aiqbench analysis
This paper uses LLMs to translate theorems and written proofs into Lean, then links each proof step to executable code so readers can step through it and test examples. The core idea is that grounding LLM explanations in a formal representation supports interactivity that static text cannot. The user study is small (n = 16) and measures comprehension in a single proof-reading task, so the reported gains are suggestive rather than established. Readers interested in LLM-assisted explanation or formal verification should watch whether the approach generalizes beyond this setup.
Explorable Proofs: Making Written Proofs Explorable by Grounding Them in Formal Representations
arXiv:2604.02598v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-generated explanations can make technical content more accessible, but there is a ceiling on what they can support interactively. Because LLM outputs are static text, they cannot be executed or stepped through. We argue that grounding explanations in a formalized representation enables interactive affordances beyond what static text supports. We instantiate this idea for mathematical proof comprehension with explorable theorems, a system that uses LLMs to translate a theorem and its written proof into Lean, a programming language for machine-checked proofs, and links the written proof with the Lean code. Readers can work through the proof at a step-level granularity, test custom examples or counterexamples, and trace the logical dependencies bridging each step. Each worked-out step is produced by executing the Lean proof on that example and extracting its intermediate state. A user study ($n = 16$) shows potential advantages of this approach: in a proof-reading task, participants who had access to the provided explorability features gave better, more correct, and more detailed answers to comprehension questions, demonstrating a stronger overall understanding of the underlying mathematics.
Abstract:LLM-generated explanations can make technical content more accessible, but there is a ceiling on what they can support interactively. Because LLM outputs are static text, they cannot be executed or stepped through. We argue that grounding explanations in a formalized representation enables interactive affordances beyond what static text supports. We instantiate this idea for mathematical proof comprehension with explorable theorems, a system that uses LLMs to translate a theorem and its written proof into Lean, a programming language for machine-checked proofs, and links the written proof with the Lean code. Readers can work through the proof at a step-level granularity, test custom examples or counterexamples, and trace the logical dependencies bridging each step. Each worked-out step is produced by executing the Lean proof on that example and extracting its intermediate state. A user study ($n = 16$) shows potential advantages of this approach: in a proof-reading task, participants who had access to the provided explorability features gave better, more correct, and more detailed answers to comprehension questions, demonstrating a stronger overall understanding of the underlying mathematics.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Programming Languages (cs.PL)
arXiv:2604.02598 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2604.02598v3 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.02598 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 274 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · Sep 17, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026

Announcing Formal Verification at RESI (The Institute for Responsible Superintelligence)
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

FLF’s Epistemic Case Study Competition: Results
LessWrong · Oct 1, 2026