Evaluating Research-Level Math Proofs via Strict Step-Level Verification

Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to rigorously verify complex mathematical proofs. Standard global evaluation approaches suffer from "context poisoning," in which superficially plausible statements mask subtle logical flaws, leading to hallucination or over-skepticism. To address this, we shift from global evaluation to strict step-level verification: our framework maintains detailed context for each deduction step and strictly constrains the sources of applied theorems. We evaluate on a carefully curated adversarial diagnostic suite of research-level proofs drawn from the FirstProof challenge. A systematic ablation study demonstrates that these deductive constraints are indispensable, as unconstrained global prompting consistently fails to localize subtle logical errors. Beyond outperforming global evaluation, our approach fundamentally alters the failure taxonomy. Error analysis reveals that, rather than exhibiting severe logical hallucinations, remaining rejections are primarily instances of "pedantic hyper-rigor" stemming from unstated domain conventions, effectively exposing implicit ambiguities within the expert benchmark itself. Our findings suggest that prompting agents to organize their verification notes in a cautious, human-mathematician-like manner can substantially improve their ability to distinguish rigorous proofs from flawed ones, with the potential to strengthen agentic reasoning on frontier mathematical concepts that the base model does not already know well, and to lay a theoretical foundation for future automated proof-review systems. Code and prompts are available at GitHub.