AutoGraphForge: Towards Automated Graph Theory Discovery

We report on our ongoing project to develop a computational pipeline, AutoGraphForge, for an automated graph-theoretic conjecturing-refuting-formalizing-proving system. Conjecture generation is counterexample-guided and runs in rounds: a Graffiti3 generator proposes conjectures over a small, evolving snapshot table $T$ (initially a few hundred graphs with their computed invariants) that grows only by counterexamples to its own conjectures. A novelty filter of $559$ classical and folklore relations, closed under transitive composition and linear identity substitution, decides via a linear program whether a candidate is already implied by known results. Surviving candidates are tested against a dataset of about $348,000$ graphs, unioning the complete House of Graphs invariant export, the exhaustive census of all connected graphs on at most nine vertices, several extremal families (strongly regular, minimal Ramsey, Cayley, cages, barbells, lollipops, spiders), and random models. Counterexample-search algorithms then attack the remainder. Run for several rounds on an HPC cluster, the loop yields $6,522$ conjectures that survived the refutation dataset, the novelty filter and every active-search run -- among them nontrivial relations between the annihilation number and the edge-cover number for bipartite and regular graphs, which we prove by hand. A subsequent formalization and proving stage deterministically translates each surviving conjecture into a Lean 4 statement skeleton; every candidate proof is kernel-verified against a pinned mathlib4 and our custom invariant preamble. This stage integrates two neural provers -- DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B (served with vLLM) and the Lean-specialised OProver-32B -- behind the independent kernel check. It is implemented end-to-end and passes initial sanity checks, with the full pipeline currently running on the cluster.

Neurosymbolic Discovery of Algebraic Graph Constructions

There are several methods for searching for graphs with prescribed properties, such as SAT solvers and specialized generators. These methods return the result as raw data: an adjacency matrix or a string encoding. The raw data certifies that the graph exists, but it does not reveal any structural properties of the graph. We ask whether one can automatically discover a short algebraic description if only this raw data is provided. We look for a description such as a Cayley graph $\mathrm{Cay}(Γ, S)$ or a lexicographic product $C_5[K_3]$. We address this question with a neurosymbolic approach. We propose an agent that runs on a general-purpose large language model with no fine-tuning or per-target training. The model interleaves reasoning with calls to the computer algebra system SageMath: it analyzes the target graph, proposes and tests candidate constructions, and revises them until the output matches the target. The agent communicates with SageMath through a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server, which we release as a general-purpose bridge. Whether a construction matches the target is checked by a single exact isomorphism test, and therefore rests on the symbolic side and not on the model. We test the approach on a benchmark of 100 highly symmetric graphs, namely two-orbit graphs on up to 25 vertices; the benchmark was fixed in advance. Our agent could find verified algebraic constructions for all of them, without falling back to raw encodings. A strong template-enumeration baseline reaches only about $20\%$, and a catalog lookup could not identify any of these graphs. However, construction quality declines when symmetry is removed. As a concrete application, we identify the smallest known counterexample to the Bernhart-Kainen dispersability conjecture, a $16$-vertex graph that enumeration found as raw data. For this graph, our agent found an explicit algebraic construction.

Formalizing Flag Algebras in Lean

Razborov's flag algebra method is a powerful tool for proving asymptotic inequalities in extremal graph theory, often reducing the task to finding a finite certificate by semidefinite programming. We present a machine-checked formalization of the method for finite simple graphs, together with a certificate-to-proof compiler that turns externally generated certificate data into algebraic proofs checked by Lean. The formalization covers the foundations of the method: partially labeled graphs, their densities in large graphs, the quotient algebra of density expressions, graph-limit semantics through positive homomorphisms, and the downward operators used to average out labels. The compiler treats the external semidefinite programming output as candidate data rather than trusted input: Lean independently computes the required density and multiplication facts, verifies positive semidefiniteness exactly over $\mathbb{Q}$, and carries out the algebraic normalization steps of flag-algebra proofs. Our case studies yield formal proofs of seven Turán-type upper bounds, including Mantel's theorem and the Erdős pentagon theorem, a $C_4$-density bound for triangle-free graphs, and edge-density bounds for $K_4$-free, $K_5$-free, and $C_5$-free graphs. Independently of the compiler, we formalize the matching constructions that complete the exact Turán densities of Mantel's theorem and the Erdős pentagon theorem, and prove two inequalities of Goodman. Our constrained semantics also prompted a meta-theoretic comparison of two ways of imposing graph constraints: building a hereditary constraint into the flag algebra from the start, or testing inequalities afterward on constrained graph limits with labels chosen at random. We state the resulting root-plantability criterion characterizing when the two approaches agree; a forthcoming paper will present the complete account.

GTBench: A Curriculum-Grounded Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs as Mathematical Research Assistants in Graph Theory

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as self-study assistants in technical disciplines, yet their reliability as mathematical reasoning assistants remains poorly understood. We introduce GTBench, a curriculum-grounded benchmark for evaluating LLMs as mathematical research assistants in graph theory, comprising 63 problems organized into three groups of increasing difficulty: undergraduate definitions and basic properties (Group 1), algorithm tracing and structural reasoning (Group 2), and graduate-level proof construction (Group 3). Problems are sourced from verified academic materials including Diestel's Graph Theory. We evaluate five frontier models -- GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, Llama 3.3 70B, and Mistral Large 3 -- under zero-shot and chain-of-thought prompting, using exact-match and LLM-as-judge evaluation for Groups 1 and 2, and a hybrid human expert and LLM-as-judge protocol for Group 3. Our results reveal a pronounced performance hierarchy: GPT-5 approaches ceiling on Group 1 (95.8% zero-shot) and maintains meaningful accuracy on graduate proofs (82%), while all other models degrade substantially with difficulty, with Llama achieving 0% under human evaluation on Group 3 zero-shot. Failure mode analysis shows that correct algorithm, wrong execution errors dominate Groups 1 and 2, while Group 3 additionally surfaces incomplete reasoning failures and reveals systematic disagreement between human evaluators and the automated judge, particularly on verbose or near-complete proofs (kappa = 0.48-0.83 across human pairs). GTBench provides the first curriculum-grounded evaluation framework for graph-theoretic reasoning in LLMs, with direct implications for the governance of AI tools in mathematical education and scientific research.