A framework for automated theoretical research in causal inference built on the Lean proof assistant, where a proof is checked by a program rather than read by a referee is presented, where a proof is checked by a program rather than read by a referee.
Abstract
Automating theoretical research requires generating candidate results and evaluating them reliably. Models keep getting better at the first, while the second remains hard. A common approach asks one large language model (LLM) to review what another produced, yet such reviewers are empirically unreliable: they may accept fabricated papers and catch the fabrication at close to chance rates~\citep{badscientist2025}. We present \textsc{CausalSmith}, a framework for automated theoretical research in causal inference built on the Lean proof assistant, where a proof is checked by a program rather than read by a referee. \textsc{CausalSmith} rests on \textsc{Causalean}, a foundational Lean library for causal inference holding 8,179 machine-checked definitions and theorems, developed with language-model assistance under human design and review. Around it, we build a self-improving agentic pipeline that selects research topics, proposes results, formalizes statements, constructs proofs, and presents the resulting artifacts for human inspection. Moreover, the pipeline pairs Lean verification with a statement audit that compares each formal theorem against the informal claim behind it. We evaluate the system using artifacts produced by completed autonomous research runs. The source code, formal library, and run records are available at https://github.com/Jiyuan-Tan/CausalSmith.
CausalForge is presented, a framework for automated theoretical research in causal inference grounded in the Lean proof assistant, which combines Causalean, a foundational Lean library for causal inference, with CausalSmith, a self-improving agentic pipeline that selects research topics, proposes results, formalizes st...
This study presents the first causally grounded structured methodology for embedding LLMs within the scientific method in SE, designed around the epistemological demands of empirical SE research, establishing a basis for rigorous AI-assisted research.
Alejandro Velasco, Daniel Rodríguez-Cárdenas, Dipin Khati et al.· IEEE/ACM International Confe...· 0 citations
A probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers is paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing, indicating an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.
Automated fact-checking systems still fall short of producing explanations that mirror the depth and structure of expert human reasoning. In this work, we propose a multi-agent framework that integrates five specialized linguistic agents covering polarization, linguistic style, argumentation, plausibility, and contextu...
Pedro Henrique de Oliveira Silva, L. Santos, L. Marinho et al.· Proceedings of the 37th ACM...· 0 citations
ProofTeller, a benchmark that evaluates large language models' ability to faithfully interpret its reasoning, finds a consistent near-conclusion bias: LLMs tend to focus on steps closest to the final proof conclusion rather than on the most informative ones.
Mayank Jobanputra, A. Kovtunova, Brisca Balthes et al.· Digital library· 0 citations
DeReLab is introduced, a generative framework that produces multi-turn belief-updating conversations from parameterized graph structures across default and inheritance reasoning, with formally verified ground truth at every turn, enabling controlled measurement of how models respond to confirming and disconfirming evid...
Jayanta Sadhu, S. Shahad, Kenneth Marino· 1 citation
Learn how Google DeepMind and GovTech Singapore uses lightweight on-device Gemma models to intercept conversational scams in private chats with zero cloud data egress.