Seed-Prover: Deep and Broad Reasoning for Automated Theorem Proving

LLMs have demonstrated strong mathematical reasoning abilities by leveraging reinforcement learning with long chain-of-thought, yet they continue to struggle with theorem proving due to the lack of clear supervision signals when solely using natural language. Dedicated domain-specific languages like Lean provide clear supervision via formal verification of proofs, enabling effective training through reinforcement learning. In this work, we propose \textbf{Seed-Prover}, a lemma-style whole-proof reasoning model. Seed-Prover can iteratively refine its proof based on Lean feedback, proved lemmas, and self-summarization. To solve IMO-level contest problems, we design three test-time inference strategies that enable both deep and broad reasoning. Seed-Prover proves $78.1\%$ of formalized past IMO problems, saturates MiniF2F, and achieves over 50\% on PutnamBench, outperforming the previous state-of-the-art by a large margin. To address the lack of geometry support in Lean, we introduce a geometry reasoning engine \textbf{Seed-Geometry}, which outperforms previous formal geometry engines. We use these two systems to participate in IMO 2025 and fully prove 5 out of 6 problems. This work represents a significant advancement in automated mathematical reasoning, demonstrating the effectiveness of formal verification with long chain-of-thought reasoning.

StepFun-Prover Preview: Let's Think and Verify Step by Step

We present StepFun-Prover Preview, a large language model designed for formal theorem proving through tool-integrated reasoning. Using a reinforcement learning pipeline that incorporates tool-based interactions, StepFun-Prover can achieve strong performance in generating Lean 4 proofs with minimal sampling. Our approach enables the model to emulate human-like problem-solving strategies by iteratively refining proofs based on real-time environment feedback. On the miniF2F-test benchmark, StepFun-Prover achieves a pass@1 success rate of $70.0\%$. Beyond advancing benchmark performance, we introduce an end-to-end training framework for developing tool-integrated reasoning models, offering a promising direction for automated theorem proving and Math AI assistant.

Generalized Tree Edit Distance (GTED): A Faithful Evaluation Metric for Statement Autoformalization

Statement autoformalization, the automated translation of statement from natural language into formal languages, has become a subject of extensive research, yet the development of robust automated evaluation metrics remains limited. Existing evaluation methods often lack semantic understanding, face challenges with high computational costs, and are constrained by the current progress of automated theorem proving. To address these issues, we propose GTED (Generalized Tree Edit Distance), a novel evaluation framework that first standardizes formal statements and converts them into operator trees, then determines the semantic similarity using the eponymous GTED metric. On the miniF2F and ProofNet benchmarks, GTED outperforms all baseline metrics by achieving the highest accuracy and Kappa scores, thus providing the community with a more faithful metric for automated evaluation. The code and experimental results are available at https://github.com/XiaoyangLiu-sjtu/GTED.

CriticLean: Critic-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Mathematical Formalization

Translating natural language mathematical statements into formal, executable code is a fundamental challenge in automated theorem proving. While prior work has focused on generation and compilation success, little attention has been paid to the critic phase-the evaluation of whether generated formalizations truly capture the semantic intent of the original problem. In this paper, we introduce CriticLean, a novel critic-guided reinforcement learning framework that elevates the role of the critic from a passive validator to an active learning component. Specifically, first, we propose the CriticLeanGPT, trained via supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, to rigorously assess the semantic fidelity of Lean 4 formalizations. Then, we introduce CriticLeanBench, a benchmark designed to measure models' ability to distinguish semantically correct from incorrect formalizations, and demonstrate that our trained CriticLeanGPT models can significantly outperform strong open- and closed-source baselines. Building on the CriticLean framework, we construct FineLeanCorpus, a dataset comprising over 285K problems that exhibits rich domain diversity, broad difficulty coverage, and high correctness based on human evaluation. Overall, our findings highlight that optimizing the critic phase is essential for producing reliable formalizations, and we hope our CriticLean will provide valuable insights for future advances in formal mathematical reasoning.

Subtyping in DHOL -- Extended preprint

The recently introduced dependent typed higher-order logic (DHOL) offers an interesting compromise between expressiveness and automation support. It sacrifices the decidability of its type system in order to significantly extend its expressiveness over standard HOL. Yet it retains strong automated theorem proving support via a sound and complete translation to HOL. We leverage this design to extend DHOL with refinement and quotient types. Both of these are commonly requested by practitioners but rarely provided by automated theorem provers. This is because they inherently require undecidable typing and thus are very difficult to retrofit to decidable type systems. But with DHOL already doing the heavy lifting, adding them is not only possible but elegant and simple. Concretely, we add refinement and quotient types as special cases of subtyping. This turns the associated canonical inclusion resp. projection maps into identity maps and thus avoids costly changes in representation. We present the syntax, semantics, and translation to HOL for the extended language, including the proofs of soundness and completeness.

Bourbaki: Self-Generated and Goal-Conditioned MDPs for Theorem Proving

Reasoning remains a challenging task for large language models (LLMs), especially within the logically constrained environment of automated theorem proving (ATP), due to sparse rewards and the vast scale of proofs. These challenges are amplified in benchmarks like PutnamBench, which contains university-level problems requiring complex, multi-step reasoning. To address this, we introduce self-generated goal-conditioned MDPs (sG-MDPs), a new framework in which agents generate and pursue their subgoals based on the evolving proof state. Given this more structured generation of goals, the resulting problem becomes more amenable to search. We then apply Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)-like algorithms to solve the sG-MDP, instantiating our approach in Bourbaki (7B), a modular system that can ensemble multiple 7B LLMs for subgoal generation and tactic synthesis. On PutnamBench, Bourbaki (7B) solves 26 problems, achieving new state-of-the-art results with models at this scale.

Reviving DSP for Advanced Theorem Proving in the Era of Reasoning Models

Recent advancements, such as DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B and Kimina-Prover-Preview-72B, demonstrate a prevailing trend in leveraging reinforcement learning (RL)-based large-scale training for automated theorem proving. Surprisingly, we discover that even without any training, careful neuro-symbolic coordination of existing off-the-shelf reasoning models and tactic step provers can achieve comparable performance. This paper introduces \textbf{DSP+}, an improved version of the Draft, Sketch, and Prove framework, featuring a \emph{fine-grained and integrated} neuro-symbolic enhancement for each phase: (1) In the draft phase, we prompt reasoning models to generate concise natural-language subgoals to benefit the sketch phase, removing thinking tokens and references to human-written proofs; (2) In the sketch phase, subgoals are autoformalized with hypotheses to benefit the proving phase, and sketch lines containing syntactic errors are masked according to predefined rules; (3) In the proving phase, we tightly integrate symbolic search methods like Aesop with step provers to establish proofs for the sketch subgoals. Experimental results show that, without any additional model training or fine-tuning, DSP+ solves 80.7\%, 32.8\%, and 24 out of 644 problems from miniF2F, ProofNet, and PutnamBench, respectively, while requiring fewer budgets compared to state-of-the-arts. DSP+ proves \texttt{imo\_2019\_p1}, an IMO problem in miniF2F that is not solved by any prior work. Additionally, DSP+ generates proof patterns comprehensible by human experts, facilitating the identification of formalization errors; For example, eight wrongly formalized statements in miniF2F are discovered. Our results highlight the potential of classical reasoning patterns besides the RL-based training. All components will be open-sourced.

MATP-BENCH: Can MLLM Be a Good Automated Theorem Prover for Multimodal Problems?

Numerous theorems, such as those in geometry, are often presented in multimodal forms (e.g., diagrams). Humans benefit from visual reasoning in such settings, using diagrams to gain intuition and guide the proof process. Modern Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in solving a wide range of mathematical problems. However, the potential of MLLMs as Automated Theorem Provers (ATPs), specifically in the multimodal domain, remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce the Multimodal Automated Theorem Proving benchmark (MATP-BENCH), a new Multimodal, Multi-level, and Multi-language benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs in this role as multimodal automated theorem provers. MATP-BENCH consists of 1056 multimodal theorems drawn from high school, university, and competition-level mathematics. All these multimodal problems are accompanied by formalizations in Lean 4, Coq and Isabelle, thus making the benchmark compatible with a wide range of theorem-proving frameworks. MATP-BENCH requires models to integrate sophisticated visual understanding with mastery of a broad spectrum of mathematical knowledge and rigorous symbolic reasoning to generate formal proofs. We use MATP-BENCH to evaluate a variety of advanced multimodal language models. Existing methods can only solve a limited number of the MATP-BENCH problems, indicating that this benchmark poses an open challenge for research on automated theorem proving.

ProofNet++: A Neuro-Symbolic System for Formal Proof Verification with Self-Correction

We propose ProofNet++, a neuro-symbolic framework that enhances automated theorem proving by combining large language models (LLMs) with formal proof verification and self-correction mechanisms. Current LLM-based systems suffer from hallucinated logical steps and unverifiable reasoning. ProofNet++ mitigates these limitations by integrating symbolic proof tree supervision, a reinforcement learning loop using verifiers as reward functions, and an iterative self-correction module. Our experiments on miniF2F, Lean's mathlib, and HOL Light show that ProofNet++ significantly improves proof accuracy, correctness, and formal verifiability over prior models. We provide theoretical analysis of the convergence and stability of the verifier-guided RL framework and release our datasets and codebase for future research.

DeepTheorem: Advancing LLM Reasoning for Theorem Proving Through Natural Language and Reinforcement Learning

Theorem proving serves as a major testbed for evaluating complex reasoning abilities in large language models (LLMs). However, traditional automated theorem proving (ATP) approaches rely heavily on formal proof systems that poorly align with LLMs' strength derived from informal, natural language knowledge acquired during pre-training. In this work, we propose DeepTheorem, a comprehensive informal theorem-proving framework exploiting natural language to enhance LLM mathematical reasoning. DeepTheorem includes a large-scale benchmark dataset consisting of 121K high-quality IMO-level informal theorems and proofs spanning diverse mathematical domains, rigorously annotated for correctness, difficulty, and topic categories, accompanied by systematically constructed verifiable theorem variants. We devise a novel reinforcement learning strategy (RL-Zero) explicitly tailored to informal theorem proving, leveraging the verified theorem variants to incentivize robust mathematical inference. Additionally, we propose comprehensive outcome and process evaluation metrics examining proof correctness and the quality of reasoning steps. Extensive experimental analyses demonstrate DeepTheorem significantly improves LLM theorem-proving performance compared to existing datasets and supervised fine-tuning protocols, achieving state-of-the-art accuracy and reasoning quality. Our findings highlight DeepTheorem's potential to fundamentally advance automated informal theorem proving and mathematical exploration.