Theorem

Enhancing the formal math reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) has become a key focus in both mathematical and computer science communities in recent years. While significant progress has been made in using state-of-the-art Auto-Regressive (AR) LLMs for formal theorem proving, these models suffer from inherent limitations. Their next-token prediction generation methods may yield suboptimal performance due to the challenges of long-range coherence and the compounding of errors over long sequences. Recent advancements in diffusion LLMs (dLLMs), which generate text through iterative denoising of a multi-token block, offer a promising alternative. However, the application of dLLMs to formal mathematics, where maintaining long-range coherence is critical, remains largely understudied. To address the challenges above, we propose Diffusion-Proof, to the best of our knowledge, the first framework to train and apply dLLMs for formal theorem proving. Our frameworks contain training and inference methods for two models. The first one is dLLM-Prover-7B, which performs whole-proof writing with long-range coherent tactic usage. The second one is dLLM-Corrector-7B, which is a novel large block diffusion-based correction model. It leverages the in-filling capabilities of dLLMs to perform local proof correction using bi-directional information. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Diffusion-Proof relatively significantly outperforms the AR LLM baseline trained under the same dataset. Diffusion-Proof achieves an absolute improvement of 1.61% on ProofNet-Test and 6.14% on MiniF2F-Test benchmarks compare to the baseline. Notably, Diffusion-Proof successfully resolves one IMO problem that more advanced thinking model DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B could not solve, showcasing the unique advantage of dLLMs in formal theorem proving.

LLM-based formal provers often collapse rich verifier signals (syntax errors, type mismatches, partial goal progress) into a binary pass/fail bit. We present VERITAS, a zero-shot framework that routes every verifier signal back into proof search through a two-phase protocol: Best-of-N sampling first, then a critic-guided MCTS pass that ingests Phase 1 failures as explicit negative examples. The protocol preserves every theorem solved by its own Phase 1 sweep, so Phase 2's additional solves are attributable to feedback-driven exploration. VERITAS reaches 40.6% on miniF2F (vs. an independently run Best-of-5 at 36.9%, Portfolio 26.2%) and 7.3% on VERITAS-CombiBench, a 55-theorem combinatorics benchmark we release on which Best-of-5 (1.8%) falls below Portfolio (3.6%), exposing that unguided sampling hurts when correct lemma names must be recovered iteratively from verifier feedback. Artifacts are available on GitHub.

Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have led AI for Theorem Proving to become a promising means of formally verifying computer systems. Whilst formal verification is traditionally reserved for safety-critical systems due to the required amount of expertise and effort, AI can help to automate a large amount of this workload and make it far more accessible. Blockchain-based systems are becoming increasingly popular and are frequently targeted by malicious actors, often resulting in huge financial losses, highlighting the need to better verify these systems and mitigate vulnerabilities. Arguably the most important component of these systems is the consensus protocol, which allows nodes to agree on decisions in a potentially adversarial environment. In this paper, we improve upon IsabeLLM, the automated theorem proving tool in Isabelle. Namely, we implement a Retrieval-Augmented Generation framework, Error tracing and counterexample generation for improved context supplied to the Large Language Model. Compatibility with the latest version of Isabelle and Sledgehammer is also implemented for improved efficiency. We compare the performance of the two versions of IsabeLLM in their ability to complete the verification of Bitcoin's Proof of Work consensus.

We present a dependent-type-based prover designed around the way LLMs (and humans) tend to write mathematics, complementing existing systems such as Lean and Rocq. Its core design choices are a surface that imitates mathematical natural language and a rule-driven automation layer that closes the routine steps a textbook would omit, so that an accepted proof can be re-emitted as a checked Lean file. Early experiments suggest that, even without any prover-specific training data, LLMs can learn to use it effectively on the miniF2F benchmark. Lean output excerpts: https://github.com/xiyuzhai-husky-lang/visored/

Autoformalization, translating natural-language mathematics into formal proof assistants, is bottlenecked not by translation fluency but by \emph{faithfulness}: a formal statement can typecheck and be provable, yet still encode a different theorem than the source intended. We introduce \emph{Bidirectional Provability Fingerprinting} (\bpf{}), a framework that certifies faithfulness by characterizing each candidate through its forward and backward consequence neighborhoods in the ambient theory and matching these against probes derived from the natural-language statement. We further introduce four novel components: (i) \emph{Counterfactual Probe Generation} (\cpg{}), a contrastive procedure that synthesizes probes targeting specific drift directions; (ii) the \emph{Equivalence Spectrum}, a continuous faithfulness score that replaces brittle binary verdicts; (iii) \emph{Adaptive Probe Budget Allocation} (\apba{}), an information-theoretic budget router; and (iv) \emph{Faithfulness-Guided Decoding} (\fgd{}), which uses \bpf{} signals as a reward during autoformalization. We prove a \emph{drift detection theorem} and a \emph{PAC-faithfulness} result establishing that the equivalence class of a natural language statement is learnable from $\mathcal{O}(\log(1/δ)/\varepsilon)$ probes under mild assumptions. We release \driftbench{}, a benchmark of $2{,}183$ NL/Lean~4 pairs with controlled drift labels across six subfields of mathlib4. \bpf{},+,\cpg{} detects $89.6\%$ of drifted formalizations at a $3.0\%$ false-positive rate-against $41.2\%$ for typecheck and $63.3\%$ for LLM-judge baselines, and \fgd{} reduces the rate at which a state-of-the-art autoformalizer emits drifted statements by $47\%$. https://pmlrbd.github.io/BPF/

Large language models have achieved impressive performance on reasoning tasks spanning mathematics, science, programming, and commonsense inference. Despite these advances, their reasoning processes remain largely latent, making them difficult to interpret, verify, replay, debug, and transfer across domains. Existing approaches such as chain-of-thought, tree-of-thoughts, graph-of-thoughts, and tool-augmented reasoning expose intermediate reasoning artifacts but typically lack explicit execution semantics, formal state representations, and verifiable reasoning structures. We introduce Theorem-Grounded Execution Ontologies (TGEO), a framework that models reasoning as an executable state-transition process rather than a sequence of generated tokens. Given an input problem, TGEO identifies relevant theorem families, binds the problem to a domain ontology, discovers semantic objects, instantiates states and operators, constructs predicates and contracts, and synthesizes an executable reasoning graph. The resulting graph provides an interpretable, replayable, and auditable representation of reasoning in which every state transition, operator application, and validation step is explicitly represented. TGEO integrates five architectural components: (1) theorem-grounded reasoning priors, (2) executable ontologies, (3) operator-mediated state transitions, (4) predicate and contract-based execution validation, and (5) architectural auditing and failure localization. We evaluate TGEO on theorem-intensive reasoning tasks derived from mathematical benchmark domains and a curated Golden Execution Suite. Our findings demonstrate the value of executable reasoning representations for interpretable, verifiable, and reproducible AI reasoning systems.

Frontier reasoning-tuned language models still fail on deductive tasks at depth, and the cost of improved performance through extended internal reasoning scales poorly. Symbolic delegation offers a complementary route: a language model translates the problem, while a solver performs the inference. However, current autoformalization pipelines for logic programming are typically bespoke integrations tied to particular tasks or agents. We introduce PrologMCP, a task-agnostic, open-source server that exposes Prolog as a stateful tool through the Model Context Protocol (MCP). Its compact tool interface, structured error reporting, and per-session isolation make the translate-run-inspect-repair loop a reusable primitive for MCP-capable agents. We evaluate a formalizer agent enhanced with PrologMCP against standard and reasoning LLMs (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-4.1, and o4-mini) on two subsets of PARARULE-Plus: a general-purpose sample and a more challenging one targeting a specific failure mode of natural-language reasoning. On the general sample, the formalizer matches or exceeds reasoning LLMs (accuracy 1.00 vs.\ 1.00 / 0.998), with the largest gains over standard models (0.762 for GPT-4.1). On the challenging subset, the formalizer remains near-perfect (1.00 / 0.99) while reasoning LLMs drop to 0.95 / 0.94. These results suggest that delegating inference to Prolog via MCP is a robust and inspectable alternative to extended natural-language reasoning.

Proof autoformalization aims to translate a mathematical informal proof written in natural language into a formal proof in a formal language such as Lean~4. Several works have developed LLM-based models for proof autoformalization. However, existing evaluations have typically focused on translating well-formed informal proofs from curated datasets. We argue that a robust proof autoformalizer must remain faithful even for informal proofs that diverge from these idealized ones, and we present the first study on the robustness of proof autoformalization models. We formulate two categories of perturbations and evaluate robustness under each: a global perturbation paraphrases the informal proof in a different style, under which the formalization should remain consistent; a local perturbation alters a value, symbol, or proof step, possibly in a counterfactual way, and a robust formalization should faithfully reflect the perturbation rather than reverting to the original one or inferring a different one on its own. We build a benchmark with both perturbations on miniF2F and MATH-500, and automatically measure how stable a proof autoformalization's correctness is under global perturbations and how faithfully its output reflects local perturbations. We evaluate seven recent models, all of which are sensitive to global perturbations and mostly fail to remain faithful under local perturbations. Code and data are available via https://github.com/ucr-rai/robust-proof-autoformalization.

Recent work has demonstrated that coding agents can formalize entire advanced mathematics textbooks in Lean 4, yet existing efforts concentrate on branches of mathematics already well-represented in mathlib and measure success solely through kernel acceptance. We address both limitations by applying a coding agent to formalize Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations, a textbook in numerical analysis that is largely absent from mathlib, stressing the agent's capacity to develop new theory from scratch. We further introduce a systematic, reproducible three-dimensional framework for evaluating the quality of agent-produced formalizations beyond compilation: semantic correctness, Mathlib reuse, and cross-file reuse via LLM-as-judge methods. Applying this framework to our own formalization and to the released outputs of RepoProver and M2F, we uncover recurring unfaithful formalization patterns, including incomplete multi-part statements, added weakening hypotheses, and parameter restrictions, that kernel acceptance entirely obscures. Our results suggest that compilation-based metrics substantially overstate formalization quality, and we provide a reproducible audit methodology to support more rigorous evaluation of future autoformalization systems.

Large language models can often close proof gaps in interactive theorem provers, but a verified theorem is not the same thing as a reusable library contribution. We study this distinction through a detailed case study: a semi-autonomous formalization of Grothendieck's vanishing theorem. The initial version compiles with no sorries, but an expert review found serious problems in definitions, theorem generality, file organization, and the API. We then ran a review-driven refactor and compression process and obtained a second expert review. The before-and-after comparison shows a sharp split: agents adapted well to local, mechanically checkable feedback, but remained weak at choosing definitions and designing APIs. We argue that autoformalization should be evaluated not only by closed sorries, but by whether the resulting formalization survives expert review.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made notable progress in automated theorem proving, yet existing formal benchmarks remain limited in both mathematical coverage and difficulty. Most are concentrated in areas that are easier to formalize, such as algebra and elementary number theory, and provide limited coverage of subfields that require deeper reasoning, including mathematical analysis. To address this gap, we introduce MA-ProofBench, to the best of our knowledge, the first formal theorem-proving benchmark dedicated to Mathematical Analysis. The benchmark contains 200 formalized theorems covering 6 core topics and 27 subcategories, including measure and integration theory, complex analysis, and functional analysis. The problems are divided into two difficulty levels, an undergraduate level (Level I, 100 problems) and a Ph.D. qualifying level (Level II, 100 problems), to evaluate how well LLMs perform formal reasoning at different mathematical depths. Each problem is constructed through a human-led, LLM-assisted formalization pipeline followed by independent expert review, ensuring that the formal statements remain faithful to the original mathematics. We evaluate a range of recent general-purpose reasoning models and formal theorem provers on MA-ProofBench. However, most models perform poorly: even the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves only 16% Pass@8 on Level I and 5% on Level II, while most models stay close to 0% on Level II. Further analysis identifies Mathlib hallucinations and incomplete proofs as the two dominant failure modes, while an evaluation on the natural-language version of the benchmark exposes a clear gap between informal and formal reasoning. MA-ProofBench is intended to serve as a reliable reference for tracking progress in formal mathematical reasoning in advanced domains.

Modern Lean theorem provers achieve strong performance only with substantial training and inference compute, driven in part by scarce verified proof data and the long reasoning traces of formal proof search, making both supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and sampling expensive. We introduce Pythagoras-Prover, a compute-efficient open-source family of Lean theorem provers built for practical compute budgets. The family spans two generation paradigms: autoregressive models at 4B and 32B parameters, and a first proof-of-concept diffusion-based prover (4B) that iteratively refines Lean proofs at inference time. For training efficiency, we build a Lean-verified corpus stratified into easy, medium, and hard problems for curriculum SFT, so models acquire proof skills progressively from shorter, simpler proofs to longer, harder ones. During SFT, a dynamic proof-reasoning filtering scheme preserves informative proof traces while keeping each instance within an 8k-token context budget. We also introduce Augmented Lean Formalisation (ALF), which expands scarce verified corpora into variants of formal statements, populated via self-distillation for extra training signal without formally verifying every mutated instance. By perturbing known problems while preserving their formal character, ALF reduces reliance on any statement's surface form. Empirically, Pythagoras-Prover-4B surpasses DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B at pass@32 on MiniF2F-Test (86.1% vs 82.4%) with ~167x fewer parameters, while Pythagoras-Prover-32B sets the open-source state of the art at 93.0% on MiniF2F-Test and solves 93 of 672 PutnamBench problems. We release MiniF2F-ALF, an ALF-mutated contamination-sensitive benchmark on which every evaluated model loses accuracy; here our 32B remains strongest and our 4B matches the prior state of the art, Goedel-Prover-V2-32B.

Mathematical knowledge is split between bibliographic databases (e.g., MathSciNet, zbMATH Open) and formal proof libraries (e.g., Lean mathlib), preventing unified access between published results and their formalizations. We propose a relational bridge-database that aligns publication metadata with formal artifacts, providing an interoperability layer between mathematical literature and machine-verifiable proofs. We introduce a paper-level formalization score that measures how much of a publication is covered in formal systems. As a feasibility study, we show how such scores can be estimated via cross-document alignment between informal texts and Lean formalizations, enabling large-scale analysis of formalization coverage. This framework is a first step toward integrating bibliographic and formal mathematical ecosystems into scalable, machine-actionable knowledge graphs linking publications to formal proof objects.

LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks. However, existing evaluations remain heavily concentrated on competition-style problems and often fail to capture how models behave on longer, more dependency-rich mathematical developments. We introduce TheoremBench, a Lean4 benchmark designed to evaluate theorem provers beyond contest settings. The benchmark is built from nearly one hundred classical theorems and is released in two complementary forms: a plain main version containing one target theorem per instance, and a premised version that expands each theorem into a structured family of related proving tasks consisting of the main theorem together with automatically extracted supporting subtheorems. This design enables evaluation of not only whether the final theorem was proved from scratch, but also of partial progress through the internal proof structure of a theorem. Our experiments show that explicit premises substantially improve performance for Lean4-capable prover models. To provide a comprehensive evaluation, we introduce theorem-level coverage and token-efficiency metrics that expose qualitative differences in proof behavior. The results show that current provers remain strongly biased toward easy subtheorems and often solve theorems through long and inefficient tactic traces rather than compact proof plans. TheoremBench therefore provides a more fine-grained view of formal reasoning ability and highlights the importance of structural benchmark design for evaluating Lean4 theorem provers.

We introduce Goedel-Architect, an agentic framework for formal theorem proving in Lean 4 centered on blueprint generation and refinement. A blueprint is a dependency graph of definitions and lemmas that builds up to the main theorem. First, Goedel-Architect generates a blueprint of formally stated definitions and lemmas, along with declared dependencies. This blueprint is optionally guided by a natural language proof. Then, a tool-equipped Lean prover component closes each open lemma node in parallel using relevant dependencies. Failed lemmas in turn drive refinement of the global blueprint. This strategy contrasts with other mainstream approaches which use recursive lemma decomposition, and can inefficiently loop on dead-end strategies. Using the open-weight DeepSeek-V4-Flash (284B-A13B) as the backbone, Goedel-Architect attains 99.2% pass@1 on MiniF2F-test and 75.6% pass@1 on PutnamBench. With an optional natural-language proof seeding the initial blueprint on the harder problems, we additionally close the remaining two MiniF2F-test problems (reaching 100%), lift PutnamBench to 88.8% (597/672), and solve 4/6 on IMO 2025, 11/12 on Putnam 2025, and 3/6 on USAMO 2026. This represents state-of-the-art performance for an open-source pipeline at a price point up to 500x less than comparable open-source pipelines.

TLA+ is a formal specification language for verifying distributed systems and safety-critical protocols. Large language models (LLMs) frequently produce TLA+ specifications that fail the TLC model checker for semantic reasons. Across 25 LLMs, the best public baseline is 26.6% syntactic parse and 8.6% semantic model-check. We present TLA-Prover, a 20-billion-parameter model for TLA+ specification synthesis. Training combines supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on verified examples with repair-based group-relative policy optimization (GRPO). In the GRPO stage, the model learns to fix its own rejected specifications. We also train a direct preference optimization (DPO) variant from the same SFT checkpoint as an ablation. TLC provides the reward signal directly, with no learned reward model. Four tiers grade each output: Bronze (parses), Silver (no warnings), Gold (passes TLC), and Diamond. To reach Diamond, the model's correctness property is automatically altered in a small way; TLC must then detect a violation. If TLC still passes, the property was always-true and contributes nothing; the output fails Diamond. TLA-Prover reaches 9/30 (i.e. pass@1 = 30%) at both Gold and Diamond on a held-out 30-problem benchmark. This is roughly 3.5x the 8.6% untuned baseline. The DPO variant reaches 20% at Diamond. Gold and Diamond coincide at every checkpoint; this prevents the trivial-property failure mode.

Proving Shannon-type entropy inequalities is a fundamental task in information theory that often requires constructing non-trivial linear combinations of known constraints, which is a combinatorial search problem that scales poorly with the number of random variables. We investigate whether small-scale large language models (0.6B--1.7B parameters), fine-tuned on atomic proof steps and combined with guided beam search, can automate this process. On a held-out test set of 60 inequalities spanning n=10 to 15 variables, our 0.6B fine-tuned model achieves an 85% proof success rate with tree search. GPT-5.5 solves 1.7% samples under zero-shot prompting while Psitip solves 33.3% samples. A systematic ablation study across training context length (4096 vs.\ 8192 tokens) and data distribution (n=9-skewed vs not skewed) reveals that a 4096-token not skewed training distribution yields the best performance, with extended context and skewed data providing no marginal benefit. We further identify two dominant failure modes -- format failures and step quality degradation -- and verify that the beam-scoring heuristic is essential via a controlled ablation (random scoring reduces success from 83% to 23%).

Within the past few years, the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate formal mathematical proofs has improved drastically. We provide a comparison of various LLMs' effectiveness in producing formal proofs in Lean 4 with the goal of assisting those seeking to use LLMs to support their own projects. We utilize both pass@$k$ and refine@$k$ metrics as the benchmark for our comparison and evaluate on subsets of both miniF2F and miniCTX datasets. Our testing shows that overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7 perform best. Gemini 3.1 Pro achieved a 92% success rate on miniF2F via refine@32 whereas Opus 4.7 achieved a 86% success rate on miniCTX via refine@32. When taking cost into account, NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Super and GPT-OSS 120B were the most efficient, with competitive accuracies and average costs of <\0.01$ per correct proof.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in workflows for generating formal proofs in Lean. These workflows often decompose problems into smaller lemmas, sample many proof attempts, and use compiler feedback to guide search. However, they can be prohibitively expensive, often spending substantial compute on attempts that ultimately fail. In this work, we address this problem with an action routing agent that consists of a data plane and a control plane. The data plane generates natural-language lemma decompositions, formalizes them in Lean, and samples proof attempts for the resulting theorem and lemma targets. The control plane observes previous failed Lean attempts, estimates both the likelihood of success and the cost of another attempt, and decides whether to continue proving the current target or restart from a new breakdown. On a subset of PutnamBench, our agent decreases the cost by 28.9% over a fixed-step baseline on average, preserving performance while using substantially less compute. These results suggest that failed Lean trajectories provide actionable signals for cost-aware resource allocation in agentic theorem proving.

Proof assistants based on expressive logics suffer limited automation for proof search, raising the cost of formal verification based on proof assistants. We address this problem by introducing the Abduction Prover for Isabelle/HOL. Given a challenging proof goal, the Abduction Prover constructs a proof script for the goal by identifying useful conjectures using abductive reasoning.

Equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) to execute reliable multi-step workflows has become a central challenge in artificial intelligence. Despite recent advances in LLMs' agentic capabilities, most agent systems still lack formal methods for specifying, verifying, and debugging their workflow and execution trajectories. This challenge mirrors a long-standing problem in mathematics, where the ambiguity of natural languages (NLs) motivates the development of formal languages (FLs). Inspired by this paradigm, we propose Lean4Agent, to the best of our knowledge, the first framework that uses Lean4, a dependent-type FL to model and verify agent behavior. Lean4Agent launches FormalAgentLib, an extensible Lean4 library for formally modeling and verifying agent workflows' semantic consistency under explicit assumptions, and enabling localization of execution-time failures revealed by trajectories. Building on FormalAgentLib, we further develop LeanEvolve, which applies results in FormalAgentLib to revise workflows to enhance its capability. Extensive experiments on a hard problem subset of SWE-Bench-Verified and a subset of ELAIP-Bench across 5 leading LLMs indicate that the verification-passing workflows outperform the failing ones by an average of 11.94%, and LeanEvolve further improves SWE performance by 7.47% on average. Furthermore, Lean4Agent establishes a foundation for a new field of using expressive dependent-type FL to formally model and verify agent behavior.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in generating formal proofs, their outputs often remain less readable, modular, maintainable, and reusable than proofs in mature formal mathematics libraries. We argue that this gap stems in part from the compile-first objective implicit in most proof-generation pipelines, which encourages monolithic or ad hoc proof scripts rather than library-quality artifacts. Existing approaches to proof-quality improvement often rely on explicit, computable optimization objectives. In practice, however, the most tractable and experimentally validated objectives are largely length-based, while higher-level qualities such as readability, modularity, maintainability, and reusability are difficult to reduce to reliable automatic metrics. Instead of optimizing proof improvement against a single proxy metric, we take a process-guided approach inspired by human proof-refactoring workflows. We propose an agentic framework $\textbf{Proof-Refactor}$ that decomposes proof refactoring into four phases: extracting candidate proof fragments, designing helper declarations, formally proving the extracted and designed components, and repairing the original proof using the verified components. On generated Lean proofs from PutnamBench and Putnam2025, Proof-Refactor improves rubric-based refactoring scores over a strong Claude Code refactoring baseline, with the largest gains in signature quality and human readability. These results suggest that process-guided refactoring can improve proof structure without treating proof length as the primary objective.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong informal mathematical reasoning but struggle to generate mechanically verifiable proofs in formal languages like Lean. We present LEAP, an agentic framework that enables general-purpose foundation models to achieve state-of-the-art performance on automated formal theorem proving. LEAP leverages foundation model capabilities, such as informal reasoning, instruction following, and iterative self-refinement. By decomposing complex problems into smaller units, the system bridges formal proof construction with informal blueprints through continuous interaction with the Lean compiler. To provide a rigorous evaluation beyond increasingly saturated benchmarks, we introduce Lean-IMO-Bench, a benchmark of IMO-style problems formalized in Lean, with short statements yet highly non-routine and multi-step proofs across a wide range of difficulty levels. Empirically, on the latest 2025 Putnam Competition, an annual mathematics competition for undergraduate students in North America, LEAP solves all 12 problems, matching recent breakthroughs by frontier formal mathematical models. On Lean-IMO-Bench, LEAP boosts the one-shot formal solve rate of general-purpose LLMs from below 10% to 70%, notably surpassing the 48% benchmark set by a specialized, gold-medal-caliber IMO system. Furthermore, we demonstrate LEAP's research-level utility by autonomously formalizing complex proofs for open combinatorial challenges, including a verified proof for a key subproblem in Knuth's Hamiltonian decomposition of even-order Cayley graphs.

Self-play, a type of training algorithm that enables a model to self-improve, has recently shown promising empirical results in the context of formal theorem proving using Large Language Models (LLMs). (Dong & Ma, 2025) instantiate self-play with two cooperating agents: a prover, which proves theorems, and a conjecturer, which generates new theorems as a curriculum to the prover. In this paper, we provide a theoretical framework for understanding the self-improvement capabilities of self-play algorithms for theorem proving. First, we formalize the set of theorems as a graph, with nodes as theorems and edges between pairs of theorems with similar semantics. We introduce a set of primitive assumptions that characterize the guarantees of a trained prover and how a conjecturer can access the structure of the graph. Second, we show that if the underlying graph of theorems is well-connected, then a prover-conjecturer system, where the conjecturing algorithm is based on a reversible random walk, is sufficient to grow the set of proved theorems exponentially. Third, motivated by an issue encountered empirically by self-play algorithms, where the conjecturer tends to generate artificially complex and non-fundamental theorems, we propose a diversity measure for a training distribution of theorems generated by a conjecturer and an improved conjecturing algorithm that locally maximizes this diversity measure, by computing the diffusion similarity between neighboring theorems in the theorem graph. Finally, we describe a method to compute the diffusion similarity by using contrastive learning to embed nodes into Euclidean space and then computing the inner-product between embeddings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used with formal interactive theorem provers such as Lean 4. Scaling these systems with reinforcement learning or search methods requires process reward models (PRMs) that can evaluate intermediate reasoning steps. Existing reward-model designs expose a practical trade-off. Value-head models provide continuous scores but modify the generative model interface, while generative reward models preserve textual rationales but are poorly matched to continuous floating-point regression because numeric values are split across tokens. We introduce Expected Value Alignment (EVA), a reward-modeling procedure that keeps the surface output discrete while extracting continuous scores from the model's token distribution. The model emits integer scores in a structured JSON format, and EVA computes a continuous score as the expectation over the logits of the corresponding anchor tokens. Training combines the causal language modeling objective with an auxiliary mean squared error loss on these expected values. We instantiate EVA in \textit{Leibniz}, a reward model for Lean 4 formal verification, and evaluate it against zero-shot and reward-modeling baselines. The evaluation demonstrates that continuous logit-based scoring significantly reduces discretization artifacts while retaining the interpretability of generative critiques.

Post-training for reasoning models typically combines supervised fine-tuning with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, most commonly with GRPO. However, this algorithm suffers from sparse rewards, limited exploration, and mode collapse. Building upon recent works on self-distillation, we propose Feedback Distillation, a training method where the model is trained to match, at the token level, its own distribution conditioned on privileged feedback produced by a language model. Feedback Distillation offers token-level supervision and can inject external knowledge. Evaluating our method for Lean4 theorem-proving, we find that Feedback Distillation maintains greater diversity in generated trajectories than GRPO, yielding higher policy entropy and better pass@k scaling. The two methods are complementary: initializing GRPO from a Feedback Distillation checkpoint outperforms either method alone. All in all, our results suggest a promising avenue to improve post-training for complex reasoning.

A paraphrase-quality audit of MathCheck (ICLR 2025) detected 4 semantically incorrect paraphrases in 129 groups (3.1%); removing them drops GPT-4o from rank 2 to rank 4 and elevates Claude Haiku and DeepSeek V3 above it; these ranking changes are invisible to any single-model evaluation. Cross-model unanimity found these errors automatically (>= 3/4 models for MathCheck; >= 6/9 for our primary evaluation) for under $10; in our own dataset the same protocol found that 47% of auto-generated connective-variation paraphrases were semantically incorrect. That flaw compounds a deeper measurement gap: Claude Haiku 4.5 achieves 86% accuracy yet SCR=50%, meaning half its theorems are answered differently under semantically equivalent restatements, while aggregate accuracy across 9 models spans only 86-96% yet Semantic Consistency Rates (SCR) span 50-82% -- a 32-point gap invisible to standard benchmarks. Formally, for any target ranking over 9 frontier models there exists a weighting over paraphrase families that realizes it (No-Free-Benchmark corollary), because no model Pareto-dominates all families -- so benchmark designers who select families are implicitly choosing which model wins. FormInv supplies the audit protocol (replicated on external benchmarks at 100% recall), SCR and per-theorem Cochran's Q as primary invariance measures evaluated on 9 models across 366-811 items (on Lean4-verified theorems), and FormInvSelector for regime-aware model selection.

Self-evolving scientific agents capable of conquering the hard tail of formal mathematics require Compositional Learning Behaviours (CLBs) -- the capacity to ground and recombine novel symbolic structures in context, beyond mere recombination of prelearned atoms. We propose S2B-LM, an adaptation of the CLB-evaluating Symbolic Behaviour Benchmark that removes numerical processing as a confound and adds chain-of-thought scaffolding to elicit rather than merely probe latent CLB competency. Cross-evaluating ten Lean~4 theorem provers on CLB competency in S2B-LM and miniF2F whole-proof performance, we find correlational and causal evidence of our claim: First, a necessary-condition analysis via quadrant test yields $p=0.004$, with model scale being ruled out as a confound. Second, extracting a CLB-encoding activation direction from DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B using S2B-LM traces via Contrastive Activation Addition and applying it during miniF2F whole-proof generation on the AIME subset, CLB suppression collapses solve rate from $32.3\%$ to $2.9\%$, without loss of coherence, while suppressing a random activation direction of equal magnitude leaves it at $31.9\%$. Together, these results show that CLB competency is necessary but not sufficient for the hard tail of formal mathematical verification.

Lean is increasingly used to judge natural-language mathematical answers, but its signal is partial: many answers never formalize, and a failed proof may reflect an ill-typed statement or a missing library fact, not a wrong answer. On MATH-500 we show this signal is (i) sharply coverage-dependent, that is the proof-winning answer is correct 96% of the time at high proved coverage but 20% at low, and (ii) sparse and often unfaithful: a 7B autoformalizer proves a class for only 28% of problems, and a manual audit finds only approximately 43% of those proofs faithful. We propose COVCAL, a selector over Lean-trace diagnostics that certifies a finite-sample selective-risk bound on accepted answers or abstains, under two regimes (a conservative Bonferroni bound and a tighter dev-then-cal rule). Feasibility depends on autoformalization coverage: with the 7B formalizer the signal is too sparse and Bonferroni abstains on all 20 bootstrap partitions, whereas a prover-specialized formalizer reaches 79% coverage and flips it to feasible on 17 of 20, accepting approximately 48% of problems at 0.98 accepted accuracy. Since self-consistency alone is already 91% accurate, our contribution is a precise account of when, and with which formalizer, a partial formal signal can be trusted under risk control.

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.

Automated theorem proving systems built on Lean 4 increasingly rely on parallel tactic search over partially specified proofs, such as those generated by Draft-Sketch-Prove (DSP) pipelines. In current systems, each search branch reconstructs a proof state by re-running elaboration, leading to substantial per-branch overhead. In Lean 4 with Mathlib, this cost has two components: (1) import loading, which deserializes pre-compiled libraries (~60 s per branch); and (2) theorem-body elaboration, which re-checks the theorem context up to the target goal (estimated 18-735 s depending on proof complexity). Together, these account for >99% of per-branch wall time, making portfolio-based search impractical at scale. We observe that this overhead arises from a mismatch between the structure of proof search and its execution model: branching is implemented via repeated reconstruction of proof states rather than direct reuse. To address this, we introduce proof-state snapshotting, which captures the elaborated proof state once and reuses it across branches via a small extension to the Lean 4 language server. Across 48 miniF2F-v2 problems (45 prove-phase benchmarks and 3 full end-to-end runs), our approach achieves a 5.6-50x wall-time speedup over the standard fallback (average 14x, median 9.7x). Speedup increases with the number of proof branches. Our method is orthogonal to import-level caching (e.g., Kimina Lean Server), which avoids import loading but not theorem-body elaboration. The patched Lean binary and the Snapshot-DSP pipeline will be released as open source upon publication.

Reliably knowing when a language model is correct is almost as important as being correct. We introduce prover-verifier deliberation (PVD), an inference-time protocol grounded in interactive proof theory, as a mechanism for selective prediction: the protocol produces both an answer and a structured confidence verdict, allowing a system to report high-confidence answers while abstaining on uncertain cases. In each dialogue, a prover defends a candidate answer through checkable sub-claims while a verifier issues targeted challenges and returns \textsc{Accept}, \textsc{Challenge}, or \textsc{Reject}. Because frozen language models are imperfect provers and verifiers operating over a noisy channel, formal soundness and completeness guarantees do not transfer; instead, we characterize the protocol empirically through its coverage-precision behavior. Our main experiment uses Claude Sonnet 4.6 as prover and Claude Haiku 4.5 as verifier on GPQA Diamond. Questions accepted with no answer revision, which we call Accept + No Change (ANC), are reported as the high-confidence subset; we evaluate this subset by its precision and coverage. ANC separates reliable from unreliable answers, yielding a $\sim$30pp HC-Prec gap over the non-ANC complement. Robustness experiments with GPT and Gemini pairings show that high HC-Prec can transfer across model families, while verifier strictness and domain competence largely determine the size of the selection gap. On Humanity's Last Exam, weaker prover-verifier pairings can collapse or invert the ANC signal, illustrating a practical failure mode when the verifier operates outside its effective region. Comparisons with self-consistency, universal self-consistency, multi-agent debate, and Reflexion suggest that prover-verifier deliberation supplies a distinct argument-defensibility signal for selective prediction.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly excel at mathematical reasoning, but their unreliability limits their utility in mathematics research. A mitigation is using LLMs to generate formal proofs in languages like Lean. We perform the first large-scale evaluation of this method's ability to solve open problems. Our most capable agent autonomously resolved 9 of 353 open Erdős problems at the per-problem cost of a few hundred dollars, proved 44/492 OEIS conjectures, and is being deployed in combinatorics, optimization, graph theory, algebraic geometry, and quantum optics research. A basic agent alternating LLM-based generation with Lean-based verification replicated the Erdős successes but proved costlier on the hardest problems. These findings demonstrate the power of AI-aided formal proof search and shed light on the agent designs that enable it.

Formal theorem provers based on large language models (LLMs) are highly sensitive to superficial variations in problem representation: semantically equivalent statements can exhibit drastically different proof success rates, revealing a failure to respect structural symmetries inherent in formal mathematics. This raises a central question: what are the right symmetries for formal theorem proving? We introduce rewriting categories, a category-theoretic framework capturing the compositional, generally non-invertible transformations induced by proof tactics, and use it to formalize two symmetry notions: proof equivariance, governing how proof distributions transform under rewrites, and success invariance (i.e., invariance of success probability), requiring equivalent statements to be solved with the same probability. We observe that state-based next-tactic provers naturally satisfy proof equivariance by operating on proof states. In contrast, state-of-the-art LLM-based provers satisfy neither property, exhibiting large performance variation across equivalent formulations. To mitigate this, we propose test-time methods that aggregate over equivalent rewritings of the input, showing theoretically that they recover success invariance in the sampling limit, and empirically, that they improve robustness and performance under fixed inference budgets. Our results highlight symmetry as a key missing inductive bias in LLM-based theorem proving and suggest test-time computation as a practical route to approximate it.

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.

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.

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.

History-dependent policies induced by recurrent neural networks (RNNs) rely on latent hidden state dynamics, making verification in partially observable reinforcement learning (RL) challenging. Existing RNN verification tools typically rely on restrictive modeling assumptions or coarse over-approximations of the hidden state space, which can lead to overly conservative or inconclusive results. We propose $\textbf{RNN}$ $\textbf{Pro}$babilistic $\textbf{Ve}$rification ($\texttt{RNN-ProVe}$), a probabilistic framework that $\textit{estimates the likelihood}$ of undesired behaviors in RNN-based policies. $\texttt{RNN-ProVe}$ uses policy-driven sampling to approximate the set of hidden states that are feasible under a trained policy, and derives statistical error bounds to produce bounded-error, high-confidence estimates of behavioral violations. Experiments on partially observable single-agent and cooperative multi-agent tasks show that $\texttt{RNN-ProVe}$ yields more quantitative, feasibility-aware probabilistic guarantees than existing tools, while scaling to recurrent and multi-agent settings.

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/ .

Information-theoretic generalization bounds based on the supersample construction are a central tool for algorithm-dependent generalization analysis in the batch i.i.d.~setting. However, existing supersample conditional mutual information (CMI) bounds do not directly apply to sequential decision-making problems such as online learning, streaming active learning, and bandits, where data are revealed adaptively and the learner evolves along a causal trajectory. To address this limitation, we develop a sequential supersample framework that separates the learner filtration from a proof-side enlargement used for ghost-coordinate comparisons. Under a row-wise exchangeability assumption, the sequential generalization gap is controlled by sequential CMI, a sum of roundwise selector--loss information terms. We also establish a Bernstein-type refinement that yields faster rates under suitable variance conditions. The selector-SCMI proof strategy applies to online learning, streaming active learning with importance weighting, and stochastic multi-armed bandits.

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.

Neural network verification is an active and rapidly maturing research area, with a growing ecosystem of solvers and tools. The VNN-LIB standard was introduced to support interoperability in this ecosystem, but Version1.0 has several serious short-comings as a formal foundation: it lacks a precise syntax, semantics, and type system, offers limited expressivity, and relies on externally defined ONNX models whose semantics are informal and constantly evolving. The latter distinguishes VNN-LIB from established standards such as SMT-LIB, where queries are self-contained and have fixed semantics. In this paper we address these challenges by developing the theoretical foundations of VNN-LIB2.0. Our key contribution is the introduction of the notion of a \emph{network theory}, which abstractly characterises the minimal semantic interface required from a neural network model format. This abstraction enables VNN-LIB to be defined independently of any specific ONNX version while remaining compatible with evolving model representations. Building on this foundation, we present a formal syntax for a more expressive query language, a type system for it over the numeric domains provided by the network theory, and finally a formal semantics. To ensure internal consistency, the standard is mechanised in the Agda theorem prover. VNN-LIB~2.0 therefore provides robust and rigorous foundations for trustworthy neural network verification.

The ecosystem of Lean and Mathlib has become the de facto standard for large language model (LLM) assisted formal reasoning with remarkable successes in recent years. Those successes, however, only consume Mathlib as an essential dependency but do not directly contribute to it. In the meantime, the growth of Mathlib has recently been bottlenecked by the review process, which requires human reviewers to judge whether proposed pull requests (PRs) follow the Mathlib's conventions and are worth integrating as part of a shared mathematical infrastructure. This leads to our central question: can LLMs help review Mathlib PRs? To this end, we introduce MathlibPR, a benchmark built from real Mathlib4 PR histories. We further propose a staged evaluation protocol and use it to evaluate both LLM models (e.g., DeepSeek, Qwen, Goedel, and Kimina) and LLM agents (e.g., Codex and Claude Code). Surprisingly, both LLM models and LLM agents struggle to distinguish merge-ready PRs from build-passing PRs that were revised or never merged. By turning Mathlib PR histories into a supervised signal, MathlibPR provides a step toward reviewer assistants and reward models that could help evaluate PRs and steer LLMs toward producing merge-ready Mathlib contributions.

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.

We investigate the scaling properties of implicit deductive reasoning over Horn clauses in depth-bounded Transformers. By systematically decorrelating provability from spurious features and enforcing algorithmic alignment, we find that in sufficiently deep models with a bidirectional prefix mask, implicit reasoning approaches explicit CoT performance across graph topologies and problem widths, though CoT remains necessary for depth extrapolation.

We present a machine-checked formalization of structurally governed AI workflow architectures and prove that effect-level governance can be imposed without reducing internal computational expressivity. Using Interaction Trees in Rocq 8.19, we define a governance operator G that mediates all effectful directives, including memory access, external calls, and oracle (LLM) queries. Our development compiles with 0 admitted lemmas and consists of 36 modules, ~12,000 lines of Rocq, and 454 theorems. We establishseven properties: (P1) governed Turing completeness, (P2) governed oracle expressivity, (P3) a decidability boundary in which governance predicates are total and closed under Boolean composition while semantic program properties remain non-trivial and undecidable by governance, (P4) goal preservation for permitted executions, (P5) expressive minimality of primitive capabilities (compute, memory, reasoning, external call, observability), (P6) subsumption asymmetry showing structural governance strictly subsumes content-level filtering, and (P7) semantic transparency: on all executions where governance permits, the governed interpretation is observationally equivalent (modulo governance-only events) to the ungoverned interpretation. Together, these results show that governance and computational expressivity are orthogonal dimensions: governance constrains the effect boundary of programs while remaining semantically transparent to internal computation.

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.

We introduce DreamProver, an agentic framework that leverages a "wake-sleep" program induction paradigm to discover reusable lemmas for formal theorem proving. Existing approaches either rely on fixed lemma libraries, which limit adaptability, or synthesize highly specific intermediate lemmas tailored to individual theorems, thereby lacking generality. DreamProver addresses this gap through an iterative two-stage process. In the wake stage, DreamProver attempts to prove theorems from a training set using the current lemma library while proposing new candidate lemmas. In the "sleep" stage, it abstracts, refines, and consolidates these candidates to compress and optimize the library. Through this alternating cycle, DreamProver progressively evolves a compact set of high-level, transferable lemmas that can be effectively used to prove unseen theorems in related domains. Experimental results demonstrate that DreamProver substantially improves proof success rates across a diverse set of mathematical benchmarks, while also producing more concise proofs and reducing computational cost.

We present QED, an open-source multi-agent system that turns human-provided research questions into complete mathematical proofs without further human guidance. Its pipeline is designed to overcome common failures of single-query proof generation by separating planning, proving, and verification: a decomposition agent structures the proof search, prover agents generate candidate arguments, and verifier agents check correctness. In collaboration with domain experts, we evaluated QED on 18 research-level projects of varying difficulty. QED produced five original works across algebraic geometry, fluid PDEs, probability, and inverse problems. Expert assessments regard these works as solid specialized research contributions, with three comparable in difficulty and scope to work commonly published in established specialist mathematics venues. QED is released at https://github.com/proofQED/QED.

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.

The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics assumes that welfare-bearing agents are autonomous and implicitly relies on a binary distinction between autonomy and instrumentality. Welfare subjects are those who have autonomy and therefore the capacity to choose and enter into utility comparisons, while everything else does not. In post-AGI economies this presupposition becomes nontrivial because artificial systems may exhibit varying degrees of autonomy, functioning as tools, delegates, strategic market actors, manipulators of choice environments, or possible welfare subjects. We argue that the theorem ought to be subject to an autonomy qualification where the impact of these changes in autonomy assumptions is incorporated. Using a minimal general-equilibrium model with autonomy-conditioned welfare, welfare-status assignment, delegation accounting, and verification institutions, we set out conditions for which autonomy-complete competitive equilibrium is autonomy-Pareto efficient. The classical theorem is recovered as the low-autonomy limit.

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.

We report new results on eight problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, produced with the assistance of Bolzano, an open-source multi-agent LLM system. Bolzano orchestrates rounds of interaction between parallel prover agents and a verifier agent while maintaining a persistent knowledge base that is carried across rounds. Classified using the significance-autonomy taxonomy of Feng et al., six of the eight results reach the level of publishable research, and five of the eight were produced essentially autonomously by Bolzano. Our results provide evidence that LLMs can contribute meaningfully to mathematical research, complementing recent reports by Bubeck et al., Woodruff et al., and others.

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.