pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05400 · v1 · pith:4OVKBBS2new · submitted 2026-06-03 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.CL· cs.LG

LeanMarathon: Toward Reliable AI Co-Mathematicians through Long-Horizon Lean Autoformalization

Yuanhe Zhang , Yuekai Sun , Taiji Suzuki , Jason D. Lee , Fanghui Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 05:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.CLcs.LG
keywords autoformalizationLean theorem provermulti-agent systemsformal mathematicsErdős problemstheorem provinglong-horizon tasksAI co-mathematicians
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reliable AI co-mathematics in Lean requires durable multi-agent harnesses to preserve target fidelity across long developments.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents LeanMarathon as a multi-agent system that addresses failures in long-horizon autoformalization of research mathematics, where statements drift, dependencies tangle, context decays, and local repairs corrupt prior work. Its central mechanism is an evolving blueprint that functions as both a formal proof skeleton and a shared record, managed by four contract-scoped agents under a two-stage orchestrator that first stabilizes fidelity through adversarial review and then proves the dependency graph in parallel CI-gated rounds. Evaluation on two recent papers involving four Erdős problems shows the system formalizes all seven target theorems with no sorrys while proving 258 lemmas and theorems. The results indicate that progress depends on coordination structures that turn brittle single runs into recoverable parallel transactions. This approach is evaluated specifically in the Lean theorem prover on actual research-level content.

Core claim

LeanMarathon demonstrates that reliable research-level autoformalization in Lean is achieved by an evolving blueprint maintained through four contract-scoped agents and a two-stage orchestrator. The orchestrator first stabilizes target fidelity via adversarial review, then discharges the proof DAG upward from dynamic leaves in parallel rounds. This converts one brittle multi-hour execution into many local, recoverable transactions. On two source papers spanning four Erdős problems, three autonomous runs formalize all seven targets without sorry, proving 258 lemmas and theorems in total.

What carries the argument

The evolving blueprint, a single Lean file that simultaneously serves as formal proof skeleton, natural-language proof graph, and shared system of record, orchestrated by four contract-scoped agents and a two-stage process that stabilizes fidelity before parallel proof discharge.

If this is right

  • Brittle single-run formalizations become sequences of local, recoverable, parallel transactions.
  • Target fidelity is preserved through adversarial review before any proof work begins.
  • Proof DAGs can be discharged upward from leaves in CI-gated parallel rounds.
  • Research papers containing multiple interdependent theorems can be fully formalized without residual sorry placeholders.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same blueprint-plus-orchestrator pattern could be tested on other interactive theorem provers to check whether the coordination benefits transfer beyond Lean.
  • Extending the adversarial review stage with automated consistency checks against the original natural-language text might further reduce drift in even longer developments.
  • The approach separates the problem of maintaining global structure from the problem of finding individual proofs, suggesting that future gains may come from better orchestration rather than solely stronger individual provers.

Load-bearing premise

The four contract-scoped agents coordinated by the two-stage orchestrator can prevent statement drift, dependency tangling, context decay, and corruption from local repairs during long-horizon developments.

What would settle it

A development run in which the blueprint and agents allow measurable statement drift or an unprovable target to appear despite the described coordination, resulting in at least one sorry or incorrect formalization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05400 by Fanghui Liu, Jason D. Lee, Taiji Suzuki, Yuanhe Zhang, Yuekai Sun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of LeanMarathon. • Restrict tools scope. Each agent is expected to edit only a bounded region. Constraining the action space calibrates the agent’s trace, so the worst outcome of a mistake is a rejected patch rather than corruption of another agent’s state. • Informalize while formalizing. Each node keeps its LaTeX prose beside its Lean type. This keeps the artifact human-readable and also guards … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The executable workflow of per-node Worker. 2.2.3 Per-node Worker optional local refinement DAG parent P parent P Target node 1 2 3 Editable text (statement, title, proof) Frozen Lean statement Editable proof body Editable Frozen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Expected editing behaviour. A Worker is assigned one proof node whose declared dependencies have already been proved. Its job is local: either prove the assigned Lean statement or report why the node should not yet be proved. The Worker proceeds through four ordered phases, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The orchestration of stage 1. 3 System Orchestration After introducing harness infrastructure, we are ready to discuss our system orchestration in two stages. The first stage constructs and audits a faithful blueprint before formalization begins. The second stage discharges the proof DAG through parallel, CI-gated proof attempts. 3.1 Stage 1 – Cold Start and Target Review We frame this stage as a nested Ra… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The DAG-based orchestration of stage 2. CI verifier as continuous integration The CI verifier is the single gate for any merge request to main branch. The verifier encodes the blueprint contract ( blueprint-format.md ) as the following seven executable checks: 1. Lean compilation: every diagnostic must be either none, or declaration uses ’sorry’ warning. 2. Node well-formedness: every @[blueprint] attribut… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Knowledge store of the Blueprinter. Target-Reviewer/ AGENTS.md .codex/ config.toml rules/default.rules docs/ inputs.yml deliver/ issue.md exec-phase/ TASK.md grounding/ SKILL.md example/api-example.md [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Knowledge store of the Target-Reviewer. It carries no proof_file and no PR delivery path: it audits and files issues only. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Knowledge store of the per-node Worker. The four exec-phases mirror [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Knowledge store of the Refiner. Its docs/inputs.yml carries a proof_file (the source proof) and an issues_file ; its two exec-phases are scope (locate the illness area) and refine . 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Long-horizon autoformalization of research mathematics fails not only at hard lemmas, but at scale: statements drift, dependencies tangle, context decays, and local repairs corrupt distant work. We present LeanMarathon, a multi-agent harness for reliable research-level Lean autoformalization. Its core abstraction is an evolving blueprint: a Lean file that serves simultaneously as formal proof skeleton, natural-language proof graph, and shared system of record. Four contract-scoped agents construct, audit, prove, and repair this blueprint. These agents are coordinated by a two-stage orchestrator that first stabilizes target fidelity through adversarial review and then discharges the proof directed acyclic graph (DAG) from its dynamic leaves upward in parallel CI-gated rounds. LeanMarathon turns one brittle multi-hour run into many local, recoverable, parallel transactions. We evaluate LeanMarathon on two recent research papers spanning four Erd\H{o}s problems (#1051, #1196, #164, #1217). Across three autonomous runs, it formalizes all seven target theorems with no sorry, proving 258 lemmas and theorems. These results show that reliable AI co-mathematics requires not only stronger provers, but durable harnesses that preserve target fidelity across long mathematical developments. The code can be found at https://github.com/YuanheZ/LeanMarathon.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents LeanMarathon, a multi-agent system for long-horizon Lean autoformalization. Its core is an evolving blueprint serving as proof skeleton and shared record, with four contract-scoped agents (construct, audit, prove, repair) coordinated by a two-stage orchestrator that stabilizes target fidelity via adversarial review and then discharges the proof DAG in parallel CI-gated rounds. Evaluation on four Erdős problems (#1051, #1196, #164, #1217) from two recent papers yields successful formalization of all seven target theorems (258 lemmas/theorems proved, zero sorry) across three autonomous runs. The code is released at https://github.com/YuanheZ/LeanMarathon.

Significance. If the central attribution holds, the work would establish that system-level harnesses (blueprint + contract agents + two-stage orchestration) can preserve fidelity over long developments where direct LLM/prover application fails. The open release of code is a clear strength supporting reproducibility and further experimentation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Evaluation] Evaluation section (and abstract): success is reported for the full LeanMarathon system on the four Erdős problems, but no baseline or ablation is provided (e.g., direct application of the base LLM/prover to the same targets, or runs with the two-stage orchestrator or contract-scoped agents disabled). Without such controls it is impossible to attribute the zero-sorry outcomes to prevention of drift/tangling/context decay rather than to problem selection or base-model strength; this directly undercuts the claim that 'reliable AI co-mathematics requires not only stronger provers, but durable harnesses.'

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the recommendation for major revision. The concern about missing baselines and ablations is valid and directly impacts the strength of our central claim. We address it point-by-point below and commit to revisions that will incorporate the requested controls.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section (and abstract): success is reported for the full LeanMarathon system on the four Erdős problems, but no baseline or ablation is provided (e.g., direct application of the base LLM/prover to the same targets, or runs with the two-stage orchestrator or contract-scoped agents disabled). Without such controls it is impossible to attribute the zero-sorry outcomes to prevention of drift/tangling/context decay rather than to problem selection or base-model strength; this directly undercuts the claim that 'reliable AI co-mathematics requires not only stronger provers, but durable harnesses.'

    Authors: We agree that the absence of baselines and ablations is a genuine limitation of the current evaluation. The manuscript reports only the performance of the complete system and does not include direct comparisons to the base LLM/prover applied to the same targets or to versions with the orchestrator or contract agents disabled. While the four Erdős problems were selected from recent research papers (where long-horizon formalization has been documented as difficult), this selection alone does not substitute for controlled experiments. In the revised manuscript we will add (i) baseline runs using direct application of the underlying LLM and prover to the seven target theorems and (ii) ablations that disable the two-stage orchestrator and/or the contract-scoped agent structure. These additional results will be reported in the evaluation section and will be used to quantify the contribution of the harness components to the observed zero-sorry outcomes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; evaluation uses external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper's central results consist of empirical runs of the LeanMarathon system on four external Erdős problems drawn from published papers, reporting formalization of seven theorems and 258 lemmas with zero sorry. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are used to derive the reported outcomes; the evaluation targets are independent of the system's internal design. The claim that durable harnesses are required alongside stronger provers is an interpretive conclusion rather than a derivation that reduces to the inputs by construction. No self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation patterns appear in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim depends on the effectiveness of newly introduced coordination mechanisms and the blueprint abstraction, which are presented without independent evidence beyond the three reported runs on specific problems.

axioms (1)
  • standard math The Lean theorem prover correctly verifies formal proofs when no sorry statements remain
    Implicit foundation for using Lean as the target for autoformalization.
invented entities (3)
  • evolving blueprint no independent evidence
    purpose: Serves simultaneously as formal proof skeleton, natural-language proof graph, and shared system of record
    Core abstraction introduced to address long-horizon consistency issues
  • contract-scoped agents no independent evidence
    purpose: Construct, audit, prove, and repair the blueprint
    Four specialized agents forming the multi-agent harness
  • two-stage orchestrator no independent evidence
    purpose: First stabilizes target fidelity through adversarial review then discharges the proof DAG in parallel CI-gated rounds
    Coordination mechanism for agent activities

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5787 in / 1415 out tokens · 43298 ms · 2026-06-28T05:46:58.531034+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aristotle: IMO-level Automated Theorem Proving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01346,

    Tudor Achim, Alex Best, Alberto Bietti, Kevin Der, Mathïs Fédérico, Sergei Gukov, Daniel Halpern-Leistner, Kirsten Henningsgard, Yury Kudryashov, Alexander Meiburg, et al. Aristotle: IMO-level Automated Theorem Proving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.01346,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Axiom Math

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.00301. Axiom Math. Axiom Math. Website,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Accessed: 2026-06-01

    URLhttps://axiommath.ai/. Accessed: 2026-06-01. Kevin Barreto, Jiwon Kang, Sang-hyun Kim, Vjekoslav Kovač, and Shengtong Zhang. Irrationality of rapidly converging series: a problem of Erdős and Graham,

    2026

  4. [4]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21442. Lars Becker, María Inés de Frutos-Fernández, Leo Diedering, Floris van Doorn, Sébastien Gouëzel, Asgar Jamneshan, Evgenia Karunus, Edward van de Meent, Pietro Monticone, Jasper Mulder-Sohn, Jim Portegies, Joris Roos, Michael Rothgang, Rajula Srivastava, James Sundstrom, Jeremy Tan, and Christoph Thiele. A blueprint for...

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Thomas F

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06423. Thomas F. Bloom. Erdős problems.https://www.erdosproblems.com,

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Matthew Bolan, Joachim Breitner, Jose Brox, Nicholas Carlini, Mario Carneiro, Floris van Doorn, Martin Dvořák, Andrés Goens, Aaron Hill, Harald Husum, Hernán Ibarra Mejia, Zoltan A

    Accessed 2026-05-30. Matthew Bolan, Joachim Breitner, Jose Brox, Nicholas Carlini, Mario Carneiro, Floris van Doorn, Martin Dvořák, Andrés Goens, Aaron Hill, Harald Husum, Hernán Ibarra Mejia, Zoltan A. Kocsis, Bruno Le Floch, Amir Livne Bar-on, Lorenzo Luccioli, Douglas McNeil, Alex Meiburg, Pietro Monticone, Pace P. Nielsen, Emmanuel Osalotioman Osazuwa...

    2026

  7. [7]

    Sébastien Bubeck, Christian Coester, Ronen Eldan, Timothy Gowers, Yin Tat Lee, Alexandru Lupsasca, Mehtaab Sawhney, Robert Scherrer, Mark Sellke, Brian K

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07087. Sébastien Bubeck, Christian Coester, Ronen Eldan, Timothy Gowers, Yin Tat Lee, Alexandru Lupsasca, Mehtaab Sawhney, Robert Scherrer, Mark Sellke, Brian K. Spears, Derya Unutmaz, Kevin Weil, Steven Yin, and Nikita Zhivotovskiy. Early science acceleration experiments with GPT-5,

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Kevin Buzzard et al

    URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2511.16072. Kevin Buzzard et al. The Fermat’s Last Theorem project.https://github.com/ImperialCollegeLondon/ FLT,

    arXiv

  9. [9]

    Accessed 2026-05-30

    Lean 4 formalization project, Imperial College London. Accessed 2026-05-30. Luoxin Chen, Jinming Gu, Liankai Huang, Wenhao Huang, Zhicheng Jiang, Allan Jie, Xiaoran Jin, Xing Jin, Chenggang Li, Kaijing Ma, Cheng Ren, Jiawei Shen, Wenlei Shi, Tong Sun, He Sun, Jiahui Wang, Siran Wang, Zhihong Wang, Chenrui Wei, Shufa Wei, et al. Seed-Prover: Deep and broad...

    2026

  10. [10]

    18 Yaël Dillies, Terence Tao, et al

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.23726. 18 Yaël Dillies, Terence Tao, et al. Formalization of the polynomial Freiman-Ruzsa conjecture of Marton. https://github.com/teorth/pfr,

    arXiv

  11. [11]

    Accessed 2026-05-30

    Lean 4 formalization project. Accessed 2026-05-30. Tony Feng, Trieu Trinh, Garrett Bingham, Jiwon Kang, Shengtong Zhang, Sang-hyun Kim, Kevin Barreto, Carl Schildkraut, Junehyuk Jung, Jaehyeon Seo, Carlo Pagano, Yuri Chervonyi, Dawsen Hwang, Kaiying Hou, Sergei Gukov, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Hyunwoo Choi, Youngbeom Jin, Wei-Yuan Li, Hao-An Wu, Ruey-An Shiu, Yu...

    2026

  12. [12]

    Cameron Freer

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22401. Cameron Freer. Lean 4 Skills: Theorem proving skill and workflow pack for AI coding agents, October

    arXiv

  13. [13]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10878. Elliot Glazer, Ege Erdil, Tamay Besiroglu, Diego Chicharro, Evan Chen, Alex Gunning, Caroline Falkman Olsson, Jean-Stanislas Denain, Anson Ho, Emily de Oliveira Santos, Olli Järviniemi, Matthew Barnett, Robert Sandler, Matej Vrzala, Jaime Sevilla, Qiuyu Ren, Elizabeth Pratt, Lionel Levine, Grant Barkley, Natalie Stewar...

    arXiv

  14. [14]

    Fabian Gloeckle, Ahmad Rammal, Charles Arnal, Remi Munos, Vivien Cabannes, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Amaury Hayat

    URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2411.04872. Fabian Gloeckle, Ahmad Rammal, Charles Arnal, Remi Munos, Vivien Cabannes, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Amaury Hayat. Automatic textbook formalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.03071,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Sidharth Hariharan, Christopher Birkbeck, Seewoo Lee, Ho Kiu Gareth Ma, Bhavik Mehta, Auguste Poiroux, and Maryna Viazovska

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2102.06203. Sidharth Hariharan, Christopher Birkbeck, Seewoo Lee, Ho Kiu Gareth Ma, Bhavik Mehta, Auguste Poiroux, and Maryna Viazovska. A milestone in formalization: The sphere packing problem in dimension 8.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.23468,

    arXiv

  16. [16]

    Olympiad-level formal mathematical reasoning with reinforcement learning

    doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09833-y. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09833-y. Albert Q. Jiang, Sean Welleck, Jin Peng Zhou, Timothée Lacroix, Jiacheng Liu, Wenda Li, Mateja Jamnik, Guillaume Lample, and Yuhuai Wu. Draft, sketch, and prove: Guiding formal theorem provers with informal proofs. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR),

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09833-y

  17. [17]

    Guillaume Lample, Timothée Lacroix, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Aurélien Rodriguez, Amaury Hayat, Thibaut Lavril, Gabriel Ebner, and Xavier Martinet

    URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2210.12283. Guillaume Lample, Timothée Lacroix, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Aurélien Rodriguez, Amaury Hayat, Thibaut Lavril, Gabriel Ebner, and Xavier Martinet. HyperTree proof search for neural theorem proving. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS),

    arXiv

  18. [18]

    Haohan Lin, Zhiqing Sun, Sean Welleck, and Yiming Yang

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11491. Haohan Lin, Zhiqing Sun, Sean Welleck, and Yiming Yang. Lean-STaR: Learning to interleave thinking and proving. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025a. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2407.10040. Yong Lin, Shange Tang, Bohan Lyu, Ziran Yang, Jui-Hui Chung, Haoyu Zhao, Lai Jiang, Yihan Geng, Jia...

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    Math, Inc

    Accessed 2026-05-30. Math, Inc. Erdos1196: A Lean formalization of Erdős Problem #1196.https://github.com/math-inc/ Erdos1196,

    2026

  20. [20]

    Accessed 2026-05-30

    Formalized by the Gauss autoformalization agent. Accessed 2026-05-30. Alexander Novikov, Ngân V˜ u, Marvin Eisenberger, Emilien Dupont, Po-Sen Huang, Adam Zsolt Wagner, Sergey Shirobokov, Borislav Kozlovskii, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Abbas Mehrabian, M. Pawan Kumar, Abigail See, Swarat Chaudhuri, George Holland, Alex Davies, Sebastian Nowozin, Pushmeet Kohli...

    2026

  21. [21]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13131. OpenAI. An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry.https://openai.com/ index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-conjecture/,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Stanislas Polu and Ilya Sutskever

    Accessed 2026-06-01. Stanislas Polu and Ilya Sutskever. Generative language modeling for automated theorem proving,

    2026

  23. [23]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03393. Z. Z. Ren, Zhihong Shao, Junxiao Song, Huajian Xin, Haocheng Wang, Wanjia Zhao, Liyue Zhang, Zhe Fu, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Shirong Ma, Hongxuan Tang, Yuxuan Liu, Wenjun Gao, Daya Guo, and Chong Ruan. DeepSeek-Prover-V2: Advancing formal mathematical reasoning via reinforcement learning for subg...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [24]

    Peter Scholze

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21801. Peter Scholze. Liquid tensor experiment.Experimental Mathematics, 31(2):349–354,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/10586458.2021.1926016

    doi: 10.1080/ 10586458.2021.1926016. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/10586458.2021.1926016. Sho Sonoda, Kazumi Kasaura, Yuma Mizuno, Kei Tsukamoto, and Naoto Onda. Lean formalization of generalization error bound by rademacher complexity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19605,

    work page doi:10.1080/10586458.2021.1926016 2021

  26. [26]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1090/noti3041

    doi: 10.1090/noti3041. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1090/noti3041. Terence Tao. The three components of problem solving: proof generation, proof verification, and proof digestion. Mathstodon post,

    work page doi:10.1090/noti3041

  27. [27]

    Accessed: 2026-06-01

    URLhttps://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/116450581967483825. Accessed: 2026-06-01. Trieu H. Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V. Le, He He, and Thang Luong. Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations.Nature, 625(7995):476–482,

    arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Nature625, 476–482 (2024).https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5

    doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5. George Tsoukalas, Anton Kovsharov, Sergey Shirobokov, Anja Surina, Moritz Firsching, Gergely Bérczi, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Arun Suggala, Adam Zsolt Wagner, Eric Wieser, Lei Yu, Aja Huang, Miklós Z. Horváth, Andrew Ferrauiolo, Henryk Michalewski, Codrut Grosu, Thomas Hubert, M...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5

  29. [29]

    Haiming Wang, Mert Unsal, Xiaohan Lin, Mantas Baksys, Junqi Liu, Marco Dos Santos, Flood Sung, Marina Vinyes, ZhenzheYing, ZekaiZhu, JianqiaoLu, HuguesdeSaxcé, etal

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22763. Haiming Wang, Mert Unsal, Xiaohan Lin, Mantas Baksys, Junqi Liu, Marco Dos Santos, Flood Sung, Marina Vinyes, ZhenzheYing, ZekaiZhu, JianqiaoLu, HuguesdeSaxcé, etal. Kimina-Proverpreview: Towardslarge formal reasoning models with reinforcement learning,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Zichen Wang, Wanli Ma, Zhenyu Ming, Gong Zhang, Kun Yuan, and Zaiwen Wen

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.11354. Zichen Wang, Wanli Ma, Zhenyu Ming, Gong Zhang, Kun Yuan, and Zaiwen Wen. M2f: Automated formalization of mathematical literature at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17016,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    20 Huajian Xin, Z

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12615. 20 Huajian Xin, Z. Z. Ren, Junxiao Song, Zhihong Shao, Wanjia Zhao, Haocheng Wang, Bo Liu, Liyue Zhang, Xuan Lu, Qiushi Du, Wenjun Gao, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, Zhibin Gou, Z. F. Wu, Fuli Luo, and Chong Ruan. DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5: Harnessing proof assistant feedback for reinforcement learning and monte-carlo tree search,

    arXiv

  32. [32]

    Kaiyu Yang, Aidan M

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08152. Kaiyu Yang, Aidan M. Swope, Alex Gu, Rahul Chalamala, Peiyang Song, Shixing Yu, Saad Godil, Ryan J. Prenger, and Anima Anandkumar. LeanDojo: Theorem proving with retrieval-augmented language models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS),

    arXiv

  33. [33]

    Huaiyuan Ying, Zijian Wu, Yihan Geng, Jiayu Wang, Dahua Lin, and Kai Chen

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2306.15626. Huaiyuan Ying, Zijian Wu, Yihan Geng, Jiayu Wang, Dahua Lin, and Kai Chen. Lean workbook: A large-scale lean problem set formalized from natural language math problems. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS),

    arXiv

  34. [34]

    Shangtong Zhang

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03847. Shangtong Zhang. Towards formalizing reinforcement learning theory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.03618,

    arXiv

  35. [35]

    Lee, Chenlei Leng, and Fanghui Liu

    Yuanhe Zhang, Ilja Kuzborskij, Jason D. Lee, Chenlei Leng, and Fanghui Liu. DAG-Math: Graph-of-Thought Guided Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2026a. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.19842. Yuanhe Zhang, Jason D Lee, and Fanghui Liu. AI4SLT: Empirical Processes in Lean 4 for Formal Statistical Lea...

    arXiv

  36. [36]

    21 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Contributions

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22554. 21 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Harness Infrastructure 5 2.1 The Blueprint as the System of Record . ....

    arXiv