether proofs avoid unnecessary steps; (ii) computational ease - the extent to which a proof relies on tedious calculations; (iii) cognitive simplicity - how accessible the used proof techniques are; (iv) diversity - how varied a model's proofs for a single problem are; and (v) adaptivity - how well a model can follow a specified technique. We find proof quality varies substantially across models along dimensions that correctness largely fails to capture. Every proof-level proxy can be steered through prompting, but often at a moderate correctness cost. ProofRank thus captures important aspects of mathematical proofs beyond correctness, and indicates the need for models that produce proofs which are not only correct but also valuable.
作者备注：10 main text pages, 73 total pages, Accepted at NeurIPS 2026 Evaluations and Datasets Track
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v3 · 2026-11-03 21:21 · 最新观测版本
Not All Proofs Are Equal: Evaluating LLM Proof Quality Beyond Correctness
Large language models (LLMs) have become capable mathematical problem-solvers, often producing correct proofs for challenging problems. However, correctness alone is not sufficient: mathematical proofs should also be clear, insightful, contain transferable knowledge, and be generally useful to the reader. While proof quality is subjective and depends on the reader and context, many of its components can be made concrete. In this work, we identify such components and introduce ProofRank, a benchmark curated from challenging competitions that measures several scalable proxies of proof quality: (i) conciseness - quantifying whether proofs avoid unnecessary steps; (ii) computational ease - the extent to which a proof relies on tedious calculations; (iii) cognitive simplicity - how accessible the used proof techniques are; (iv) diversity - how varied a model's proofs for a single problem are; and (v) adaptivity - how well a model can follow a specified technique. We find proof quality varies substantially across models along dimensions that correctness largely fails to capture. Every proof-level proxy can be steered through prompting, but often at a moderate correctness cost. ProofRank thus captures important aspects of mathematical proofs beyond correctness, and indicates the need for models that produce proofs which are not only correct but also valuable.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗