COMPOSE: Composing Future Theorems from Citations and Formal Structure

David Busbib, Michael Werman · May 28, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

A plausible future mathematical claim must satisfy two constraints: it should follow the direction of prior work and respect the formal dependencies that constrain what can validly follow. Existing approaches typically model only one of these sources, producing claims that are either weakly grounded or insufficiently motivated. We introduce grounded future mathematical generation, where the goal is to generate a plausible future theorem-like claim for an anchor paper using two complementary sources of context: its scientific citation graph and aligned formal theorem dependency graph. To address this setting, we propose COMPOSE, a dual-graph framework that conditions a language model on both scientific citation context and formal theorem structure. To support this setting, we construct a dataset of 108K paired scientific-formal graph examples from arXiv and Mathlib, together with a benchmark of 47K future papers from 2024--2025. Experiments show that COMPOSE outperforms strong baselines on retrieval to real future papers and achieves the best overall performance under LLM-judge evaluation, producing more grounded and mathematically richer outputs. These results show that future mathematical generation benefits from combining scientific context with formal structure. Project page is available at https://david-busbib.github.io/COMPOSE-page/.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.