Despite impressive results on curated benchmarks, the practical impact of large language models (LLMs) on research-level neural theorem proving and proof autoformalization is still limited. We introduce RLMEval, an evaluation suite for these tasks, focusing on research-level mathematics from real-world Lean formalization projects. RLMEval targets the evaluation of neural theorem proving and proof autoformalization on challenging research-level theorems by leveraging real Lean Blueprint formalization projects. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art models on RLMEval, comprising 613 theorems from 6 Lean projects, reveals a significant gap: progress on existing benchmarks does not readily translate to these more realistic settings, with the best model achieving only a 10.3 % pass rate. RLMEval provides a new, challenging benchmark designed to guide and accelerate progress in automated reasoning for formal mathematics.

We introduce Aristotle, an AI system that combines formal verification with informal reasoning, achieving gold-medal-equivalent performance on the 2025 International Mathematical Olympiad problems. Aristotle integrates three main components: a Lean proof search system, an informal reasoning system that generates and formalizes lemmas, and a dedicated geometry solver. Our system demonstrates state-of-the-art performance with favorable scaling properties for automated theorem proving.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable abilities in structured reasoning and symbolic tasks, with coding emerging as a particular area of strength. This success has sparked growing interest in applying LLMs to mathematics, both in informal problem-solving and formal theorem proving. However, progress in formal mathematics has proven to be significantly more difficult, despite surface-level similarities between programming and proof construction. This discrepancy raises important questions about how LLMs ``reason'', how they are supervised, and whether they internally track a notion of computational or deductive state. In this article, we address the state-of-the-art of the discipline, focusing on recent models and benchmarks, and explore three central issues at the intersection of machine learning and mathematical cognition: (i) the trade-offs between formal and informal mathematics as training domains; (ii) the deeper reasons why proof generation remains more brittle than code synthesis; (iii) and the question of whether LLMs represent, or merely mimic, a notion of evolving logical state. Our goal is not to draw hard boundaries, but to identify where the current limits lie, and how they might be extended.

This position paper provides a critical but constructive discussion of current practices in benchmarking and evaluative practices in the field of formal reasoning and automated theorem proving. We take the position that open code, open data, and benchmarks that are complete and error-free will accelerate progress in this field. We identify practices that create barriers to contributing to this field and suggest ways to remove them. We also discuss some of the practices that might produce misleading evaluative information. We aim to create discussions that bring together people from various groups contributing to automated theorem proving, autoformalization, and informal reasoning.

Interactive theorem provers (ITPs) are powerful tools for the formal verification of mathematical proofs down to the axiom level. However, their lack of a natural language interface remains a significant limitation. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have enhanced the understanding of natural language inputs, paving the way for autoformalization - the process of translating natural language proofs into formal proofs that can be verified. Despite these advancements, existing autoformalization approaches are limited to verifying complete proofs and lack the capability for finer, sentence-level verification. To address this gap, we propose StepProof, a novel autoformalization method designed for granular, step-by-step verification. StepProof breaks down complete proofs into multiple verifiable subproofs, enabling sentence-level verification. Experimental results demonstrate that StepProof significantly improves proof success rates and efficiency compared to traditional methods. Additionally, we found that minor manual adjustments to the natural language proofs, tailoring them for step-level verification, further enhanced StepProof's performance in autoformalization.

Developing the logic necessary to solve mathematical problems or write mathematical proofs is one of the more difficult objectives for large language models (LLMS). Currently, the most popular methods in literature consists of fine-tuning the model on written mathematical content such as academic publications and textbooks, so that the model can learn to emulate the style of mathematical writing. In this project, we explore the effectiveness of using retrieval augmented generation (RAG) to address gaps in the mathematical reasoning of LLMs. We develop LemmaHead, a RAG knowledge base that supplements queries to the model with relevant mathematical context, with particular focus on context from published textbooks. To measure our model's performance in mathematical reasoning, our testing paradigm focuses on the task of automated theorem proving via generating proofs to a given mathematical claim in the Lean formal language.

Large Language Models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language processing tasks, including mathematical problem-solving that requires multi-step logical reasoning. However, challenges persist in automating the identification of key mathematical concepts, understanding their interrelations, and formalizing proofs within a rigorous framework. We present a novel framework that leverages knowledge graphs to augment LLMs to construct and formalize mathematical proofs. Our results demonstrate significant performance improvements across multiple datasets, with using knowledge graphs, achieving up to a 34% success rate on the MUSTARDSAUCE dataset on o1-mini and consistently outperforming baseline approaches by 2-11% across different models. We show how this approach bridges the gap between natural language understanding and formal logic proof systems and achieve elevated results for foundation models over baseline.

The synergy between deep learning models and traditional automation tools plays a pivotal role in developing robust neural theorem provers (NTPs). However, for proof synthesis with LLMs, previous work applies automation tools either only when the model explicitly calls the method, or only at a single granularity level, failing to fully exploit the power of built-in tactics and off-the-shelf automated theorem provers. In this work, we propose ProofAug, a novel theorem proving method that enjoys superior sample efficiency through equipping proof-generation LLMs with automation methods in different granularities via fine-grained structure analysis of model-generated proof proposals. Furthermore, ProofAug serves as a versatile plug-and-play module that seamlessly integrates with any tree-search algorithm, enabling our construction of an efficient recursive proving (ERP) module to further enhance performance. The superiority of our method is validated on the miniF2F-test benchmark using the open-source deepseek-math-7b-base model and the Isabelle proof assistant. Notably, by additionally employing a mixed prompting strategy, we achieve a cumulative pass rate of 66.0% after curation of the dataset (61.9% for the original version), setting a new SOTA across all proof languages with a total sample budget of only 2100. Our code is available at https://github.com/haoxiongliu/ProofAug.

Interactive theorem provers such as Coq are powerful tools to formally guarantee the correctness of software. However, using these tools requires significant manual effort and expertise. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in automatically generating informal proofs in natural language, they are less effective at generating formal proofs in interactive theorem provers. In this paper, we conduct a formative study to identify common mistakes made by LLMs when asked to generate formal proofs. By analyzing 520 proof generation errors made by GPT-3.5, we found that GPT-3.5 often identified the correct high-level structure of a proof, but struggled to get the lower-level details correct. Based on this insight, we propose PALM, a novel generate-then-repair approach that first prompts an LLM to generate an initial proof and then leverages targeted symbolic methods to iteratively repair low-level problems. We evaluate PALM on a large dataset that includes more than 10K theorems. Our results show that PALM significantly outperforms other state-of-the-art approaches, successfully proving 76.6% to 180.4% more theorems. Moreover, PALM proves 1270 theorems beyond the reach of existing approaches. We also demonstrate the generalizability of PALM across different LLMs.

Formal theorem proving, a field at the intersection of mathematics and computer science, has seen renewed interest with advancements in large language models (LLMs). This paper introduces SubgoalXL, a novel approach that synergizes subgoal-based proofs with expert learning to enhance LLMs' capabilities in formal theorem proving within the Isabelle environment. SubgoalXL addresses two critical challenges: the scarcity of specialized mathematics and theorem-proving data, and the need for improved multi-step reasoning abilities in LLMs. Leveraging the Isabelle environment's advantages in subgoal-based proofs, SubgoalXL achieves a new state-of-the-art performance of 56.1% in Isabelle on the standard miniF2F dataset, marking an absolute improvement of 4.9%. Notably, SubgoalXL successfully solves 41 AMC12, 9 AIME, and 3 IMO problems from miniF2F. These results underscore the effectiveness of maximizing limited data utility and employing targeted guidance for complex reasoning in formal theorem proving, contributing to the ongoing advancement of AI reasoning capabilities. Formal theorem proving, a field at the intersection of mathematics and computer science, has flourished alongside the development of languages like Lean (de Moura et al., 2015) and Isabelle (Paulson, 1994). These two prominent communities have been instrumental in advancing the field's core challenge: mechanizing mathematical reasoning and proof verification (Li et al., 2020).