Lean Theorem Proving

Formal mathematics libraries are rapidly expanding, creating a growing need to refactor verified proofs for maintainability and to improve training data quality for neural provers. However, scalable proof optimization is hindered by heterogeneous and heuristically specified objectives, scarce data, and high training and inference costs. To overcome these challenges, we introduce ImProver 2, a neurosymbolic framework for automated proof optimization in Lean 4. ImProver 2 combines a data-efficient expert-iteration pipeline with a scaffold that exposes formal structure alongside lightweight informal abstractions. We further introduce a suite of metrics capturing structural proof properties. Using ImProver 2, we train a 7B-parameter model that outperforms orders-of-magnitude larger models within the same model family, and is competitive with mid-tier frontier models across metrics. We additionally demonstrate that our neurosymbolic scaffold significantly improves performance across both small and frontier models. We show that with proper scaffolding and training, small models can effectively restructure research-level proofs over complex and varied metrics, matching substantially larger systems and establishing proof optimization as a scalable, learnable task.

We present Lean-GAP (Lean-Graduate Agebra Problems), 430 formalized graduate-level algebra problems from the textbook Abstract Algebra by Dummit and Foote. We develop a scalable pipeline consisting of PDF-to-LaTeX preprocessing, autoformalization into Lean 4, and verification of informal-formal correspondence. While the preprocessing and autoformalization stages can be largely automated, we find that verification remains the most subtle and labor-intensive component, requiring careful human oversight. Our contributions include (i) the construction of a structured dataset of formalized exercises, (ii) a systematic methodology for formalizing textbook mathematics, and (iii) an analysis of recurring challenges in the formalization process. We also compare the performance of different autoformalization models and highlight key bottlenecks in translating informal statements into formal language.

AI-assisted theorem proving can now generate substantial Lean developments for olympiad-level mathematics, but the evidential status of such developments depends on which declarations are actually verified. This paper reports a Lean 4 formalization case study of an Aristotle API proof attempt for the Grasshopper problem, originally posed as IMO 2009 Problem 6. The generated artifact states a generalized Lean version of the theorem, contains four verified helper lemmas for local components of a maximality and adjacent-swap exchange strategy, and leaves the main theorem grasshopper closed directly by one unresolved sorry. The verified components establish that the final partial sum equals the total sum, that an adjacent transposition can affect only the relevant intermediate partial sum, that the changed partial sum has the expected form, and that maximality at a position admitting an adjacent successor swap forces a corresponding forbidden-set membership fact. The Aristotle output summary identifies the intended remaining mathematical step as the global counting step needed to show that these membership facts produce at least n distinct forbidden values, contradicting the cardinality assumption |M| < n; the Lean source itself does not reduce the main theorem to a separately encoded counting lemma. This case study gives an inspectable example of a central limitation in AI-assisted formalization, namely that local proof search can succeed while the global combinatorial bookkeeping required for a theorem remains unresolved. The paper contributes a reproducible Lean artifact and a precise analysis of its verified and unverified proof content.

We present Lean Refactor, a plug-and-play retrieval-augmented agentic framework for multi-objective, controllable, and version-robust refactoring of Lean proofs. LLM-generated proofs are notoriously correct-but-verbose and brittle across library versions, yet existing refactoring works overlook three practical challenges: 1) Lean refactoring is natively multi-objective (proof length, compilation cost, and version compatibility are often in tension); 2) Lean repositories have fragile compatibility, whereas LLM releases are unaware of Lean/Mathlib versions; 3) Training-based pipelines require repeated fine-tuning with each new LLM release, scaling neither with model churn nor with Lean's release cycle. Lean Refactor steers a frozen agentic LLM with retrievals from a curated database of multi-objective refactoring strategies, each densely annotated with metadata such as supported Lean/Mathlib versions and expected compilation-cost reduction. Experiments show over $70\%$ token-level compression on competition benchmarks, over $20\%$ on research repositories, and up to $60\%$ compilation-time reduction, outperforming prior work and Claude Code. Version-filtered retrieval further improves compression on the target Lean version, and refactored miniF2F proofs exhibit stronger zero-shot version transfer to future Lean releases than their unrefactored counterparts.

Recent progress in formal theorem proving has benefited from large-scale proof generation and verifier-aware training, but agentic proving is rarely integrated into prover training, appearing only at inference time. We present OProver, a unified framework for agentic formal theorem proving in Lean 4, in which failed proof attempts are iteratively revised using retrieved compiler verified proofs and Lean compiler feedback. OProver is trained through continued pretraining followed by iterative post-training: each iteration runs agentic proving, indexes newly verified proofs into OProofs and the retrieval memory, uses repair trajectories as SFT data, and uses unresolved hard cases for RL. OProofs is built from public Lean resources, large-scale proof synthesis, and agentic proving traces, containing 1.77M Lean statements, 6.86M compiler-verified proofs, and serialized trajectories with retrieved context, failed attempts, feedback, and repairs. Across five benchmarks, OProver-32B attains the best Pass@32 on MiniF2F (93.3%), ProverBench (58.2%), and PutnamBench (11.3%), and ranks second on MathOlympiad (22.8%) and ProofNet (33.2%) more top placements than any prior open-weight whole-proof prover.

Formal theorem-proving benchmarks enable mechanically verifiable evaluation of mathematical reasoning in large language models. However, existing benchmarks mainly focus on Olympiad-style problems and algebraic domains, leaving computational and applied mathematics underrepresented. We introduce CAM-Bench, a Lean 4 theorem-proving benchmark of 1,000 Lean proof targets in computational and applied mathematics, with coverage spanning optimization, numerical linear algebra, and numerical analysis. These problems are adapted from textbook exercises and often depend on locally introduced definitions, notation, algorithms, and elementary results. To construct CAM-Bench, we develop a dependency-recovery pipeline that reconstructs the local textbook context needed to state each problem faithfully. It then normalizes each problem into a standalone informal theorem and translates it into a Lean target. We validate the resulting formal problems through Lean compilation and semantic review, checking both formal correctness and semantic alignment with the original exercises. For each problem, we release the raw exercise, recovered context, normalized informal theorem, and final Lean target. CAM-Bench complements existing formal mathematics benchmarks by targeting applied mathematics problems that rely on textbook concepts and elementary theorems, many of which are not directly available as standard Mathlib4 lemmas. We evaluate widely used large language models and formalization agents on CAM-Bench, and analyze common failure modes in tracking local assumptions, applying elementary results, decomposing proofs, and maintaining long-horizon control in Lean.

As automated reasoning systems advance rapidly, there is a growing need for research-level formal mathematical problems to accurately evaluate their capabilities. To address this, we present Formal Conjectures, an evolving benchmark of currently 2615 mathematical problem statements formalized in Lean 4. Sourced from areas of active mathematical research, the dataset features 1029 open research conjectures providing a zero-contamination benchmark for mathematical proof discovery, and 836 solved problems for proof autoformalization. Notably, the repository provides a structured interface connecting mathematicians who formalize and clarify problems with the AI systems and humans attempting to solve them. Demonstrating its immediate utility, the benchmark has already been leveraged to make new mathematical discoveries, including the resolution of open research conjectures. We describe our approach to ensuring the correctness of these formalizations in a collaborative open-source project where contributions stem from an active community. In this framework, AI-generated proofs and disproofs serve as a valuable auditing mechanism to iteratively improve the fidelity of the benchmark. Finally, we provide a standardized evaluation setup and report baseline results on frozen evaluation subsets, demonstrating a climbable signal that measures the current frontier of automated reasoning on research-level mathematics.

Proving theorems in Lean 4 often requires identifying a scattered set of library lemmas whose joint use enables a concise proof -- a task we call global premise retrieval. Existing tools address adjacent problems: semantic search engines find individual declarations matching a query, while premise-selection systems predict useful lemmas one tactic step at a time. Neither recovers the full premise set an entire theorem requires. We present LeanSearch v2, a two-mode retrieval system for this task. Its standard mode applies a hierarchy-informalized Mathlib corpus with an embedding-reranker pipeline, achieving state-of-the-art single-query retrieval without domain-specific fine-tuning (nDCG@10 of 0.62 vs. 0.53 for the next-best system). Its reasoning mode builds on standard mode as its retrieval substrate, targeting global premise retrieval through iterative sketch-retrieve-reflect cycles. On a 69-query benchmark of research-level Mathlib theorems, reasoning mode recovers 46.1% of ground-truth premise groups within 10 retrieved candidates, outperforming strong reasoning retrieval systems (38.0%) and premise-selection baselines (9.3%) on the same benchmark. In a controlled downstream evaluation with a fixed prover loop, replacing alternative retrievers with LeanSearch v2 yields the highest proof success (20% vs. 16% for the next-best system and 4% without retrieval), confirming that retrieval quality propagates to proof generation. We have open-sourced all code, data, and benchmarks. Code and data: https://github.com/frenzymath/LeanSearch-v2 . The standard mode is publicly available with API access at https://leansearch.net/ .

Automated theorem proving with large language models in Lean 4 is commonly approached through either step-level tactic prediction with tree search or whole-proof generation. These two paradigms represent opposite granularities for constructing supervised training data: the former provides dense local signals but may fragment coherent proof processes, while the latter preserves global structure but requires complex end-to-end generation. In this paper, we revisit supervision granularity as a training set construction problem over proof trajectories and propose segment-level supervision, a training data construction strategy that extracts locally coherent proof segments for training policy models. We further reuse the same strategy at inference time to trigger short rollouts for existing step-level models. When trained with segment-level supervision on STP, LeanWorkbook, and NuminaMath-LEAN, the resulting policy models achieve proof success rates of 64.84%, 60.90%, and 66.31% on miniF2F, respectively, consistently outperforming both step-level and whole-proof baselines. Goal-aware rollout further improves existing step-level provers while reducing inference costs. It increases the proof success rate of BFS-Prover-V2-7B from 68.77% to 70.74% and that of InternLM2.5-StepProver from 59.59% to 60.33%, showing that appropriate supervision granularity better aligns model learning with proof structure and search. Code and models are available at https://github.com/NJUDeepEngine/SEG-ATP.

Recent neural theorem provers use reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), where proof assistants provide binary correctness signals. While verifiable rewards are cheap and scalable without reward hacking issues, they suffer from sparse credit assignment: models receive no learning signal from difficult problems where partial progress goes unrewarded. This motivates learned reward models that can evaluate proof quality beyond binary verification. However, comparing reward models is challenging since it typically requires expensive RL training ablations. To address this, we introduce \textbf{FormalRewardBench}, the first benchmark for evaluating reward models in formal theorem proving with Lean 4. Our benchmark consists of 250 preference pairs where correct proofs are paired with incorrect variants generated through five expert curated error injection strategies: forced mistakes, minimal single-point variations, verbose incorrect proofs, natural language justification, and Python code injection. We evaluate frontier LLMs (e.g., Claude Opus 4.5), judge LLMs (e.g., CompassJudger-1-14B), general-purpose LLMs (e.g., Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct), and specialized theorem proving models (e.g., DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B). Our results reveal that frontier LLMs achieve the highest performance (59.8%) while specialized theorem provers perform the worst (24.4%), suggesting that theorem proving ability does not transfer to proof evaluation. We provide further insights on various error injection mechanisms, highlighting the challenging nature of most injection mechanisms. We release \textbf{FormalRewardBench} publicly to encourage more research on developing reward models in formal mathematics.

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 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.

While Large Language Models have achieved notable success on formal mathematics benchmarks such as MiniF2F, it remains unclear whether these results stem from genuine logical reasoning or semantic pattern matching against pre-training data. This paper identifies Architectural Reasoning: the ability to synthesize formal proofs using exclusively local axioms and definitions within an alien math domain, as the necessary ability for future automated theorem discovery AI. We use the Obfuscated Natural Number Game, a benchmark to evaluate Architectural Reasoning. By renaming identifiers in the Natural Number Game in Lean 4, we created a zero-knowledge, closed environment. We evaluate state-of-the-art models, finding a universal latency tax where obfuscation increases inference time. The results also reveal a divergence in robustness: while general models (Claude-Sonnet-4.5, GPT-4o) suffer performance degradation, reasoning models (DeepSeek-R1, GPT-5, DeepSeek-Prover-V2) maintain the same accuracy despite the absence of semantic cues. These findings provide a quantitative metric for assessing the true capacity for mathematical reasoning.

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.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in formal theorem proving, yet evaluating semantic correctness remains challenging. Existing evaluations rely on indirect proxies such as lexical overlap with human-annotated proof, or expensive manual inspection. Inspired by the shift from lexical comparison to test-based evaluation in code generation, we propose T , a framework that evaluates the semantic correctness of formal theorems: a generated theorem is considered correct only if all dependent successor theorems compile successfully, analogous to integration testing. We construct a benchmark from 5 real-world Lean 4 repositories, comprising 2,206 problems paired with 41 successor theorems on average, automatically extracted without human effort. Experiments demonstrate that while state-of-the-art models achieve high compilation success, they perform significantly worse under our semantic metric. The best model, Claude-Sonnet-4.5, achieves only 38.9% Testing Accuracy on the full set, given both natural language proof and successor theorems as context, revealing a critical gap in current theorem generation capabilities.

In 2016, Viazovska famously solved the sphere packing problem in dimension $8$, using modular forms to construct a 'magic' function satisfying optimality conditions determined by Cohn and Elkies in 2003. In March 2024, Hariharan and Viazovska launched a project to formalize this solution and related mathematical facts in the Lean Theorem Prover. A significant milestone was achieved in February 2026: the result was formally verified, with the final stages of the verification done by Math, Inc.'s autoformalization model 'Gauss'. We discuss the techniques used to achieve this milestone, reflect on the unique collaboration between humans and Gauss, and discuss project objectives that remain.

Lean 4 autoformalization has become increasingly popular in recent years, with frontier language models and open-weight autoformalizers now producing valid formalizations of mathematical theorems. However, these evaluations often rely on single canonical phrasings of theorems and rarely probe whether outputs are robust to natural variation in inputs, while prior work has shown that semantically equivalent paraphrases often induce divergent formal outputs. We study the structure of these divergences in Lean 4 by applying deterministic paraphrase rules to datasets of undergraduate and Olympiad-level math problems. Across four frontier models and three open-weight autoformalizers, we find that paraphrase sensitivity is dominated by failures at the code-generation layer, and that these failures are typed differently by dataset. Furthermore, these patterns generalize to open-weight models, showing that state-of-the-art autoformalizers still struggle to generate valid Lean code. Our results provide a failure-mode taxonomy for autoformalization and motivate training-time interventions targeted at specific compilation failures.

Formal verification guarantees proof validity but not formalization faithfulness. For natural-language logical reasoning, where models construct axiom systems from scratch without library constraints, this gap between valid proofs and faithful translations is especially acute. We investigate whether frontier models exploit this gap when generating Lean 4 proofs, a behavior we term formalization gaming. We evaluate GPT-5 and DeepSeek-R1 on 303 first-order logic problems (203 from FOLIO, 100 from Multi-LogiEval), comparing unified generation against a two-stage pipeline that separates formalization from proving. Despite compilation rates of 87-99%, we find no evidence of systematic gaming in unified generation: models prefer reporting failure over forcing proofs, even under prompting designed to encourage it. However, unfaithfulness that evades our detection signals may still occur. The two-stage pipeline reveals two distinct modes of unfaithfulness: GPT-5 fabricates axioms during proof generation, a reactive fallback detectable via cross-stage comparison, while DeepSeek-R1 mistranslates premises during formalization, producing internally consistent outputs that evade detection entirely. These findings show that high compilation rates or accuracies should not be equated with faithful reasoning. Code and data are available at https://github.com/koreankiwi99/formalization-gaming.

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.

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.

Automatic translation of natural language mathematics into faithful Lean 4 code is hindered by the fundamental dissonance between informal set-theoretic intuition and strict formal type theory. This gap often causes LLMs to hallucinate non-existent library definitions, resulting in code that fails to compile or lacks semantic fidelity. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of tool-augmented agents for this task through a systematic factorial analysis of three distinct tool categories: Fine-tuned Model Querying (accessing expert drafts), Knowledge Search (retrieving symbol definitions), and Compiler Feedback (verifying code via a Lean REPL). We first benchmark the agent against one-shot baselines, demonstrating large gains in both compilation success and semantic equivalence. We then use the factorial decomposition to quantify the impact of each category, isolating the marginal contribution of each tool type to overall performance.

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.

Large language models have achieved striking results in interactive theorem proving, particularly in Lean. However, most benchmarks for LLM-based proof automation are drawn from mathematics in the Mathlib ecosystem, whereas proofs in software verification are developed inside definition-rich codebases with substantial project-specific libraries. We introduce VeriSoftBench, a benchmark of 500 Lean 4 proof obligations drawn from open-source formal-methods developments and packaged to preserve realistic repository context and cross-file dependencies. Our evaluation of frontier LLMs and specialized provers yields three observations. First, provers tuned for Mathlib-style mathematics transfer poorly to this repository-centric setting. Second, success is strongly correlated with transitive repository dependence: tasks whose proofs draw on large, multi-hop dependency closures are less likely to be solved. Third, providing curated context restricted to a proof's dependency closure improves performance relative to exposing the full repository, but nevertheless leaves substantial room for improvement. Our benchmark and evaluation suite are released at https://github.com/utopia-group/VeriSoftBench.

RL-trained Lean theorem provers mode-collapse at inference time: on miniF2F-test with DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5-RL, doubling the i.i.d.\ sampling budget from $k{=}32$ to $k{=}64$ produces zero additional solved theorems (42/244 in both cases). A fixed schedule of 15 tactic skeletons breaks this plateau and recovers a $+45$ relative improvement at $k{=}16$ (mean $Δ= +12.3 \pm 4.2$ theorems across $n{=}3$ seeds, sign preserved in every seed). A controlled diversity ablation rules out the prompt-diversity confound: tactic skeletons help, paraphrases match the baseline, and irrelevant Lean comments actively degrade. A leave-one-out formalization-difficulty stratification reveals a structural-content gradient across the three perturbations. The phenomenon is RL-specific: V1.5-Base proves zero theorems regardless of intervention, identifying RL as the stage that creates the proof capability which subsequently collapses; extending to two additional 7B Lean provers, RL-trained DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B contributes $+3$ frontier solves no i.i.d. baseline can reach despite a flat aggregate, while SFT-trained Goedel-Prover does not ( $-10.0$ $\pm 4.4$ theorems, $n{=}3$, sign preserved every seed). Inference-time structural diversity is a cheap, complementary axis for RL-trained provers, orthogonal to scaling model size or training compute.

Accurate auto-formalization of theorem statements is essential for advancing automated discovery and verification of research-level mathematics, yet remains a major bottleneck for LLMs due to hallucinations, semantic mismatches, and their inability to synthesize new definitions. To tackle these issues, we present Aria (Agent for Retrieval and Iterative Autoformalization), a system for conjecture-level formalization in Lean that emulates human expert reasoning via a two-phase Graph-of-Thought process: recursively decomposing statements into a dependency graph and then constructing formalizations from grounded concepts. To ensure semantic correctness, we introduce AriaScorer, a checker that retrieves definitions from Mathlib for term-level grounding, enabling rigorous and reliable verification. We evaluate Aria on diverse benchmarks. On ProofNet, it achieves 91.6% compilation success rate and 68.5% final accuracy, surpassing previous methods. On FATE-X, a suite of challenging algebra problems from research literature, it outperforms the best baseline with 44.0% vs. 24.0% final accuracy. On a dataset of homological conjectures, Aria reaches 42.9% final accuracy while all other models score 0%.

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 language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in formal mathematical reasoning. Mathematical competition problems fall into two broad types: theorem-proving problems ask for a proof of a fully specified statement, whereas answer-construction problems ask the solver to construct an answer object and prove that it satisfies the stated specification. Existing mathematical reasoning engines mainly target theorem-proving problems, yet answer-construction problems remain less studied. This setting is challenging because model capabilities are misaligned, with general LLMs better suited to answer construction and prover LLMs better suited to proof generation, and because Lean proof checking alone does not rule out inadmissible circular witnesses. To close this gap, we introduce Enumerate-Conjecture-Prove (ECP), a neuro-symbolic framework for solving answer-construction problems in Lean. ECP uses general LLMs to perform bounded enumeration and construct candidate answers, and invokes prover LLMs to produce machine-checked proofs. ECP introduces admissibility checking to ensure that each answer is canonical and does not involve a circular argument. On answer-construction problems from PutnamBench and autoformalized MathArena, ECP formally solves 17/346 PutnamBench instances and 18/75 MathArena instances with admissible answers and proofs, outperforming LLM baselines at aligned inference budgets.