formal-math · proposedFormalizing and machine-checking mathematics
Proposed. Several papers in the review queue converged on this framing, so the pipeline added it. Nobody has decided it is the right way to carve up the subject — it may be two topics, or a duplicate of another, or not a topic at all. Saying so is useful.
Covers autoformalization into a solver-checkable language, producing proof-assistant-verified proofs, and localizing the first flawed step in a proof; excludes informal math word problems.
Tags: general
Proposed from the ingestion pipeline rather than chosen by hand. 4 papers in the review queue independently pointed at this same competence, arriving under 4 different names (autoformalization, formal- theorem-proving, proof-verification, counterexample-construction), which is the signal that it is a real recurring topic and not one author's framing. Coherent, verifiable capability with four converging proposals and no existing coverage.
What counts as this capability
Scope boundary used when deciding whether a paper is really about this capability, rather than merely mentioning it.
Covers autoformalization into a solver-checkable language, producing proof-assistant-verified proofs, and localizing the first flawed step in a proof; excludes informal math word problems.
Claims
No claims filed yet.
Techniques
None yet.
Capabilities are a way of carving up the subject, and carvings are arguable. Say so if this one is wrong — especially a proposed one, which a pipeline added because several papers used the same framing, not because anyone decided it was right.