Evaluating the Architectural Reasoning Capabilities of LLM Provers via the Obfuscated Natural Number Game

arXiv cs.LG / 5/4/2026

📰 NewsSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper argues that success on formal-math benchmarks may come from semantic pattern matching rather than genuine logical reasoning, and introduces “Architectural Reasoning” as a more rigorous requirement for automated theorem-proving AI.
  • It proposes the Obfuscated Natural Number Game as a benchmark to test Architectural Reasoning by running proofs in an alien math domain using only local axioms and definitions.
  • By renaming identifiers in the Lean 4 version of the Natural Number Game, the authors create a zero-knowledge, closed environment that removes semantic cues from the model.
  • Evaluations across state-of-the-art models show a consistent “universal latency tax,” where obfuscation increases inference time, and they observe robustness divergence: general models degrade in accuracy while dedicated reasoning/prover models keep accuracy.
  • The study claims to provide a quantitative way to assess a model’s real mathematical reasoning capability under controlled conditions that minimize shortcut learning.

Abstract

While Large Language Models have achieved notable success on formal mathematics benchmarks such as MiniF2F, it remains unclear whether these results stem from genuine logical reasoning or semantic pattern matching against pre-training data. This paper identifies Architectural Reasoning: the ability to synthesize formal proofs using exclusively local axioms and definitions within an alien math domain, as the necessary ability for future automated theorem discovery AI. We use the Obfuscated Natural Number Game, a benchmark to evaluate Architectural Reasoning. By renaming identifiers in the Natural Number Game in Lean 4, we created a zero-knowledge, closed environment. We evaluate state-of-the-art models, finding a universal latency tax where obfuscation increases inference time. The results also reveal a divergence in robustness: while general models (Claude-Sonnet-4.5, GPT-4o) suffer performance degradation, reasoning models (DeepSeek-R1, GPT-5, DeepSeek-Prover-V2) maintain the same accuracy despite the absence of semantic cues. These findings provide a quantitative metric for assessing the true capacity for mathematical reasoning.