Theorem proving is fundamental to program verification, where the automated proof of Verification Conditions (VCs) remains a primary bottleneck. Real-world program verification frequently encounters hard VCs that existing Automated Theorem Provers (ATPs) cannot prove, leading to a critical need for extensive manual proofs that burden practical application. While Neural Theorem Proving (NTP) has achieved significant success in mathematical competitions, demonstrating the potential of machine learning approaches to formal reasoning, its application to program verification--particularly VC proving--remains largely unexplored. Despite existing work on annotation synthesis and verification-related theorem proving, no benchmark has specifically targeted this fundamental bottleneck: automated VC proving. This work introduces Neural Theorem Proving for Verification Conditions (NTP4VC), presenting the first real-world multi-language benchmark for this task. From real-world projects such as Linux and Contiki-OS kernel, our benchmark leverages industrial pipelines (Why3 and Frama-C) to generate semantically equivalent test cases across formal languages of Isabelle, Lean, and Rocq. We evaluate
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-pro
For many applications of SNARKs, a key bottleneck is proving large batches of standard cryptographic hash evaluations, such as SHA-256, Keccak, or BLAKE3. We introduce Flock, a hash-based SNARK for extremely fast proving of such batched Boolean computations. Flock proves batches of the same R1CS circuit (plus input/output relations between them), can prove hash-chains and Merkle path openings, and in principle can be extended to full-fledged hash-based signature verification. At its core, Flock combines new optimizations for the lincheck and zerocheck protocols with an aggressively optimized proof-of-concept implementation co-designed by coding agents. On a single core of an M4 Max processor, Flock proves 82k evaluations of the BLAKE3 compression function, 42k SHA-256 compressions, and 30k Keccak permutations per second --- less than a $250\times$ overhead over native execution. On ten cores, throughput exceeds 660k BLAKE3 compressions per second; in proving SHA-256, Flock is more than $9\times$ faster than Binius64, the prior state of the art, and more than $500\times$ faster than the fastest elliptic curve-based SNARK we measured against.
Agentic systems have recently emerged as state-of-the-art approaches for automated theorem proving in formal mathematics. To assess how far these capabilities extend to program verification, we evaluate Claude Code in an agentic proving framework on CLEVER, a Lean 4 benchmark for verifiable code generation. Our results show that Claude generates arguably valid specifications for 98.8% of problems (with 81.3% also accepted by CLEVER's isomorphism-based scoring on the correct portion of the benchmark), certifies implementations against correct ground-truth specifications for 87.5% of problems, and reaches a 98.1% success rate on the end-to-end program generation and verification pipeline over entries with self-consistent premises. Across all stages, Claude further provides high-quality feedback on its own attempts (as confirmed under manual review), identifying underlying causes of failure and lingering bugs in the dataset. These findings highlight a growing mismatch between the difficulty of existing program verification benchmarks and the capabilities of modern agentic provers, and point to the need for more rigorous, bug-resilient evaluation methodologies, and in particular for al
Automated theorem proving, or more broadly automated reasoning, aims at using computer programs to automatically prove or disprove mathematical theorems and logical statements. It takes on an essential role across a vast array of applications and the quest for enhanced theorem-proving capabilities remains a prominent pursuit in artificial intelligence. Here, we propose a generic framework for quantum automated theorem proving, where the intrinsic quantum superposition and entanglement features would lead to potential advantages. In particular, we introduce quantum representations of knowledge bases and propose corresponding reasoning algorithms for a variety of tasks. We show how automated reasoning can be achieved with quantum resolution in both propositional and first-order logic with quadratically reduced query complexity. In addition, we propose the quantum algebraic proving method for geometric theorems, extending Wu's algebraic approach beyond the classical setting. Through concrete examples, including geometry problems from the International Mathematical Olympiad, we demonstrate how a quantum computer may prove geometric theorems with quadratic better query complexity. Our r
Theorem proving is a fundamental aspect of mathematics, spanning from informal reasoning in natural language to rigorous derivations in formal systems. In recent years, the advancement of deep learning, especially the emergence of large language models, has sparked a notable surge of research exploring these techniques to enhance the process of theorem proving. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of deep learning for theorem proving by offering (i) a thorough review of existing approaches across various tasks such as autoformalization, premise selection, proofstep generation, and proof search; (ii) an extensive summary of curated datasets and strategies for synthetic data generation; (iii) a detailed analysis of evaluation metrics and the performance of state-of-the-art methods; and (iv) a critical discussion on the persistent challenges and the promising avenues for future exploration. Our survey aims to serve as a foundational reference for deep learning approaches in theorem proving, inspiring and catalyzing further research endeavors in this rapidly growing field. A curated list of papers is available at https://github.com/zhaoyu-li/DL4TP.
Despite the success of large language models (LLMs), the task of theorem proving still remains one of the hardest reasoning tasks that is far from being fully solved. Prior methods using language models have demonstrated promising results, but they still struggle to prove even middle school level theorems. One common limitation of these methods is that they assume a fixed theorem library during the whole theorem proving process. However, as we all know, creating new useful theorems or even new theories is not only helpful but crucial and necessary for advancing mathematics and proving harder and deeper results. In this work, we present LEGO-Prover, which employs a growing skill library containing verified lemmas as skills to augment the capability of LLMs used in theorem proving. By constructing the proof modularly, LEGO-Prover enables LLMs to utilize existing skills retrieved from the library and to create new skills during the proving process. These skills are further evolved (by prompting an LLM) to enrich the library on another scale. Modular and reusable skills are constantly added to the library to enable tackling increasingly intricate mathematical problems. Moreover, the le
Traditional language model-based theorem proving assumes that by training on a sufficient amount of formal proof data, a model will learn to prove theorems. Our key observation is that a wealth of informal information that is not present in formal proofs can be useful for learning to prove theorems. For instance, humans think through steps of a proof, but this thought process is not visible in the resulting code. We present Lean-STaR, a framework for training language models to produce informal thoughts prior to each step of a proof, thereby boosting the model's theorem-proving capabilities. Lean-STaR uses retrospective ground-truth tactics to generate synthetic thoughts for training the language model. At inference time, the trained model directly generates the thoughts prior to the prediction of the tactics in each proof step. Building on the self-taught reasoner framework, we then apply expert iteration to further fine-tune the model on the correct proofs it samples and verifies using the Lean solver. Lean-STaR achieves state-of-the-art results on the miniF2F-test benchmark within the Lean theorem proving environment, significantly outperforming base models ($\boldsymbol{43.4\%
Real-world formal theorem proving often depends on a wealth of context, including definitions, lemmas, comments, file structure, and other information. We introduce miniCTX, which tests a model's ability to prove formal mathematical theorems that depend on new context that is not seen during training. miniCTX contains theorems sourced from real Lean projects and textbooks, each associated with a context that can span tens of thousands of tokens. Models are tasked with proving a theorem given access to code from the theorem's repository, which contains context that is needed for the proof. As a baseline for miniCTX, we tested fine-tuning and prompting methods that condition theorem proving on preceding context. Both approaches substantially outperform traditional methods that rely solely on state information. We found that this ability to use context is not captured by previous benchmarks such as miniF2F. Alongside miniCTX, we offer ntp-toolkit for automatically extracting and annotating theorem proving data, making it easy to add new projects into miniCTX to ensure that contexts are not seen during training. miniCTX offers a challenging and realistic evaluation of neural theorem pr
Cryptic crossword clues are challenging cognitive tasks, for which new test sets are released on a daily basis by multiple international newspapers. Each cryptic clue contains both the definition of the answer to be placed in the crossword grid (in common with regular crosswords), and `wordplay' that proves that the answer is correct (i.e. a human solver can be confident that an answer is correct without needing crossing words to confirm it). Using an existing cryptic wordplay proving framework (operating on Python proofs created by an LLM), we show that it is possible to distinguish between correct answers and almost-correct ones based upon whether the wordplay `works'.
This article describes the *Confluence Framework*, a novel framework for proving and disproving confluence using a divide-and-conquer modular strategy, and its implementation in CONFident. Using this approach, we are able to automatically prove and disprove confluence of *Generalized Term Rewriting Systems*, where (i) only selected arguments of function symbols can be rewritten and (ii) a rather general class of conditional rules can be used. This includes, as particular cases, several variants of rewrite systems such as (context-sensitive) *term rewriting systems*, *string rewriting systems*, and (context-sensitive) *conditional term rewriting systems*. The divide-and-conquer modular strategy allows us to combine in a proof tree different techniques for proving confluence, including modular decompositions, checking joinability of (conditional) critical and variable pairs, transformations, etc., and auxiliary tasks required by them, e.g., joinability of terms, joinability of conditional pairs, etc.
GXWeb is the free browser based version of the symbolic geometry software Geometry Expressions. We demonstrate its use in an educational setting with examples from theorem proving, mathematical modelling and loci and envelopes.
Proving ground has been a critical component in testing and validation for Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAV). Although quite a few world-class testing facilities have been under construction over the years, the evaluation of proving grounds themselves as testing approaches has rarely been studied. In this paper, we present the first attempt to systematically evaluate CAV proving grounds and contribute to a generative sample-based approach to assessing the representation of traffic scenarios in proving grounds. Leveraging typical use cases extracted from naturalistic driving events, we establish a strong link between proving ground testing results of CAVs and their anticipated public street performance. We present benchmark results of our approach on three world-class CAV testing facilities: Mcity, Almono (Uber ATG), and Kcity. We successfully show the overall evaluation of these proving grounds in terms of their capability to accommodate real-world traffic scenarios. We believe that when the effectiveness of a testing ground itself is validated, the testing results would grant more confidence for CAV public deployment.
Planning as theorem proving in situation calculus was abandoned 50 years ago as an impossible project. But we have developed a Theorem Proving Lifted Heuristic (TPLH) planner that searches for a plan in a tree of situations using the A* search algorithm. It is controlled by a delete relaxation-based domain independent heuristic. We compare TPLH with Fast Downward (FD) and Best First Width Search (BFWS) planners over several standard benchmarks. Since our implementation of the heuristic function is not optimized, TPLH is slower than FD and BFWS. But it computes shorter plans, and it explores fewer states. We discuss previous research on planning within KR\&R and identify related directions. Thus, we show that deductive lifted heuristic planning in situation calculus is actually doable.
Recent advances in automated theorem proving leverages language models to explore expanded search spaces by step-by-step proof generation. However, such approaches are usually based on short-sighted heuristics (e.g., log probability or value function scores) that potentially lead to suboptimal or even distracting subgoals, preventing us from finding longer proofs. To address this challenge, we propose POETRY (PrOvE Theorems RecursivelY), which proves theorems in a recursive, level-by-level manner in the Isabelle theorem prover. Unlike previous step-by-step methods, POETRY searches for a verifiable sketch of the proof at each level and focuses on solving the current level's theorem or conjecture. Detailed proofs of intermediate conjectures within the sketch are temporarily replaced by a placeholder tactic called sorry, deferring their proofs to subsequent levels. This approach allows the theorem to be tackled incrementally by outlining the overall theorem at the first level and then solving the intermediate conjectures at deeper levels. Experiments are conducted on the miniF2F and PISA datasets and significant performance gains are observed in our POETRY approach over state-of-the-a
In learning-assisted theorem proving, one of the most critical challenges is to generalize to theorems unlike those seen at training time. In this paper, we introduce INT, an INequality Theorem proving benchmark, specifically designed to test agents' generalization ability. INT is based on a procedure for generating theorems and proofs; this procedure's knobs allow us to measure 6 different types of generalization, each reflecting a distinct challenge characteristic to automated theorem proving. In addition, unlike prior benchmarks for learning-assisted theorem proving, INT provides a lightweight and user-friendly theorem proving environment with fast simulations, conducive to performing learning-based and search-based research. We introduce learning-based baselines and evaluate them across 6 dimensions of generalization with the benchmark. We then evaluate the same agents augmented with Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) at test time, and show that MCTS can help to prove new theorems.
Automatic (i.e., computer-assisted) theorem proving (ATP) can come in many flavors. This document presents early steps in our effort towards defining object-oriented theorem proving (OOTP) as a new style of ATP. Traditional theorem proving (TTP) is the only well-known flavor of ATP so far. OOTP is a generalization of TTP. While TTP is strongly based on functional programming (FP), OOTP is strongly based on object-oriented programming (OOP) instead. We believe OOTP is a style of theorem proving that is no less powerful and no less natural than TTP and thus likely will be no less practically useful than TTP.
We report on several scenarios of using automated theorem proving software in university education. In particular, we focus on using the Theorema system in a software-enhanced logic-course for students in computer science or artificial intelligence. The purpose of using logic-software in our teaching is not to teach students the proper use of a particular piece of software. In contrast, we try to employ certain software in order to spark students' motivation and to support their understanding of logic principles they are supposed to understand after having passed the course. In a sense, we try to let the software act as a logic-tutor, the software is not an additional subject we teach.
Using an interactive theorem prover to reason about programs involves a sequence of interactions where the user challenges the theorem prover with conjectures. Invariably, many of the conjectures posed are in fact false, and users often spend considerable effort examining the theorem prover's output before realizing this. We present a synergistic integration of testing with theorem proving, implemented in the ACL2 Sedan (ACL2s), for automatically generating concrete counterexamples. Our method uses the full power of the theorem prover and associated libraries to simplify conjectures; this simplification can transform conjectures for which finding counterexamples is hard into conjectures where finding counterexamples is trivial. In fact, our approach even leads to better theorem proving, e.g. if testing shows that a generalization step leads to a false conjecture, we force the theorem prover to backtrack, allowing it to pursue more fruitful options that may yield a proof. The focus of the paper is on the engineering of a synergistic integration of testing with interactive theorem proving; this includes extending ACL2 with new functionality that we expect to be of general interest. W
Cyber-physical systems are inherently complex due to their connection between software and the physical world. Iterative design reduces their complexity, but increases the need to repeatedly recheck their safety in full after every change. We introduce the refactoring-as-propositions principle in which refactorings are represented as propositions along with a method for proving that system refactorings preserve their required properties by transferring the proof along the respective modification. It is based on differential refinement logic (dRL), with which one can simultaneously and rigorously refer to properties of the systems and the relation between a refactored system and its original version. Refinements represent a uniform way of expressing different types of hybrid system refactorings, including those that introduce auxiliary variables. Furthermore, we show how these refactorings can be proved automatically, and/or reduce to a modular proof solely about the local change rather than about the whole system.