cs.LOOct 29, 2026

Hammering with Vampire in Lean

Authors: Jonas Bodingbauer, Laura Kovács

Organizations: TU Wien, Vienna, Austria

Abstract

We present Vampire-Hammer, a hammer for the Lean interactive theorem prover that discharges goals using the Vampire automated theorem prover and reconstructs proofs checked by the Lean kernel. Vampire-Hammer uses the Lean-auto framework to process goals and premises before dispatching them to Vampire for proof search. Doing so, we rely on standard TPTP problem formats and annotated TSTP proofs that support proof reconstruction. With a 10-second budget on 196,083 eligible Mathlib theorems, Vampire-Hammer solves 21,158 problems not solved by other evaluated tools within the same budget.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables1 asset

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

May 26, 2026

MerLean-Prover: A Recursive Looping Harness for Lean 4 Theorem Proving

MerLean-Prover is an end-to-end Lean4 theorem prover that replaces sorry declarations with kernel-checkable proofs. It is built from three agent types (Planning, Check, and Lean) composed by a recursive outer loop whose unit of revision is the proof plan itself, and uses no fine-tuning, no custom RL objective, and no theorem-specific scaffolding. On FormalQualBench, a benchmark of 23 PhD-qualifying-exam theorems, MerLean-Prover solves 10/23, surpassing the strongest published open-source baseline (OpenGauss, 8/23). On Putnam2025, the same harness closes 12/12 with substantially lower total wall-clock than the next-best system that closes the full set. The harness also transfers to smaller models: Sonnet closes all four tested FormalQualBench problems, and Haiku closes the two short ones. These results suggest that harness design is a central factor in end-to-end Lean4 theorem proving, alongside raw model capability, and that a relatively simple harness can already be effective.
Oct 15, 2026

Lean Graph Search for Formal Theorem Proving

Retrieving relevant lemmas is crucial for formal theorem proving, enabling provers to build machine-checkable proofs from established mathematical results. Recent retrieval systems match library declarations to a target theorem or its intermediate proof steps, but make limited use of multi-hop dependencies among declarations. These dependencies can reveal supporting lemmas that are not necessarily lexically similar to the target theorem but recur in proofs of related problems. To this end, we propose LeanGraphSearch, a graph-based retrieval method for Lean 4 that constructs a graph from Mathlib's forward dependencies and traverses it to uncover supporting lemmas through multi-hop dependency chains. Specifically, LeanGraphSearch links each declaration to the premises it depends on, uses a graph-based ranking algorithm to propagate relevance from semantically matched declarations to their dependencies, and reranks the expanded candidates against the original query. Across two mathematical retrieval benchmarks, LeanGraphSearch improves recall by up to 12% over the strongest baseline, LeanSearch v2, on MathlibQR and increases coverage of complete annotated proof routes on MathlibMPR, covering up to 3.7% of extra groups. More importantly, we evaluate whether these retrieval gains translate into improved end-to-end theorem proving by integrating LeanGraphSearch into an iterative proving loop guided by Lean feedback. Across three theorem proving benchmarks, LeanGraphSearch improves pass rate at {8, 16, 32} reflection turns by as much as 40% compared to vanilla prover and at most 10% compared to LeanSearch v2, showing higher accuracy-cost efficiency. These findings highlight the value of dependency graph search for theorem proving and motivate further research on structure-aware search for proof discovery.
Oct 18, 2026

Fix, Not Just Resample: Bounded Compiler-Guided Repair in Lean 4

Automated theorem provers often rely on sampling language models, but proof assistants like Lean reject each failed step with a precise error message --- information that pure sampling discards. To overcome this, we introduce a bounded, online step-level repair module. Our search samples KK candidate tactics at each step and repairs a failed tactic at most RR times. Instead of discarding failed tactics, we feed the compiler's error message to a pretrained repair model to fix individual rejected steps in place. This approach improves the solve rate over a sampling-only baseline across all tested candidate budgets (K∈{1,3,5,8}K \in \{1,3,5,8\}), achieving up to a 32%32\% relative gain and solving 8282 additional theorems on a 1,9901{,}990-theorem subset of the LeanDojo benchmark. Repair is not free: it trades extra runtime for reachable proofs. But the trade is predictable: repair pays most when sampling is constrained; its return is front-loaded, with the first repair attempt capturing 84–96%84\text{--}96\% of the total gain; and the gain comes almost entirely from shallow tactic-execution failures rather than structural errors such as type mismatches. This targeted repair successfully replicates on a second benchmark (Lean Workbook), nearly doubling the solve rate with zero regressions.