Could HepLean's formal verification catch precision losses that arise from simplified numerical algorithms?

HepLean's formal verification approach is fundamentally different from catching numerical precision loss — they solve orthogonal problems.

HepLean [AG-2024.05-806] formalizes *symbolic* high-energy physics: definitions, theorems, and algebraic proofs translated into machine-readable Lean code. Its strength is catching mathematical errors in symbolic reasoning, as demonstrated when formalization revealed an error in a 2006 stability proof for the two Higgs doublet model that had gone unnoticed for twenty years [AG-2026.03-830]. This is about logical correctness, not floating-point arithmetic.

Numerical precision loss from simplified algorithms is a different beast. When you round intermediate calculations or truncate expansions, you accumulate error in floating-point operations — a problem that lives in the *continuous* world of real numbers, not in the discrete logical structure that formal theorem provers verify. HepLean could in principle verify that an algorithm is *theoretically* correct (e.g., "this QED series expansion follows from first principles"), but it cannot automatically detect how much precision you lose when you truncate that series at finite order or switch to lower-precision arithmetic.

That said, formal verification could help *design* more robust algorithms. For instance, [AG-2024.06-1166] describes physics-driven modifications to scattering amplitude computations that achieve higher precision than naive quadruple-precision arithmetic — this kind of algorithmic insight could potentially be verified formally. And [AG-2026.01-1029] shows how machine-learned surrogates for loop amplitudes can be calibrated with uncertainty estimates to identify and improve low-precision regions. But these are engineering solutions, not formal proofs.

The provided preprints don't directly address how formal verification could catch numerical precision losses in simplified algorithms.