REVIEW 3 cited by
Reviving DSP for Advanced Theorem Proving in the Era of Reasoning Models
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
Reviving DSP for Advanced Theorem Proving in the Era of Reasoning Models
read the original abstract
Recent advancements, such as DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B and Kimina-Prover-Preview-72B, demonstrate a prevailing trend in leveraging reinforcement learning (RL)-based large-scale training for automated theorem proving. Surprisingly, we discover that even without any training, careful neuro-symbolic coordination of existing off-the-shelf reasoning models and tactic step provers can achieve comparable performance. This paper introduces \textbf{DSP+}, an improved version of the Draft, Sketch, and Prove framework, featuring a \emph{fine-grained and integrated} neuro-symbolic enhancement for each phase: (1) In the draft phase, we prompt reasoning models to generate concise natural-language subgoals to benefit the sketch phase, removing thinking tokens and references to human-written proofs; (2) In the sketch phase, subgoals are autoformalized with hypotheses to benefit the proving phase, and sketch lines containing syntactic errors are masked according to predefined rules; (3) In the proving phase, we tightly integrate symbolic search methods like Aesop with step provers to establish proofs for the sketch subgoals. Experimental results show that, without any additional model training or fine-tuning, DSP+ solves 80.7\%, 32.8\%, and 24 out of 644 problems from miniF2F, ProofNet, and PutnamBench, respectively, while requiring fewer budgets compared to state-of-the-arts. DSP+ proves \texttt{imo\_2019\_p1}, an IMO problem in miniF2F that is not solved by any prior work. Additionally, DSP+ generates proof patterns comprehensible by human experts, facilitating the identification of formalization errors; For example, eight wrongly formalized statements in miniF2F are discovered. Our results highlight the potential of classical reasoning patterns besides the RL-based training. All components will be open-sourced.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
From Solvers to Research: Large Language Model-Driven Formal Mathematics at the Research Frontier
LLM formal provers must shift from competition solvers to research agents that handle open-ended, under-specified frontier mathematics under machine-checked rigor.
-
Neuro-Symbolic Proof Generation for Scaling Systems Software Verification
A neuro-symbolic system using LLM-guided best-first search and Isabelle tools proves up to 77.6% of theorems on the seL4 benchmark, outperforming prior LLM methods and Sledgehammer.
-
A Minimal Agent for Automated Theorem Proving
A minimal agentic system achieves competitive performance in automated theorem proving with a simpler design and lower cost than state-of-the-art methods.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.