Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Lyra: Orchestrating Dual Correction in Automated Theorem Proving

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2309.15806 v4 pith:BDT5XZ7J submitted 2023-09-27 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords correctionconjectureerrorprovertoolfieldformallyra
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) present an intriguing avenue for exploration in the field of formal theorem proving. Nevertheless, their full potential, particularly concerning the mitigation of hallucinations and refinement through prover error messages, remains an area that has yet to be thoroughly investigated. To enhance the effectiveness of LLMs in the field, we introduce the Lyra, a new framework that employs two distinct correction mechanisms: Tool Correction (TC) and Conjecture Correction (CC). To implement Tool Correction in the post-processing of formal proofs, we leverage prior knowledge to utilize predefined prover tools (e.g., Sledgehammer) for guiding the replacement of incorrect tools. Tool Correction significantly contributes to mitigating hallucinations, thereby improving the overall accuracy of the proof. In addition, we introduce Conjecture Correction, an error feedback mechanism designed to interact with prover to refine formal proof conjectures with prover error messages. Compared to the previous refinement framework, the proposed Conjecture Correction refines generation with instruction but does not collect paired (generation, error & refinement) prompts. Our method has achieved state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on both miniF2F validation (48.0% -> 55.3%) and test (45.5% -> 51.2%). We also present 3 IMO problems solved by Lyra. We believe Tool Correction (post-process for hallucination mitigation) and Conjecture Correction (subgoal adjustment from interaction with environment) could provide a promising avenue for future research in this field.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. An Empirical Study of LLM-Generated Specifications for VeriFast

    cs.SE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    LLMs preserve functional behavior in over 91% of generated VeriFast specifications and source code but achieve only 31.4% verification success, with 94% of failures due to separation logic domain knowledge errors.

  2. Solving Formal Math Problems by Decomposition and Iterative Reflection

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An agent that decomposes Lean 4 goals into subproblems and iteratively repairs proofs achieves a 95.9% pass rate on miniF2F-test using a stock Gemini model.

  3. SynapseRoute: An Auto-Route Switching Framework on Dual-State Large Language Model

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A learned router for a dual-mode LLM raises medical QA accuracy from 0.827 to 0.839 while cutting inference time by 36.8% and tokens by 39.7% versus always using thinking mode.

Pith tools