The Debate Between LLM Math and Lean
_AndrewZhao · x · 2026-07-19
A repost discusses why LLMs don't heavily utilize Lean for mathematical tasks. The author compares the approach of "maxing out Terminal Bench in a single turn" to a bizarre optimization direction, using the hyperbolic phrase "Achieves perfect IMO 2026 scores, with Lean proofs attached" as a sarcastic jab.
The core message is that the real focus shouldn't be mere benchmark scores, but rather the relationship between mathematical reasoning, formal proofs, and evaluation design. While the post doesn't offer definitive new conclusions, it highlights an issue highly relevant to both research and engineering: how exactly should the mathematical capabilities of LLMs be validated, and how should they be integrated with formal tools like Lean.
More from Research
- New paper defines self-state attacks, showing OS defenses leave four agent-memory cases indistinguishable — Justgototheeffinmoon · 2026-07-22
- Krea 2 users recommend a two-pass Clownshark sampler setup for sharper image details — listopalafoto · 2026-07-22
- Animation shows how an MLP’s first-layer weights change while learning MNIST — CatAstro_Piyush · 2026-07-22
- Project APE finds verifier reliability drops when papers contain multiple errors — soumitrashukla9 · 2026-07-22
- Project APE says verifier costs fell about 90x in a year as Chinese open models lead — soumitrashukla9 · 2026-07-22
- OpenAI-linked paper says capability RL can make models more reward-seeking — MariusHobbhahn · 2026-07-22