Theorem Proving

Recent advancements, such as DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B and Kimina-Prover-Preview-72B, demonstrate a prevailing trend in leveraging reinforcement learning (RL)-based large-scale training for automated theorem proving. Surprisingly, we discover that even without any training, careful neuro-symbolic coordination of existing off-the-shelf reasoning models and tactic step provers can achieve comparable performance. This paper introduces DSP+, an improved version of the Draft, Sketch, and Prove framework, featuring a fine-grained and integrated neuro-symbolic enhancement for each phase: (1) In the draft phase, we prompt reasoning models to generate concise natural-language subgoals to benefit the sketch phase, removing thinking tokens and references to human-written proofs; (2) In the sketch phase, subgoals are autoformalized with hypotheses to benefit the proving phase, and sketch lines containing syntactic errors are masked according to predefined rules; (3) In the proving phase, we tightly integrate symbolic search methods like Aesop with step provers to establish proofs for the sketch subgoals. Experimental results show that, without any additional model training or fine-tuning, DSP+ solves 80.7%, 32.8%, and 24 out of 644 problems from miniF2F, ProofNet, and PutnamBench, respectively, while requiring fewer budgets compared to state-of-the-arts. DSP+ proves imo_2019_p1, an IMO problem in miniF2F that is not solved by any prior work. Additionally, DSP+ generates proof patterns comprehensible by human experts, facilitating the identification of formalization errors; For example, eight wrongly formalized statements in miniF2F are discovered. Our results highlight the potential of classical reasoning patterns besides the RL-based training. All components will be open-sourced.

A key challenge in automated formal reasoning is the intractable search space, which grows exponentially with the depth of the proof. This branching is caused by the large number of candidate proof tactics which can be applied to a given goal. Nonetheless, many of these tactics are semantically similar or lead to an execution error, wasting valuable resources in both cases. We address the problem of effectively pruning this search, using only synthetic data generated from previous proof attempts. We first demonstrate that it is possible to generate semantically aware tactic representations which capture the effect on the proving environment, likelihood of success, and execution time. We then propose a novel filtering mechanism which leverages these representations to select semantically diverse and high quality tactics, using Determinantal Point Processes. Our approach, 3D-Prover, is designed to be general, and to augment any underlying tactic generator. We demonstrate the effectiveness of 3D-Prover on the miniF2F and LeanDojo benchmarks by augmenting popular open source proving LLMs. We show that our approach leads to an increase in the overall proof rate, as well as a significant improvement in the tactic success rate, execution time and diversity. We make our code available at https://github.com/sean-lamont/3D-Prover.

Premise selection is a critical bottleneck in interactive theorem proving, particularly with large libraries. Existing methods, primarily relying on semantic embeddings, often fail to effectively leverage the rich structural information inherent in mathematical expressions. This paper proposes a novel framework for premise selection based on the structure of expression trees. The framework enhances premise selection ability by explicitly utilizing the structural information of Lean expressions and by means of the simplified tree representation obtained via common subexpression elimination. Our method employs a multi-stage filtering pipeline, incorporating structure-aware similarity measures including the Weisfeiler-Lehman kernel, tree edit distance, $\texttt{Const}$ node Jaccard similarity, and collapse-match similarity. An adaptive fusion strategy combines these metrics for refined ranking. To handle large-scale data efficiently, we incorporate cluster-based search space optimization and structural compatibility constraints. Comprehensive evaluation on a large theorem library extracted from Mathlib4 demonstrates that our method significantly outperforms existing premise retrieval tools across various metrics. Experimental analysis, including ablation studies and parameter sensitivity analysis, validates the contribution of individual components and highlights the efficacy of our structure-aware approach and multi-metric fusion.

Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) in formal languages remains a formidable challenge in AI, demanding rigorous logical deduction and navigating vast search spaces. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promising performance, existing stepwise provers often suffer from biased search guidance, leading to inefficiencies and suboptimal proof strategies. This paper introduces the Multi-Perspective Search Prover (MPS-Prover), a novel stepwise ATP system designed to overcome these limitations. MPS-Prover incorporates two key innovations: a highly effective post-training data curation strategy that prunes approximately 40\% of redundant training data without sacrificing performance, and a multi-perspective tree search mechanism. This search integrates a learned critic model with strategically designed heuristic rules to diversify tactic selection, prevent getting trapped in unproductive states, and enhance search robustness. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that MPS-Prover achieves state-of-the-art performance on multiple challenging benchmarks, including miniF2F and ProofNet, outperforming prior 7B parameter models. Furthermore, our analyses reveal that MPS-Prover generates significantly shorter and more diverse proofs compared to existing stepwise and whole-proof methods, highlighting its efficiency and efficacy. Our work advances the capabilities of LLM-based formal reasoning and offers a robust framework and a comprehensive analysis for developing more powerful theorem provers.

Autoformalization, the automatic translation of mathematical content from natural language into machine-verifiable formal languages, has seen significant progress driven by advances in large language models (LLMs). Nonetheless, a primary barrier to further improvements is the limited availability of parallel corpora that map informal mathematical text to its formal counterpart. To address this limitation, we propose ATLAS (Autoformalizing Theorems through Lifting, Augmentation, and Synthesis of Data), a novel data generation framework designed to produce large-scale, high-quality parallel corpora of theorem statements. Distinct from prior approaches, ATLAS begins with a concept repository, accelerates the improvement of the student model through expert iteration combined with knowledge distillation, and introduces two novel augmentation strategies that exploit the structural characteristics of formal languages. Running the proposed ATLAS framework for 10 iterations, we construct an undergraduate-level dataset of 117k theorem statements and develop the ATLAS Translator by fine-tuning Llama3.1-8B-Instruct with LoRA. This model establishes a new state of the art, demonstrating statistically significant improvements over both the Herald Translator and the Kimina-Autoformalizer across all benchmarks (p<0.05, two-sided t-test). Furthermore, we demonstrate that the full-parameter fine-tuning of a stronger base model on the ATLAS dataset leads to superior performance. The datasets, model, and code are available at https://github.com/XiaoyangLiu-sjtu/ATLAS.

We perform a thorough analysis of the formal and informal statements in the miniF2F benchmark from the perspective of an AI system that is tasked to participate in a math Olympiad consisting of the problems in miniF2F. In such setting, the model has to read and comprehend the problems in natural language, formalize them in Lean language, then proceed with proving the problems, and it will get credit for each problem if the formal proof corresponds to the original informal statement presented to the model. Our evaluation results reveal that the best accuracy of such pipeline can be about 36% using the SoTA models in the literature, considerably lower than the individual SoTA accuracies, 97% and 69% reported in the autoformalization and theorem proving literature. Analyzing the failure modes, we trace back a considerable portion of this drop to discrepancies between the formal and informal statements for more than half of the problems in miniF2F. We proceed with correcting all the errors, discrepancies and simplifications in formal and informal statements, and present the _miniF2F-v2_ with fully verified formal and informal statements and proofs. Evaluating the full theorem proving pipeline on _miniF2F-v2_ leads to the best accuracy of 70%, a significant improvement from the 40% on the original miniF2F, yet indicating considerable misalignment between the autoformalization models and theorem provers. Our deep analysis suggests that a higher quality benchmark can help the community better evaluate progress in the field of formal reasoning and also better diagnose the failure and success modes of autoformalization and theorem proving models. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/roozbeh-yz/miniF2F_v2.

We introduce ${\rm C{\small LEVER}}$, a high-quality, manually curated benchmark of 161 problems for end-to-end verified code generation in Lean. Each problem consists of (1) the task of generating a specification that matches a held-out ground-truth specification, and (2) the task of generating a Lean implementation that provably satisfies this specification. Unlike prior benchmarks,${\rm C{\small LEVER}}$ avoids test-case supervision, LLM-generated annotations, and specifications that leak implementation logic or allow vacuous solutions. All outputs are verified post-hoc using Lean's type checker to ensure machine-checkable correctness. We use ${\rm C{\small LEVER}}$ to evaluate several few-shot and agentic approaches based on state-of-the-art language models. These methods all struggle to achieve full verification, establishing it as a challenging frontier benchmark for program synthesis and formal reasoning. Our benchmark can be found on [GitHub](https://github.com/trishullab/clever) as well as [HuggingFace](https://huggingface.co/datasets/amitayusht/clever). All our evaluation code is also available [online](https://github.com/trishullab/clever-prover).

LLM-based formal proof assistants (e.g., in Lean) hold great promise for automating mathematical discovery. But beyond syntactic correctness, do these systems truly understand mathematical structure as humans do? We investigate this question in context of mathematical inequalities---specifically the prover's ability to recognize that the given problem simplifies by applying a known inequality such as AM/GM. Specifically, we are interested in their ability to do this in a {\em compositional setting} where multiple inequalities must be applied as part of a solution. We introduce \ineqcomp, a benchmark built from elementary inequalities through systematic transformations, including variable duplication, algebraic rewriting, and multi-step composition. Although these problems remain easy for humans, we find that most provers---including Goedel, STP, and Kimina-7B---struggle significantly. DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B shows relative robustness, but still suffers a 20\% performance drop (pass@32). Even for DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B model, the gap between compositional variants and seed problems exists, implying that simply scaling up the model size alone does not fully solve the compositional weakness. Strikingly, performance remains poor for all models even when formal proofs of the constituent parts are provided in context, revealing that the source of weakness is indeed in compositional reasoning. Our results expose a persisting gap between the generalization behavior of current AI provers and human mathematical intuition. All data and evaluation code can be found at \url{https://github.com/haoyuzhao123/LeanIneqComp}.

Deductive formal problem-solving (D-FPS) enables process-verified, human-aligned problem-solving by implementing deductive solving processes within formal theorem proving (FTP) environments. However, current methods fail to address the misalignment between informal and formal reasoning granularity and suffer from inefficiency due to backtracking and error propagation. Moreover, the extreme scarcity of formal problem-solution pairs further hinders progress. For the first gap, we propose **HAR** (_**H**ierarchical **A**utoregressive Formal **R**easoner_), a novel reasoning pipeline. HAR decouples informal-aligned drafting and detailed proving, and formulates solution construction as autoregressive generation with per-step feedback. Second, we propose **CoPA** (_**C**hain-**o**f-**P**roxy-**A**utoformalization_), a data generation pipeline that cascades statement autoformalization, proof drafting, and proof search as a proxy autoformalization path. Experiments demonstrate significant improvements: trained on data bootstrapped by CoPA, HAR achieves superior performance on FormalMath500 ($15.50\\%\mapsto 44.09\\%$) and MiniF2F-Solving ($21.87\\%\mapsto 56.58\\%$) with lower computational budget. Explorations reveal promising directions in formal solution pruning and informal dataset denoising.