Automated Theorem Proving

LLM self-play algorithms are notable in that, in principle, nothing bounds their learning: a Conjecturer model creates problems for a Solver, and both improve together. However, in practice, existing LLM self-play methods do not scale well with large amounts of compute, instead hitting learning plateaus. We argue this is because over long training runs, the Conjecturer learns to hack its reward, collapsing to artificially complex problems that do not help the Solver improve. To overcome this, we introduce Self-Guided Self-Play (SGS), a self-play algorithm in which the language model itself guides the Conjecturer away from degeneracy. In SGS, the model takes on three roles: Solver, Conjecturer, and a Guide that scores synthetic problems by their relevance to unsolved target problems and how clean and natural they are, providing supervision against Conjecturer collapse. Our core hypothesis is that language models can assess whether a subproblem is useful for achieving a goal. We evaluate the scaling properties of SGS by running training for significantly longer than prior works and by fitting scaling laws to cumulative solve rate curves. Applying SGS to formal theorem proving in Lean4, we find that it surpasses the asymptotic solve rate of our strongest RL baseline in fewer than 80 rounds of self-play and enables a 7B parameter model, after 200 rounds of self-play, to solve more problems than a 671B parameter model pass@4.

Project Yanasse presents a method for discovering new proofs of theorems in one area of mathematics by transferring proof strategy patterns (e.g., Lean 4 tactic invocation patterns) from a structurally distant area. The system extracts tactic usage distributions across 27 top-level areas of Mathlib (217,133 proof states), computes z-scores to identify tactics that are heavily used in a source area but rare or absent in a target area, matches source and target proof states via GPU-accelerated NP-hard analogy (running on a MacBook Air via Apple's MPS backend), and then asks an AI reasoning agent to semantically adapt--not symbol-substitute--the source tactics invocation pattern to the target theorem. In this first part of the study, the method is applied to the pair Probability -> Representation Theory, producing 4 Lean-verified new proofs out of 10 attempts (40%). The proofs compile with zero sorry declarations. The key finding is that tactic schemas decompose into a head (domain-gated, rarely transfers) and a modifier (domain-general, often transfers): filter upwards's head fails in representation theory (no Filter structure), but its [LIST] with ω modifier transfers cleanly as ext1 + simp [LIST] + rfl. Crucially, the underlying matching engine--deep vision lib.py--is entirely domain independent: the same optimization code for an NP-hard matching that matches chess positions by analogy matches Lean proof states by analogy, without knowing which domain it is processing. Only a relation extractor is domain-specific.

Although most of the automated theorem-proving approaches depend on formal proof systems, informal theorem proving can align better with large language models' (LLMs) strength in natural language processing. In this work, we identify a primary bottleneck in informal theorem proving as a lack of insight, namely the difficulty of recognizing the core techniques required to solve complex problems. To address this, we propose $\texttt{DeepInsight}$, a unified training framework designed to cultivate this essential reasoning skill and enable LLMs to perform insightful reasoning. Our framework consists of three components: (1) $\texttt{DeepInsightTheorem}$, a hierarchical dataset that structures informal proofs by explicitly extracting core techniques and proof sketches alongside the final proof; (2) a Progressive Multi-Stage SFT strategy that mimics the human learning process, teaching the model proof writing, planning, and insight identification; and (3) $\texttt{InsightPO}$, a policy optimization method that assigns structured rewards over this insight hierarchy. Our experiments on challenging mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that this insight-aware generation strategy significantly outperforms baselines. These results demonstrate that teaching models to identify and apply core techniques can substantially improve their mathematical reasoning.

Most ATP benchmarks embed the final answer within the formal statement -- a convention we call "Easy Mode" -- a design that simplifies the task relative to what human competitors face and may lead to optimistic estimates of model capability. We call the stricter, more realistic setting "Hard Mode": the system must independently discover the answer before constructing a formal proof. To enable Hard Mode research, we make two contributions. First, we release MiniF2F-Hard and FIMO-Hard, expert-reannotated Hard Mode variants of two widely-used ATP benchmarks. Second, we introduce Discover And Prove (DAP), an agentic framework that uses LLM natural-language reasoning with explicit self-reflection to discover answers, then rewrites Hard Mode statements into Easy Mode ones for existing ATP provers. DAP sets the state of the art: on CombiBench it raises solved problems from 7 (previous SOTA, Pass@16) to 10; on PutnamBench it is the first system to formally prove 36 theorems in Hard Mode -- while simultaneously revealing that state-of-the-art LLMs exceed 80% answer accuracy on the same problems where formal provers manage under 10%, exposing a substantial gap that Hard Mode benchmarks are uniquely suited to measure.

Robotic path planning problems are often NP-hard, and practical solutions typically rely on approximation algorithms with provable performance guarantees for general cases. While designing such algorithms is challenging, formally proving their approximation optimality is even more demanding, which requires domain-specific geometric insights and multi-step mathematical reasoning over complex operational constraints. Recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet their ability to assist with research-level optimality proofs in robotic path planning remains under-explored. In this work, we introduce the first benchmark for evaluating LLMs on approximation-ratio proofs of robotic path planning algorithms. The benchmark consists of 34 research-grade proof tasks spanning diverse planning problem types and complexity levels, each requiring structured reasoning over algorithm descriptions, problem constraints, and theoretical guarantees. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source LLMs reveals that even the strongest models struggle to produce fully valid proofs without external domain knowledge. However, providing LLMs with task-specific in-context lemmas substantially improves reasoning quality, a factor that is more effective than generic chain-of-thought prompting or supplying the ground-truth approximation ratio as posterior knowledge. We further provide fine-grained error analysis to characterize common logical failures and hallucinations, and demonstrate how each error type can be mitigated through targeted context augmentation.

We present a new approach for benchmarking Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities on research-level mathematics. Existing benchmarks largely rely on static, hand-curated sets of contest or textbook-style problems as proxies for mathematical research. Instead, we establish an updatable benchmark evaluating models directly on the latest research results in mathematics. This consists of an automatic pipeline that extracts lemmas from arXiv and rewrites them into self-contained statements by making all assumptions and required definitions explicit. It results in a benchmark that can be updated regularly with new problems taken directly from human mathematical research, while previous instances can be used for training without compromising future evaluations. We benchmark current state-of-the-art LLMs, which obtain around 10-15$\%$ accuracy in theorem proving (pass@1) depending on the model, showing that there is currently a large margin of progression for LLMs to reach human-level proving capabilities in a research context.

In Machine-Assisted Theorem Proving, a theorem proving agent searches for a sequence of expressions and tactics that can prove a statement in a proof assistant. In this work, we introduce several novel concepts and capabilities to address obstacles faced by machine-assisted theorem proving. We first present a set of \textbf{atomic tactics}, a small finite set of tactics capable of proving any provable statement in Lean. We then introduce a \textbf{transposing atomization} algorithm which turns arbitrary proof expressions into a series of atomic tactics. We next introduce the \textbf{ExprGraph} data structure, which provides a succinct representation for Lean expressions. Finally, we present the \textbf{Nazrin Prover}, short for \textbf{N}eural \textbf{A}tomi\textbf{z}e\textbf{r} for \textbf{In}habitation Problems, a graph neural network-based theorem proving agent using atomic tactics and ExprGraph. Nazrin circumvents many challenges faced by existing proving agents by exclusively dispatching atomic tactics, and it is robust enough to both train and evaluate on consumer-grade hardware. We demonstrate the potential of tools like Nazrin using theorems from Lean's standard library and from Mathlib.

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 https://github.com/dafny-lang/miniF2F.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at both informal and formal (e.g. Lean 4) mathematical reasoning but still struggle with autoformalisation, the task of transforming informal into formal mathematical statements. Yet, the performance of current Math LLMs is constrained by the scarcity of large-scale corpora, particularly those containing pairs of informal and formal statements. Interestingly, the formal languages used in autoformalisation share structural similarities with programming languages, and code data is available at scale. However, current models trained on code do not transfer effectively to formal math, due to structural and syntactic differences between them. To address this, we propose TopoAlign, a framework that unlocks widely available code repositories as training resources for Math LLMs. TopoAlign decomposes code into docstrings, main functions, and dependency functions, and reassembles these components into analogues that structurally mirror formal statements. We train three state-of-the-art models, DeepSeek-Math, Qwen-3 and Herald, and evaluate them on the MiniF2F, Putnam, and ProofNet benchmarks. TopoAlign provides substantial gains for DeepSeek-Math, improving performance by 17.77% on BEq@10 and 68.82% on typecheck@10, and also measurably improves Herald by 0.12% on BEq@10 and 1.09% on typecheck@10 despite introducing no new mathematical knowledge.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant promise in formal theorem proving. In this study, we investigate the ability of LLMs to discover novel theorems and produce verified proofs. We propose a pipeline called Conjecturing-Proving Loop (CPL), which iteratively generates mathematical conjectures and attempts to prove them in Lean 4. A key feature of CPL is that each iteration conditions the LLM on previously generated theorems and their formal proofs, enabling parameter-free improvement of proof strategies via in-context learning. We provide both theoretical and experimental evidence that CPL increases the discovery rate of hard-to-prove theorems compared to frameworks that generate statements and proofs simultaneously. Moreover, our experiments show that reusing the LLM's own formally verified outputs as context consistently improves subsequent proof success, demonstrating the effectiveness of self-generated in-context learning for neural theorem proving. The source code is available at https://github.com/auto-res/ConjecturingProvingLoop.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have made significant progress in mathematical capabilities in recent times. However, these successes have been primarily confined to competition-level problems. In this work, we propose AI Mathematician (AIM) framework, which harnesses the reasoning strength of LRMs to support frontier mathematical research. We have identified two critical challenges of mathematical research compared to competition, the intrinsic complexity of research problems and the requirement of procedural rigor. To address these challenges, AIM incorporates two core strategies: an exploration mechanism to foster longer solution paths, and the pessimistic reasonable verification method to ensure reliability. This early version of AIM already exhibits strong capability in tackling research-level tasks. We conducted extensive experiments across several real-world mathematical topics and obtained promising results. AIM is able to autonomously construct substantial portions of proofs and uncover non-trivial insights within each research area. These findings highlight the potential of LRMs in mathematical discovery and suggest that LRM-based agent systems could significantly accelerate mathematical research in the future.

Large language models (LLMs) struggle with formal domains that require rigorous logical deduction and symbolic reasoning, such as mathematical proof generation. We propose a neuro-symbolic approach centered on the hypothesis that structurally analogous problems often admit similar proofs. As a proof-of-concept, we focus on SAT-level geometry problems. Our approach is two-fold: (1) We retrieve analogous problems and use their proofs to guide the LLM, and (2) a formal verifier evaluates the generated proofs and provides feedback, helping the model fix incorrect proofs. Our complete pipeline substantially improves proof accuracy across model families, achieving 68%-96% accuracy compared with 10%-44% for LLM-only baselines that use neither analogy retrieval nor verifier feedback. When comparing against models with the same verifier feedback and inference budget, analogical guidance improves accuracy from 88% to 96% for GPT-5, 78% to 86% for Claude Sonnet 4.6, 72% to 86% for Gemini-Flash-2.5, and 52% to 80% for OpenAI o1. More broadly, shifting to LLMs that generate provably correct conclusions has the potential to dramatically improve their reliability, accuracy and consistency, unlocking complex tasks and critical real-world applications that require trustworthiness.

Machine learning theory studies learning procedures through mathematical setups in which the data model, training protocol, oracle access, loss, metric, and randomness define the phenomenon that a theorem is meant to explain. Solving an open problem therefore requires the problem formulation, theorem target, and proof mechanism to be developed in concert. Researchers formulate hypotheses, test them through preliminary theoretical or empirical analysis, and refine both assumptions and proofs. We investigate whether this process can be organized as an autonomous agentic workflow for ML theory research. We develop VALG, an agentic system that combines multi-level Verification, Adaptive formulation of Learning-theory problems, and Graph-structured proof development. Within each source-relative theorem branch, VALG maintains a fixed mathematical specification, checks the theorem-level composition of a typed proof-dependency graph, and constructs and reviews local proofs in dependency order. When a proof attempt fails, VALG identifies whether the obstruction lies in a derivation, the proof structure, or the theorem formulation and routes the next attempt accordingly. Formulation-level obstructions initiate an explicitly related variant or relaxation, preserving the mathematical relation between the resulting theorem and the source problem. We evaluate VALG on nine subproblems from five COLT 2026 open problems. Two runs produce internally finalized theorem candidates that match the scope of their source briefs; the remaining seven yield restricted-method results, special cases, or conditional theorems. These case studies show how VALG keeps source-scope matches, relaxations, conditional results, and blocked attempts mathematically distinct. VALG is open source at https://github.com/DechenZhang/VALG-ML-Theory-Agent.