REVIEW 1 cited by
Graph2Tac: Online Representation Learning of Formal Math Concepts
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
abstract
In proof assistants, the physical proximity between two formal mathematical concepts is a strong predictor of their mutual relevance. Furthermore, lemmas with close proximity regularly exhibit similar proof structures. We show that this locality property can be exploited through online learning techniques to obtain solving agents that far surpass offline learners when asked to prove theorems in an unseen mathematical setting. We extensively benchmark two such online solvers implemented in the Tactician platform for the Coq proof assistant: First, Tactician's online $k$-nearest neighbor solver, which can learn from recent proofs, shows a $1.72\times$ improvement in theorems proved over an offline equivalent. Second, we introduce a graph neural network, Graph2Tac, with a novel approach to build hierarchical representations for new definitions. Graph2Tac's online definition task realizes a $1.5\times$ improvement in theorems solved over an offline baseline. The $k$-NN and Graph2Tac solvers rely on orthogonal online data, making them highly complementary. Their combination improves $1.27\times$ over their individual performances. Both solvers outperform all other general-purpose provers for Coq, including CoqHammer, Proverbot9001, and a transformer baseline by at least $1.48\times$ and are available for practical use by end-users.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
ProofWala: A Framework for Multilingual Proof Data Synthesis and Theorem-Proving
ProofWala is a multilingual proof-engineering framework that demonstrates cross-lingual transfer between Lean 4 and Coq for neural theorem proving.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.