定理证明

Large language models often hallucinate with high confidence on "random facts" that lack inferable patterns. We formalize the memorization of such facts as a membership testing problem, unifying the discrete error metrics of Bloom filters with the continuous log-loss of LLMs. By analyzing this problem in the regime where facts are sparse in the universe of plausible claims, we establish a rate-distortion theorem: the optimal memory efficiency is characterized by the minimum KL divergence between score distributions on facts and non-facts. This theoretical framework provides a distinctive explanation for hallucination under an idealized setting: even with optimal training, perfect data, and a simplified ``closed world'' setting, the information-theoretically optimal strategy under limited capacity is not to abstain or forget, but to assign high confidence to some non-facts, resulting in hallucination. We validate this theory empirically on both synthetic and real-world data, showing that hallucinations persist as a natural consequence of lossy compression. The same theorem recovers and sharpens classical space lower bounds for Bloom-type filters, pinning down an additive constant left open for two-sided filters.

Recent advances in formal theorem proving have focused on Olympiad-level mathematics, leaving undergraduate domains largely unexplored. Optimization, fundamental to machine learning, operations research, and scientific computing, remains underserved by existing provers. Its reliance on domain-specific formalisms (convexity, optimality conditions, and algorithmic analysis) creates significant distribution shift, making naive domain transfer ineffective. We present OptProver, a trained model that achieves robust transfer from Olympiad to undergraduate optimization. Starting from a strong Olympiad-level prover, our pipeline mitigates distribution shift through two key innovations. First, we employ large-scale optimization-focused data curation via expert iteration. Second, we introduce a specialized preference learning objective that integrates perplexity-weighted optimization with a mechanism to penalize valid but non-progressing proof steps. This not only addresses distribution shifts but also guides the search toward efficient trajectories. To enable rigorous evaluation, we construct a novel benchmark in Lean 4 focused on optimization. On this benchmark, OptProver achieves state-of-the-art Pass@1 and Pass@32 among comparably sized models while maintaining competitive performance on general theorem-proving tasks, demonstrating effective domain transfer without catastrophic forgetting.

As large language models (LLMs) improve in mathematical reasoning and formal understanding, a promising approach for automated theorem proving (ATP) is to enable LLMs construct proof sketches, which plan a high-level proof strategy and decompose complex theorems into independently provable subgoals. However, most existing proof sketches are immutable. As a result, any revision typically requires rebuilding the entire sketch, which discards already proved subgoals and bring additional cost. In this paper, we address this limitation by introducing EditableSketch, an editable proof-sketch structure that supports in-place edits for error correction and further subgoal decomposition while preserving previously proved subgoals. Building on EditableSketch, we introduce SketchRefine, a proof-generation framework for ATP by iteratively refining proof sketches through localized, incremental edits. Experiments show that our method not only reduces the cost of the proof process, but also achieves superior performance. For example, our method realizes 76.0% pass rate on FormalMath-Lite (+14.1\% vs. DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B). Meanwhile, compared with Hilbert, our method significantly reduces token overhead while achieving comparable performance.

Automated AI research holds great potential to accelerate scientific discovery. However, current LLMs often generate plausible-looking but ineffective ideas. Execution grounding may help, but it is unclear whether automated execution is feasible and whether LLMs can learn from the execution feedback. To investigate these, we first build an automated executor to implement ideas and launch large-scale parallel GPU experiments to verify their effectiveness. We then convert two realistic research problems -- LLM pre-training and post-training -- into execution environments and demonstrate that our automated executor can implement a large fraction of the ideas sampled from frontier LLMs. We analyze two methods to learn from the execution feedback: evolutionary search and reinforcement learning. Execution-guided evolutionary search is sample-efficient: it finds a method that significantly outperforms the GRPO baseline on post-training, and finds a pre-training recipe that outperforms the nanoGPT baseline on pre-training, all within just ten search epochs. Frontier LLMs often generate meaningful algorithmic ideas during search, but they tend to saturate early and only occasionally exhibit scaling trends. Reinforcement learning from execution reward, on the other hand, suffers from mode collapse. It successfully improves the average reward of the ideator model but not the upper-bound, due to models converging on simple ideas. We thoroughly analyze the executed ideas and training dynamics to facilitate future efforts.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in mathematical reasoning, yet persistently suffer from hallucinations and erroneous logic. While formal theorem proving (FTP) shows promise in process-level reliability, it is limited to _verification_ (checking known propositions). This leaves constructive problem-solving (finding unknown terms that satisfy specific conditions) underexplored and disconnected from process-level verifiability. To bridge this gap, we introduce **FPS** (_**F**ormal **P**roblem-**S**olving_), a principled framework to encompass the end-to-end problem-solving process in Lean 4. In FPS, the answer is an unknown metavariable coupled with a proof obligation, forcing it to be mathematically derived and verified. We further present **D-FPS** (_**D**eductive **FPS**_), which structures solving into forward derivation and backward verification, aligning more closely with human reasoning steps. Three benchmarks of over 1,000 problems are constructed for evaluation: **FormalMath500**, **MiniF2F-Solving**, and **PutnamBench-Solving**. We further propose **RPE** (_**R**estricted **P**ropositional **E**quivalence_), a symbolic metric that evaluates semantic correctness beyond brittle string matching. Extensive experiments with state-of-the-art provers reveal that solving is significantly harder than proving, highlighting the ``alignment tax'' required to transition from loose validity checking to constructive, human-aligned reasoning. Code and data are available at [https://github.com/Purewhite2019/formal_problem_solving_main](https://github.com/Purewhite2019/formal_problem_solving_main).

We present SorryDB, a dynamically-updating benchmark of open Lean tasks drawn from 78 real world formalization projects on GitHub. Unlike existing static benchmarks, often composed of competition problems, hillclimbing the SorryDB benchmark will yield tools that are aligned to the community needs, more usable by mathematicians, and more capable of understanding complex dependencies. Moreover, by providing a continuously updated stream of tasks, SorryDB mitigates test-set contamination and offers a robust metric for an agent's ability to contribute to novel formal mathematics projects. We evaluate a collection of approaches, including generalist large language models, agentic approaches, and specialized symbolic provers, over a selected snapshot of 1000 tasks from SorryDB. We show that current approaches are complementary: even though an agentic approach based on Gemini Flash is the most performant, it is not strictly better than other off-the-shelf large-language models, specialized provers, or even a curated list of tactics.

LLMs excel at reasoning, but validating their steps remains challenging. Formal verification offers a solution through mechanically checkable proofs. Interactive theorem provers (ITPs) dominate mathematical reasoning but require detailed low-level proof steps, while auto-active verifiers offer automation but focus on software verification. Recent work has begun bridging this divide by evaluating LLMs for software verification in ITPs, but the complementary direction—LLMs for mathematical theorem proving in auto-active verifiers—remains unexplored. We present miniF2F-Dafny, the first translation of the widely-used mathematical benchmark miniF2F to an auto-active verifier: Dafny. We find that Dafny's automation alone solves 39-44% of problems with empty proofs, whereas many require substantial proof guidance in ITPs. We evaluate 8 off-the-shelf LLMs on proof generation, with the best model (Claude Opus 4.6) achieving 62.7% cumulative pass@4 on the full test set, improving over the 38.9% empty-proof baseline by 23.8 percentage points. These results show that auto-active verification offers a complementary empirical setting for AI-assisted mathematical reasoning, where LLMs provide high-level guidance while SMT automation handles low-level details. Our benchmark and evaluation infrastructure are publicly available on GitHub.

Benchmarks for LLM-assisted theorem proving in Lean are often treated as intrinsically reliable because every solved instance comes with a machine-checked proof. However, the kernel only checks that a proof establishes a \emph{formal} statement; it does not verify that the statement faithfully encodes the intended informal problem, nor that evaluation harnesses are robust to trivial or adversarial solutions. We audit five widely used Lean theorem-proving benchmarks and their forks, using corpus-scale static checkers to surface 4,833 findings, including 398 mechanically certified issues such as counterexamples, vacuous theorems, and unsound axioms. We also document semantic defects such as missing hypotheses, problem simplification, incomplete or incorrect translations, and Lean-specific specification hazards. Beyond dataset construction, we survey evaluation-time failure modes and show, on corrected subsets, that defects can both inflate and deflate reported prover scores. We propose a fault taxonomy, a suite of automated checkers and recall-oriented semantic-audit prompts, and release standards to guide the creation of formal math datasets and make evaluation more reproducible and trustworthy. Our checkers, audit prompts, and corrected dataset snapshots are available at \url{https://github.com/Shashi456/atp-checkers}.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly assist secure software development, their ability to meet the rigorous demands of Rust program verification remains unclear. Existing evaluations treat Rust verification as a black box, assessing models only by binary pass or fail outcomes for proof hints. This obscures whether models can systematically reconstruct the explicit deductive steps required for verifying nontrivial Rust code. To bridge this gap, we introduce VCoT-Lift, a framework that lifts low-level solver reasoning into high-level, human-readable verification steps. By exposing solver-level reasoning as an explicit Verification Chain-of-Thought, VCoT-Lift provides a concrete ground truth for fine-grained evaluation. Leveraging VCoT-Lift, we introduce VCoT-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark of 1,988 VCoT completion tasks for rigorously evaluating LLMs' ability to reconstruct the entire verification process. VCoT-Bench measures performance along three orthogonal dimensions: robustness to varying degrees of missing proofs, competence across different proof types, and sensitivity to proof locations. Evaluation of ten state-of-the-art models reveals severe fragility, indicating that current LLMs fall well short of the reasoning capabilities exhibited by automated theorem provers.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown strong performance on mathematical benchmarks. At the same time, they are prone to hallucination and sycophancy, often providing convincing but flawed proofs for incorrect mathematical statements provided by users. This significantly limits the applicability of LLMs in theorem proving, as verification of these flawed proofs must be done manually by expert mathematicians. However, existing benchmarks that measure sycophancy in mathematics are limited: they focus solely on final-answer problems, rely on very simple and often contaminated datasets, and construct benchmark samples using synthetic modifications that create ill-posed questions. To address these issues, we introduce BrokenMath, the first benchmark for evaluating sycophantic behavior in LLMs within the context of natural language theorem proving. BrokenMath is built from advanced 2025 competition problems, which are perturbed with an LLM to produce false statements and subsequently refined through expert review. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs and agentic systems and find that sycophancy is widespread, with the best model, GPT-5, producing sycophantic answers 29% of the time. We further investigate several mitigation strategies, including test-time interventions and supervised fine-tuning on curated sycophantic examples. These approaches reduce, but do not eliminate, sycophancy.

Automating formal proofs of combinatorial identities is challenging for LLM-based provers, as long-horizon proof planning is required and unconstrained search quickly explodes. Symbolic methods such as the Wilf--Zeilberger (WZ) method can achieve a mechanized proof of combinatorial identities by constructing special auxiliary functions and demonstrating that they satisfy specific recurrence relations. We propose WZ-LLM, a neuro-symbolic framework that turns WZ proof plans into executable proof sketches in Lean~4 and uses an LLM-based prover to discharge the resulting machine-checkable subgoals. We also train a dedicated WZ-Prover via a Lean-kernel-verified bootstrapping loop with expert-verified iteration, followed by DAPO-based refinement. Experiments show that WZ-LLM achieves a 34\% proof success rate on LCI-Test (100 classical combinatorial identities), outperforming strong baselines such as DeepSeek-V3 and Goedel-Prover-V2; moreover, on LCI-Test it proves 5 identities on which the symbolic-only baseline fails. WZ-LLM also improves performance on CombiBench and PutnamBench-Comb, suggesting the effectiveness of coupling symbolic proof sketches with learned formal reasoning. Experiments show that WZ-LLM achieves a 34\% proof success rate on LCI-Test (100 classic combinatorial identities), outperforming strong baselines such as DeepSeek-V3 and Goedel-Prover-V2, and delivering consistent gains on CombiBench and PutnamBench-Comb. These results indicate that our framework provides two complementary strengths: improved direct proving for identities beyond the scope of WZ, and substantially higher end-to-end success when WZ sketches guide a specialized prover.

We propose a minimal agentic baseline that enables systematic comparison across different AI-based theorem prover architectures. This design implements the core features shared among state-of-the-art systems: iterative proof refinement, library search and context management. We evaluate this agentic approach using qualitatively different benchmarks and compare various frontier language models and design choices. Our results show competitive performance compared to state-of-the-art approaches, while using a significantly simpler architecture and a fraction of their cost. Additionally, we demonstrate consistent advantages of an iterative approach over multiple single-shot generations, especially in terms of sample efficiency and cost effectiveness. The implementation is released open-source as a candidate reference for future research and as an accessible prover for the community.

While frontier formal mathematics systems now routinely develop repository-scale proof engineering artifacts requiring multi-file coordination and semantic correctness beyond compilation, existing evaluation benchmarks remain focused on isolated theorem proving. We introduce Automated Proof Engineering (APE), the first systematic framework for evaluating repository-scale proof engineering through dual verification that validates both syntactic compilation and semantic requirement satisfaction in pinned library environments. We present a complete infrastructure comprising APE-Bench, which automatically extracts proof engineering tasks from real library commit histories, and APE-Harness, a unified execution framework based on task contract abstraction. This contract-based design enables standardized evaluation across diverse formal mathematics tasks and fair systematic comparison of different agent implementations (including our APE-Agent reference scaffold alongside Claude Code and Codex CLI) on identical task specifications. We demonstrate the framework's effectiveness through comprehensive evaluation. All code, benchmarks, and infrastructure will be open-sourced.

Recent formal reasoning systems have reached IMO-level performance, yet they leave a fragmented landscape: algebra and number theory are handled in Lean, while geometry still relies on domain-specific languages with limited formal guarantees. This split increases the trusted computing base and hinders unified model development. Existing geometry-in-Lean efforts (LeanEuclid, LeanGeo) introduce custom axiom systems incompatible with standard Mathlib, and their small scale ($<$ 1,100 problems) limits large-scale training. Native Mathlib autoformalization of geometry, however, poses distinct challenges: implicit diagrammatic assumptions (e.g., topological configuration and non-degeneracy) must be made explicit rather than deferred to external solvers, and models must adapt to Mathlib's small, rapidly evolving geometry infrastructure. We present Euclean, a four-stage framework - constraint explication, configuration anchoring, formalization mapping, and iterative repair - for automatically formalizing geometry in native Mathlib. We construct OMNI-Geometry (768 competition problems) and Numina-Geometry (177,597 problems), the largest geometry formalization dataset in Lean. Human evaluation shows 48.89% TOP1 and 73.33% TOP5 accuracy. Training Goedel v2 on our formalizations improves proof success from 13.6% to 15.1%, validating dataset quality for unified neural theorem proving. Code and datasets: https://github.com/tlb-22/Euclean.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in formal theorem proving, yet state-of-the-art performance often necessitates prohibitive test-time compute via massive roll-outs or extended context windows. In this work, we address this scalability bottleneck by exploiting an informative structure in formal verification: the observation that compilers map a vast space of diverse proof attempts to a compact set of structured failure modes. We introduce a learning-to-refine framework that leverages this compression to perform efficient learning and proof exploration. We perform tree search that corrects errors locally conditioned on explicit verifier feedback, thereby circumventing the costs associated with accumulating a long history of proof attempts. Extensive evaluations show that our method consistently amplifies the reasoning capabilities of base provers across varying scales. Notably, our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance on PutnamBench among publicly reported $\sim$8B and $\sim$32B parameter models under comparable test-time budgets, offering a scalable paradigm for next-generation verifier-guided reasoning.

Automated proving of polynomial inequalities is a fundamental challenge in automated mathematical reasoning, where rich algebraic structure and a rapidly growing certificate search space hinder scalability. Purely symbolic approaches provide strong guarantees but often scale poorly as the number of variables or the degree increases, due to expensive algebraic manipulations and rapidly growing intermediate expressions. In parallel, LLM-guided methods have made notable progress, particularly on competition-style inequalities with a small number of variables. To address the remaining scalability challenges, we propose NSPI, a neuro-symbolic framework that combines the complementary strengths of LLMs and symbolic computation for polynomial-inequality proving. Concretely, an LLM proposes a conjecture in the form of an approximate polynomial Sum-Of-Squares (SOS) decomposition; we refine it via symbolic computation to obtain an exact polynomial SOS representation, which directly proves the target inequality, and we further certify the proof in Lean, yielding an end-to-end pipeline from heuristic discovery to machine-checked proof. Experiments on challenging benchmarks involving polynomials with up to 10 variables demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of the proposed method.

Recent advances in large language models have accelerated neural theorem proving (NTP). Isabelle is a mature and important formal theorem prover that has been widely used in software and hardware verification. However, progress in the Isabelle setting remains limited. Existing approaches either optimize search strategies or train on highly imbalanced raw proof corpora. At the same time, the specialized structure of Isabelle proofs limits the effectiveness of general-purpose data selection methods. To address these challenges, we adopt a data-centric framework for neural theorem proving in Isabelle. We characterize high-quality formal proof data along three complementary dimensions—proof complexity, semantic coverage, and reasoning diversity (PSR)—and propose a PSR-guided data selection pipeline to construct a compact, high-quality training subset. In addition, we leverage verifier feedback as a dynamic data signal during inference, introducing a dynamic feedback-based prompt optimization that iteratively incorporates Isabelle verifier feedback to guide proof generation. We construct and release a 4k high-quality Isabelle dataset based on the PSR criterion. On the miniF2F-test, fine-tuning solely on PSR-selected data achieves 84.8% Pass@64. When further combined with dynamic feedback–based prompt optimization, the full framework improves performance to 90.6% Pass@64, establishing a new state of the art for neural theorem proving in Isabelle.