Our analysis of the generalization error is based on an extension of Gordon's Gaussian process inequality [ R is a continuous function, which is convex in the first argument and concave in the second argument. The main result of CGMT is to connect the above two random optimization problems. The CGMT framework has been used to infer statistical properties of estimators in certain high-dimensional asymptotic regime. Second, derive the point-wise limit of the AO objective in terms of a convex-concave optimization problem, over only few scalar variables.

We mitigate the usual worst-case nature of minimax analysis by showing that our bounds are tight for any given31 hypothesis class, and, tight in any noise regime (Theorems 1 and 2).

Automating mathematical reasoning is a longstanding goal in artificial intelligence (Newell et al., 1957).

We introduce IndiMathBench, a human-verified benchmark designed to evaluate mathematical theorem proving, curated using an AI-powered human-assisted pipeline for formalizing natural language problems in Lean. IndiMathBench is composed of 312 formal Lean 4 theorems paired with their corresponding informal problem statements, sourced from Indian Mathematics Olympiads. Through category-based retrieval, iterative compiler feedback, and multi-model ensembles, our pipeline generates candidate formalizations that experts efficiently validate via an interactive dashboard with automated quality summaries. Evaluation across multiple frontier models demonstrates that autoformalization remains challenging, with substantial gaps between syntactic validity and semantic correctness, while theorem proving success rates remain low even with iterative refinement, demonstrating that \benchmark~presents a challenging testbed for mathematical reasoning. IndiMathBench is available at https://github.com/prmbiy/IndiMathBench.

During 2024 and 2025 the discussion about the theorem-proving capabilities of large language models started reporting interesting success stories, mostly to do with difficult exercises (such as problems from the International Mathematical Olympiad), but also with conjectures [Feldman & Karbasi, arXiv:2509.18383v1] formulated for the purpose of verifying whether the artificial intelligence could prove it. In this paper we report a theorem proving feat achieved by ChatGPT by using a protocol involving different prover and verifier instances of the gpt-5 model working collaboratively. To make sure that the produced proofs do not suffer from hallucinations, the final proof is formally verified by the lean proof assistant, and the conformance of premises and conclusion of the lean code is verified by a human. Our methodology is by no means complete or exact. It was nonetheless able to solve five out of six 2025 IMO problems, and close about a third of the sixty-six number theory conjectures in [Cohen, Journal of Integer Sequences, 2025].

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into automated theorem proving has shown immense promise, yet is fundamentally constrained by challenges in scaling up both training-time reinforcement learning (RL) and inference-time compute. This paper introduces \texttt{BFS-Prover-V2}, a system designed to address this dual scaling problem. We present two primary innovations. The first is a novel multi-turn off-policy RL framework for continually improving the performance of LLM step-prover at training time. This framework, inspired by the principles of AlphaZero, utilizes a multi-stage expert iteration pipeline featuring adaptive tactic-level data filtering and periodic retraining to surmount the performance plateaus that typically curtail long-term RL in LLM-based agents. The second innovation is a planner-enhanced multi-agent search architecture that scales reasoning capabilities at inference time. This architecture employs a general reasoning model as a high-level planner to iteratively decompose complex theorems into a sequence of simpler subgoals. This hierarchical approach substantially reduces the search space, enabling a team of parallel prover agents to collaborate efficiently by leveraging a shared proof cache. We demonstrate that this dual approach to scaling yields state-of-the-art results on established formal mathematics benchmarks. \texttt{BFS-Prover-V2} achieves 95.08\% and 41.4\% on the MiniF2F and ProofNet test sets respectively. While demonstrated in the domain of formal mathematics, the RL and inference techniques presented in this work are of broader interest and may be applied to other domains requiring long-horizon multi-turn reasoning and complex search.

Automating mathematical reasoning is a longstanding goal in artificial intelligence (Newell et al., 1957). A prominent line of work on the problem (Li et al., 2024) uses neural models to direct

First, an expected risk bound.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive mathematical reasoning abilities, but their solutions frequently contain errors that cannot be automatically verified. Formal theorem proving systems such as Lean 4 offer automated verification with complete accuracy, motivating recent efforts to build specialized prover LLMs that generate verifiable proofs in formal languages. However, a significant gap remains: current prover LLMs solve substantially fewer problems than general-purpose LLMs operating in natural language. We introduce Hilbert, an agentic framework that bridges this gap by combining the complementary strengths of informal reasoning and formal verification. Our system orchestrates four components: an informal LLM that excels at mathematical reasoning, a specialized prover LLM optimized for Lean 4 tactics, a formal verifier, and a semantic theorem retriever. Given a problem that the prover is unable to solve, Hilbert employs recursive decomposition to split the problem into subgoals that it solves with the prover or reasoner LLM. It leverages verifier feedback to refine incorrect proofs as necessary. Experimental results demonstrate that Hilbert substantially outperforms existing approaches on key benchmarks, achieving 99.2% on miniF2F, 6.6% points above the best publicly available method. Hilbert achieves the best known result on PutnamBench. It solves 462/660 problems (70.0%), outperforming proprietary approaches like SeedProver (50.4%) and achieving a 422% improvement over the best publicly available baseline. Thus, Hilbert effectively narrows the gap between informal reasoning and formal proof generation.