Formal Disco: Scalable Open-Ended Generation of Formally Verified Programs

The cost of producing code is rapidly diminishing with increasingly capable AI agents, while quality assurance of generated programs has not kept pace. Formal verification provides the strongest possible guarantees, but the ability of AI models to work with verification-aware languages is hindered by the scarcity of human-written examples of programs in those languages. To tackle this prevalent data scarcity issue, we propose Formal Disco: a distributed system for coordination of LLM-based workers that can be easily applied to open-ended synthetic data generation at scale. We use Formal Disco to share tasks and programs between three classes of workers: "initiators", which read random READMEs from open-source repositories and documentation snippets to sketch a related verified program, "fixers" which take compiler and verifier feedback and attempt to resolve issues, and "extenders" that take working programs and propose patches to expand them. Formal Disco records all agent-generated traces and uses them both for initial distillation from a stronger model as well as self-improvement. We also propose a principle of maximum entropy for synthetic program generation, and use entropy maximization via iterative supervised fine-tuning to learn to generate increasingly diverse programs over time. We release large datasets of synthetic verified programs in three languages - Dafny, Verus, and Frama-C -, and fine-tune open models for verification-relevant tasks, often matching or exceeding the performance of Claude Opus 4.5. Overall, our work offers a path to create synthetic data at scale for formal reasoning domains and overcome the long-standing data barrier.

A Matter of Interest: Understanding Interestingness of Math Problems in Humans and Language Models

The evolution of mathematics has been guided in part by interestingness. From researchers choosing which problems to tackle next, to students deciding which ones to engage with, people's choices are often guided by judgments about how interesting or challenging problems are likely to be. As AI systems, such as LLMs, increasingly participate in mathematics with people -- whether for advanced research or education -- it becomes important to understand how well their judgments align with human ones. Our work examines this alignment through two empirical studies of human and LLM assessment of mathematical interestingness and difficulty, spanning a range of mathematical experience. We study two groups: participants from a crowdsourcing platform and International Math Olympiad competitors. We show that while many LLMs appear to broadly agree with human notions of interestingness, they mostly do not capture the distribution observed in human judgments. Moreover, most LLMs only somewhat align with why humans find certain math problems interesting, showing weak correlation with human-selected interestingness rationales. Together, our findings highlight both the promises and limitations of current LLMs in capturing human interestingness judgments for mathematical AI thought partnerships.

Formal Mathematical Reasoning: A New Frontier in AI

AI for Mathematics (AI4Math) is not only intriguing intellectually but also crucial for AI-driven discovery in science, engineering, and beyond. Extensive efforts on AI4Math have mirrored techniques in NLP, in particular, training large language models on carefully curated math datasets in text form. As a complementary yet less explored avenue, formal mathematical reasoning is grounded in formal systems such as proof assistants, which can verify the correctness of reasoning and provide automatic feedback. In this position paper, we advocate for formal mathematical reasoning and argue that it is indispensable for advancing AI4Math to the next level. In recent years, we have seen steady progress in using AI to perform formal reasoning, including core tasks such as theorem proving and autoformalization, as well as emerging applications such as verifiable generation of code and hardware designs. However, significant challenges remain to be solved for AI to truly master mathematics and achieve broader impact. We summarize existing progress, discuss open challenges, and envision critical milestones to measure future success. At this inflection point for formal mathematical reasoning, we call on the research community to come together to drive transformative advancements in this field.

Data for Mathematical Copilots: Better Ways of Presenting Proofs for Machine Learning

The suite of datasets commonly used to train and evaluate the mathematical capabilities of AI-based mathematical copilots (primarily large language models) exhibit several shortcomings. These limitations include a restricted scope of mathematical complexity, typically not exceeding lower undergraduate-level mathematics, binary rating protocols and other issues, which makes comprehensive proof-based evaluation suites difficult. We systematically explore these limitations and contend that enhancing the capabilities of large language models, or any forthcoming advancements in AI-based mathematical assistants (copilots or "thought partners"), necessitates a paradigm shift in the design of mathematical datasets and the evaluation criteria of mathematical ability: It is necessary to move away from result-based datasets (theorem statement to theorem proof) and convert the rich facets of mathematical research practice to data LLMs can train on. Examples of these are mathematical workflows (sequences of atomic, potentially subfield-dependent tasks that are often performed when creating new mathematics), which are an important part of the proof-discovery process. Additionally, we advocate for mathematical dataset developers to consider the concept of "motivated proof", introduced by G. P\'olya in 1949, which can serve as a blueprint for datasets that offer a better proof learning signal, alleviating some of the mentioned limitations. Lastly, we introduce math datasheets for datasets, extending the general, dataset-agnostic variants of datasheets: We provide a questionnaire designed specifically for math datasets that we urge dataset creators to include with their datasets. This will make creators aware of potential limitations of their datasets while at the same time making it easy for readers to assess it from the point of view of training and evaluating mathematical copilots.

h4rm3l: A Dynamic Benchmark of Composable Jailbreak Attacks for LLM Safety Assessment

The safety of Large Language Models (LLMs) remains a critical concern due to a lack of adequate benchmarks for systematically evaluating their ability to resist generating harmful content. Previous efforts towards automated red teaming involve static or templated sets of illicit requests and adversarial prompts which have limited utility given jailbreak attacks' evolving and composable nature. We propose a novel dynamic benchmark of composable jailbreak attacks to move beyond static datasets and taxonomies of attacks and harms. Our approach consists of three components collectively called h4rm3l: (1) a domain-specific language that formally expresses jailbreak attacks as compositions of parameterized prompt transformation primitives, (2) bandit-based few-shot program synthesis algorithms that generate novel attacks optimized to penetrate the safety filters of a target black box LLM, and (3) open-source automated red-teaming software employing the previous two components. We use h4rm3l to generate a dataset of 2656 successful novel jailbreak attacks targeting 6 state-of-the-art (SOTA) open-source and proprietary LLMs. Several of our synthesized attacks are more effective than previously reported ones, with Attack Success Rates exceeding 90% on SOTA closed language models such as claude-3-haiku and GPT4-o. By generating datasets of jailbreak attacks in a unified formal representation, h4rm3l enables reproducible benchmarking and automated red-teaming, contributes to understanding LLM safety limitations, and supports the development of robust defenses in an increasingly LLM-integrated world. Warning: This paper and related research artifacts contain offensive and potentially disturbing prompts and model-generated content.

MathCAMPS: Fine-grained Synthesis of Mathematical Problems From Human Curricula

Mathematical problem solving is an important skill for Large Language Models (LLMs), both as an important capability and a proxy for a range of reasoning abilities. Existing benchmarks probe a diverse set of skills, but they yield aggregate accuracy metrics, obscuring specific abilities or weaknesses. Furthermore, they are difficult to extend with new problems, risking data contamination over time. To address these challenges, we propose MathCAMPS: a method to synthesize high-quality mathematical problems at scale, grounded on 44 fine-grained "standards" from the Mathematics Common Core (CC) Standard for K-8 grades. We encode each standard in a formal grammar, allowing us to sample diverse symbolic problems and their answers. We then use LLMs to realize the symbolic problems into word problems. We propose a cycle-consistency method for validating problem faithfulness. Finally, we derive follow-up questions from symbolic structures and convert them into follow-up word problems - a novel task of mathematical dialogue that probes for robustness in understanding. Experiments on 23 LLMs show surprising failures even in the strongest models (in particular when asked simple follow-up questions). Moreover, we evaluate training checkpoints of Pythia 12B on MathCAMPS, allowing us to analyze when particular mathematical skills develop during its training. Our framework enables the community to reproduce and extend our pipeline for a fraction of the typical cost of building new high-quality datasets.

Learning Formal Mathematics From Intrinsic Motivation

How did humanity coax mathematics from the aether? We explore the Platonic view that mathematics can be discovered from its axioms - a game of conjecture and proof. We describe Minimo (Mathematics from Intrinsic Motivation): an agent that jointly learns to pose challenging problems for itself (conjecturing) and solve them (theorem proving). Given a mathematical domain axiomatized in dependent type theory, we first combine methods for constrained decoding and type-directed synthesis to sample valid conjectures from a language model. Our method guarantees well-formed conjectures by construction, even as we start with a randomly initialized model. We use the same model to represent a policy and value function for guiding proof search. Our agent targets generating hard but provable conjectures - a moving target, since its own theorem proving ability also improves as it trains. We propose novel methods for hindsight relabeling on proof search trees to significantly improve the agent's sample efficiency in both tasks. Experiments on 3 axiomatic domains (propositional logic, arithmetic and group theory) demonstrate that our agent can bootstrap from only the axioms, self-improving in generating true and challenging conjectures and in finding proofs.

When Do Skills Help Reinforcement Learning? A Theoretical Analysis of Temporal Abstractions

Skills are temporal abstractions that are intended to improve reinforcement learning (RL) performance through hierarchical RL. Despite our intuition about the properties of an environment that make skills useful, a precise characterization has been absent. We provide the first such characterization, focusing on the utility of deterministic skills in deterministic sparse-reward environments with finite action spaces. We show theoretically and empirically that RL performance gain from skills is worse in environments where solutions to states are less compressible. Additional theoretical results suggest that skills benefit exploration more than they benefit learning from existing experience, and that using unexpressive skills such as macroactions may worsen RL performance. We hope our findings can guide research on automatic skill discovery and help RL practitioners better decide when and how to use skills.

Hypothesis Search: Inductive Reasoning with Language Models

Inductive reasoning is a core problem-solving capacity: humans can identify underlying principles from a few examples, which can then be robustly generalized to novel scenarios. Recent work has evaluated large language models (LLMs) on inductive reasoning tasks by directly prompting them yielding "in context learning." This can work well for straightforward inductive tasks, but performs very poorly on more complex tasks such as the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC). In this work, we propose to improve the inductive reasoning ability of LLMs by generating explicit hypotheses at multiple levels of abstraction: we prompt the LLM to propose multiple abstract hypotheses about the problem, in natural language, then implement the natural language hypotheses as concrete Python programs. These programs can be directly verified by running on the observed examples and generalized to novel inputs. Because of the prohibitive cost of generation with state-of-the-art LLMs, we consider a middle step to filter the set of hypotheses that will be implemented into programs: we either ask the LLM to summarize into a smaller set of hypotheses, or ask human annotators to select a subset of the hypotheses. We verify our pipeline's effectiveness on the ARC visual inductive reasoning benchmark, its variant 1D-ARC, and string transformation dataset SyGuS. On a random 40-problem subset of ARC, our automated pipeline using LLM summaries achieves 27.5% accuracy, significantly outperforming the direct prompting baseline (accuracy of 12.5%). With the minimal human input of selecting from LLM-generated candidates, the performance is boosted to 37.5%. (And we argue this is a lower bound on the performance of our approach without filtering.) Our ablation studies show that abstract hypothesis generation and concrete program representations are both beneficial for LLMs to perform inductive reasoning tasks.

Certified Reasoning with Language Models

Language models often achieve higher accuracy when reasoning step-by-step in complex tasks. However, their reasoning can be unsound, inconsistent, or rely on undesirable prior assumptions. To tackle these issues, we introduce a class of tools for language models called guides that use state and incremental constraints to guide generation. A guide can be invoked by the model to constrain its own generation to a set of valid statements given by the tool. In turn, the model's choices can change the guide's state. We show how a general system for logical reasoning can be used as a guide, which we call LogicGuide. Given a reasoning problem in natural language, a model can formalize its assumptions for LogicGuide and then guarantee that its reasoning steps are sound. In experiments with the PrOntoQA and ProofWriter reasoning datasets, LogicGuide significantly improves the performance of GPT-3, GPT-3.5 Turbo and LLaMA (accuracy gains up to 35%). LogicGuide also drastically reduces content effects: the interference of prior and current assumptions that both humans and language models have been shown to suffer from. Finally, we explore bootstrapping LLaMA 13B from its own reasoning and find that LogicGuide is critical: by training only on certified self-generated reasoning, LLaMA can self-improve, avoiding learning from its own hallucinations.