Jul 25, 2026, cs.LGJ/K move · Enter open · S save
Evan Wang, Simon Chess, Sophie Szeto, Theodore Meek
Math AI Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, United States · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, United States · Department of Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
Lean 4's grind tactic combines congruence closure, E-matching, and case-splitting into a single automated solver, and like any such solver, it relies on hand-tuned heuristics to decide what to instantiate and where to case-split. These heuristics are tempting targets for learning, but there is a catch: because grind's search is non-monotone, a learned heuristic that helps one proof can break another, and an always-on replacement usually nets out near zero. We avoid this by invoking a learned intervention only after stock grind has already failed: a failure-triggered cascade that, by construction, cannot lose a proof grind already had. We apply it to two of grind's internal decisions. A cost-aware E-matching filter solves slightly more problems and runs about 5% faster. A lookahead step proves five theorems it otherwise times out on. We also report the negative result that motivated the design: across four feature-based models, statically predicting the correct case split is no better than random, because whether a split explodes is a runtime property that the features do not capture. Our results suggest that learning within theorem-proving tactics is most effective as a mechanism for deciding when and how to spend bounded search, backed by a reliable symbolic fallback.