Automated theorem proving (ATP) has been a classical problem in artificial intelligence since its inception, yet it remains challenging due to its vast state and action space. Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as a promising heuristic for ATP, but they lack correctness guarantees and thus require interaction with a proof verifier. Such interactions typically follow one of two approaches: black-box interaction, which does not utilize intermediate proof states, or white-box approaches, which allow for incremental proof construction and examination of intermediate states. While black-box approaches have directly benefited from recent LLM advances, white-box methods have comparatively lagged behind. In this paper, we address this gap by introducing LeanTree, which consists of (i) a tool built in the Lean 4 language that factorizes complex proof states into simpler, independent branches, and (ii) a dataset of these factorized intermediate states. Our white-box tooling offers several advantages over black-box approaches: it simplifies evaluation, reduces necessary context, generates richer training data, enables parallel search across multiple states, supports efficient reuse of states, and provides feedback in case of errors. Our preliminary results hint that white-box approaches outperform black-box alternatives in some settings.

Automated theorem proving in large theories can be learned via reinforcement learning over an indefinitely growing action space. In order to select actions, one performs nearest neighbor lookups in the knowledge base to find premises to be applied. Here we address the exploration for reinforcement learning in this space. Approaches (like epsilon-greedy strategy) that sample actions uniformly do not scale to this scenario as most actions lead to dead ends and unsuccessful proofs which are not useful for training our models. In this paper, we compare approaches that select premises using randomly initialized similarity measures and mixing them with the proposals of the learned model. We evaluate these on the HOList benchmark for tactics based higher order theorem proving. We implement an automated theorem prover named DeepHOL-Zero that does not use any of the human proofs and show that our improved exploration method manages to expand the training set continuously. DeepHOL-Zero outperforms the best theorem prover trained by imitation learning alone.

This paper presents the first use of graph neural networks (GNNs) for higher-order proof search and demonstrates that GNNs can improve upon state-of-the-art results in this domain. Interactive, higher-order theorem provers allow for the formalization of most mathematical theories and have been shown to pose a significant challenge for deep learning. Higher-order logic is highly expressive and, even though it is well-structured with a clearly defined grammar and semantics, there still remains no well-established method to convert formulas into graph-based representations. In this paper, we consider several graphical representations of higher-order logic and evaluate them against the HOList benchmark for higher-order theorem proving.

We present an environment, benchmark, and deep learning driven automated theorem prover for higher-order logic. Higher-order interactive theorem provers enable the formalization of arbitrary mathematical theories and thereby present an interesting, open-ended challenge for deep learning. We provide an open-source framework based on the HOL Light theorem prover that can be used as a reinforcement learning environment. HOL Light comes with a broad coverage of basic mathematical theorems on calculus and the formal proof of the Kepler conjecture, from which we derive a challenging benchmark for automated reasoning. We also present a deep reinforcement learning driven automated theorem prover, DeepHOL, with strong initial results on this benchmark.