NOVA: Fundamental Limits of Knowledge Discovery Through AI

Ken Duffy; Muriel M\'edard; Salman Avestimehr

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Under a Zipf tail assumption, cumulative generation cost for D distinct AI discoveries scales as Theta of c_gen times D to the alpha.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 22:01 UTC pith:ZIF2GF2S

load-bearing objection NOVA models the generate-verify loop and names a contamination trap clearly, but the headline scaling law depends on an added Zipf assumption that the framework itself does not derive. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2605.15219 v2 pith:ZIF2GF2S submitted 2026-05-12 cs.AI cs.ITmath.IT

NOVA: Fundamental Limits of Knowledge Discovery Through AI

Salman Avestimehr , Ken Duffy , Muriel M\'edard This is my paper

classification cs.AI cs.ITmath.IT

keywords knowledge discoveryAI self-improvementscaling lawsZipf lawverificationcontaminationadaptive samplingdiminishing returns

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The NOVA framework treats the generate-verify-accumulate-retrain loop as adaptive sampling over a knowledge space. It identifies conditions under which genuine discoveries cover a finite domain and maps violations to specific failure modes including contamination. With imperfect verification, the mass on new valid items shrinks, allowing false positives to dominate. The central result is a proved scaling law: when the effective discovery distribution is tail-equivalent to a Zipf law with exponent alpha greater than 1, the total generation cost to reach D distinct genuine discoveries is Theta of c_gen D to the alpha. This quantifies asymptotic diminishing returns as the frontier advances and shows where human guidance adds most value.

Core claim

We introduce the NOVA framework, which models the common generate, verify, accumulate, retrain loop as an adaptive sampling process over a knowledge space. We identify sufficient conditions under which accumulated genuine knowledge eventually covers a finite domain, and show how their violations produce distinct failure modes: contamination, forgetting, exploration failure, and acceptance failure. We then analyze imperfect verification and identify a contamination trap. Good-Turing estimation is clarified as a local batch-diversity diagnostic. Under a separate tail-equivalence assumption relating the model's effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law with exponent alpha greater than 1, w

What carries the argument

The NOVA framework as an adaptive sampling process over knowledge space, together with the tail-equivalence assumption to a Zipf law with alpha greater than 1 that produces the cost scaling R_cum(D).

Load-bearing premise

The model's effective discovery distribution must be tail-equivalent to a Zipf law with exponent alpha greater than 1.

What would settle it

Run an iterative generate-verify-accumulate loop on a fixed model, record the sequence of valid new discoveries, fit the empirical tail of their generation probabilities, and check whether the fitted exponent is consistently greater than 1 or whether measured cumulative generation cost deviates from order D to the alpha.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

Under the identified sufficient conditions, accumulated genuine knowledge covers a finite domain.
Violations of those conditions produce the four listed failure modes.
Imperfect verification creates a contamination trap in which invalid artifacts accumulate faster than genuine ones once easy discoveries are exhausted.
Good-Turing estimation serves only as a local batch-diversity diagnostic, not a measure of remaining undiscovered valid mass.
Expert human input is most valuable near autonomous exploration barriers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the scaling holds in deployed systems, the marginal cost of each additional discovery will rise steadily, making purely autonomous unbounded discovery impractical.
Empirical checks of whether real model output distributions over valid artifacts follow Zipf tails could be performed on existing large-language-model discovery loops.
The contamination trap suggests that verification accuracy requirements must increase as the discovery frontier advances.
The framework's separation of generation cost from verification cost points to a possible engineering target of improving verification independently of generation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

NOVA models the generate-verify loop and names a contamination trap clearly, but the headline scaling law depends on an added Zipf assumption that the framework itself does not derive.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is the NOVA framework, which treats the generate-verify-accumulate-retrain cycle as adaptive sampling over a knowledge space. It states sufficient conditions for the accumulated knowledge to cover a finite domain and maps the violations to four distinct failure modes: contamination, forgetting, exploration failure, and acceptance failure. The contamination trap argument is the strongest part: once easy discoveries are exhausted, the mass on new valid items shrinks, so even modest false-positive rates let invalid artifacts accumulate faster than genuine ones. The clarification that Good-Turing is only a local batch-diversity check, not an estimator of remaining valid mass, is also useful and avoids a frequent misapplication.

The quantitative result is the scaling law R_cum(D) = Θ(c_gen D^α) under a tail-equivalence assumption that maps the effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law with α > 1. This is presented as new and gives a concrete picture of diminishing returns. The final section on human amplification through guidance, generation, and verification is practical and explains where expert input matters most.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test note identifies. The scaling law is not shown to follow from the NOVA dynamics or the adaptive sampling process; the tail-equivalence assumption is invoked separately. Without that external hypothesis the cumulative-cost claim does not hold, so the result quantifies cost under an added distributional premise rather than as a necessary outcome of the model. The abstract gives no detail on how tight the sufficient conditions are or whether the loop can actually generate the required tails.

This is for researchers working on theoretical limits of autonomous scientific discovery or hybrid human-AI systems. A reader who wants a structured way to think about verification failure modes and long-term exploration costs will find the framework and the trap analysis worth reading. It deserves a serious referee because the ideas are coherent and engage real bottlenecks, even though the central scaling result needs tighter grounding in the model's own assumptions.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the NOVA framework modeling the generate-verify-accumulate-retrain loop as adaptive sampling over a knowledge space. It identifies sufficient conditions for eventual coverage of a finite domain and associated failure modes (contamination, forgetting, exploration failure, acceptance failure). The paper analyzes imperfect verification and identifies a contamination trap in which invalid artifacts accumulate faster than genuine discoveries as easy-to-find knowledge is exhausted. It clarifies that Good-Turing estimation is a local batch-diversity diagnostic rather than an estimator of historically undiscovered valid mass. Under a separate tail-equivalence assumption mapping the effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law with exponent α>1, the paper proves that cumulative generation cost satisfies R_cum(D)=Θ(c_gen D^α). It concludes by formalizing human amplification via guidance, generation, and verification.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a theoretical lens on costs and risks of autonomous AI discovery, with the scaling law quantifying diminishing returns and the contamination trap analysis identifying a concrete failure mechanism under imperfect verification. The sufficient conditions for domain coverage and the human-amplification formalization offer actionable structure for system design. The explicit invocation of an external distributional assumption increases transparency but narrows the scope of the claimed fundamental limits.

major comments (1)

[Scaling-law derivation] The central quantitative result R_cum(D)=Θ(c_gen D^α) is established only after invoking a separate tail-equivalence assumption that relates the model's effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law with α>1. The preceding NOVA analysis (adaptive sampling dynamics, sufficient conditions for domain coverage, contamination trap, verification failure modes, and Good-Turing clarification) does not derive this tail behavior or show that the generate-verify-accumulate-retrain process produces Zipf tails. Consequently the scaling law quantifies cost under an external hypothesis rather than as a necessary consequence of the framework's conditions (see the scaling-law paragraph in the abstract and the corresponding derivation section).

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract introduces the scaling result with the qualifier 'separate tail-equivalence assumption' but does not indicate the section in which this assumption is formally stated and its relation to the NOVA dynamics is discussed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The single major comment correctly identifies that the scaling-law result relies on an external distributional assumption. We agree this distinction should be emphasized more explicitly and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Scaling-law derivation] The central quantitative result R_cum(D)=Θ(c_gen D^α) is established only after invoking a separate tail-equivalence assumption that relates the model's effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law with α>1. The preceding NOVA analysis (adaptive sampling dynamics, sufficient conditions for domain coverage, contamination trap, verification failure modes, and Good-Turing clarification) does not derive this tail behavior or show that the generate-verify-accumulate-retrain process produces Zipf tails. Consequently the scaling law quantifies cost under an external hypothesis rather than as a necessary consequence of the framework's conditions (see the scaling-law paragraph in the abstract and the corresponding derivation section).

Authors: We agree with the referee's observation. The manuscript already states that the result holds 'under a separate tail-equivalence assumption' relating the effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law, and the NOVA framework itself does not derive Zipf tails from the generate-verify-accumulate-retrain dynamics. The scaling law therefore quantifies cost conditional on this hypothesis rather than as an unconditional consequence of the framework. To address the concern, we will revise the abstract to foreground the conditional nature of the result and add a short paragraph in the derivation section clarifying that the tail-equivalence assumption is external, motivated by empirical observations of heavy-tailed discovery processes, and that relaxing it would require different analysis. These changes improve transparency without altering the technical claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Scaling law R_cum(D)=Θ(c_gen D^α) reduces directly to separate Zipf tail-equivalence assumption

specific steps

self definitional [Abstract]
"Under a separate tail-equivalence assumption relating the model's effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law with exponent α>1, we prove that the cumulative generation cost required to obtain D distinct genuine discoveries satisfies R_cum(D)=Θ(c_gen D^α), where c_gen is the per-candidate generation cost."

The stated result R_cum(D)=Θ(c_gen D^α) is obtained solely by invoking the tail-equivalence assumption to Zipf(α>1); the preceding NOVA model components do not establish the required tail behavior. The scaling is therefore the direct algebraic consequence of the assumption rather than a derived property of the generate-verify-accumulate-retrain dynamics.

full rationale

The paper explicitly conditions the central scaling result on an external tail-equivalence assumption that maps the discovery distribution to Zipf(α>1). The NOVA adaptive sampling analysis (contamination trap, verification modes, Good-Turing) does not derive this tail behavior. Consequently the claimed Θ(c_gen D^α) cost is the mathematical translation of the input distributional hypothesis rather than an independent consequence of the framework's sufficient conditions. This matches self-definitional circularity: the quantitative claim is equivalent to the modeling assumption by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The scaling result rests on the Zipf tail assumption and the constant generation cost parameter, which are not derived from more basic principles within the paper.

free parameters (2)

c_gen
The per-candidate generation cost used in the cumulative cost scaling.
α
The exponent in the assumed Zipf law for the discovery distribution, required to be greater than 1.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Tail-equivalence assumption relating the model's effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law with exponent α>1
Invoked to derive the cumulative generation cost scaling law.
domain assumption Sufficient conditions for accumulated genuine knowledge to cover a finite domain
Basis for identifying when the discovery process succeeds or fails.

invented entities (2)

NOVA framework no independent evidence
purpose: To model the generate-verify-accumulate-retrain loop as an adaptive sampling process over knowledge space
Introduced as the central modeling tool in the paper.
contamination trap no independent evidence
purpose: To describe the failure mode where invalid artifacts accumulate faster than genuine ones under imperfect verification
Conceptual entity defined in the analysis of imperfect verification.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5794 in / 1501 out tokens · 88002 ms · 2026-06-30T22:01:54.678795+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Can AI systems discover genuinely new knowledge through iterative self improvement, and if so, at what cost? We introduce the NOVA framework, which models the common ``generate, verify, accumulate, retrain'' loop as an adaptive sampling process over a knowledge space. We identify sufficient conditions under which accumulated genuine knowledge eventually covers a finite domain, and show how their violations produce distinct failure modes: contamination, forgetting, exploration failure, and acceptance failure. We then analyze imperfect verification and identify a contamination trap: as easy-to-find knowledge is exhausted, the model mass assigned to new valid artifacts shrinks, so even small false-positive rates can cause invalid artifacts to enter the knowledge base faster than genuine discoveries. We clarify that Good--Turing estimation is a local batch-diversity diagnostic, not an estimator of the historically undiscovered valid mass that governs long-term discovery. Under a separate tail-equivalence assumption relating the model's effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law with exponent $\alpha>1$, we prove that the cumulative generation cost required to obtain $D$ distinct genuine discoveries satisfies $R_{\mathrm{cum}}(D)=\Theta(c_{\mathrm{gen}}D^\alpha)$, where $c_{\mathrm{gen}}$ is the per-candidate generation cost. This scaling law quantifies asymptotic diminishing returns as the discovery frontier advances. Finally, we formalize human amplification through guidance, generation, and verification, explaining why expert input is most valuable near autonomous exploration barriers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15219 by Ken Duffy, Muriel M\'edard, Salman Avestimehr.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Local contamination trap. The curves show the fraction of newly accepted artifacts that are invalid, f marg t ≈ δtUt/(rtMnew t + δtUt), as a function of the false-positive rate δt. As the new-valid mass Mnew t decreases, even small false-positive rates can make invalid artifacts dominate the accepted increments. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 False-positive rate δt 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Marginal contamination … view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Beyond Fixed Representations: The Vocabulary and Verifier Gaps in Open-Ended AI
cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

Open-ended AI is blocked by a vocabulary gap (inventing reusable primitives) and a verifier gap (valuing them when payoff is delayed), unified under cognitive discrepancy reduction and a four-level autonomy ladder.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Anna Ben-Hamou, Stéphane Boucheron, and Mesrob I

doi: 10.1109/ISIT.2018.8437620. Anna Ben-Hamou, Stéphane Boucheron, and Mesrob I. Ohannessian. Concentration inequalities in the infinite urn scheme for occupancy counts and the missing mass, with applications.Bernoulli, 23(1):249–287,

work page doi:10.1109/isit.2018.8437620 2018
[2]

Gersho, Asymptotically optimal block quantization, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 25 (1979) 373–380

doi: 10.1109/TIT. 2024.3440661. Prafulla Chandra, Andrew Thangaraj, and Nived Rajaraman. How good is good-turing for markov samples?Transactions on Machine Learning Research,

work page doi:10.1109/tit 2024
[3]

Bradley Efron and Ronald Thisted

doi: 10.1109/TSP.2022.3186176. Bradley Efron and Ronald Thisted. Estimating the number of unseen species: How many words did Shakespeare know?Biometrika, 63(3):435–447,

work page doi:10.1109/tsp.2022.3186176 2022
[4]

Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modeling

Caglar Gulcehre, Tom Le Paine, Srivatsan Srinivasan, Ksenia Konyushkova, Lotte Weerts, Abhishek Sharma, Aditya Siddhant, Alex Ahern, Miaosen Wang, Chenjie Gu, Wolfgang Macherey, Arnaud Doucet, Orhan Firat, and Nando de Freitas. Reinforced self-training (ReST) for language model- ing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[5]

org/abs/2509.07355

URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2509.07355. Thomas Hubert, Rishi Mehta, Laurent Sartran, Miklós Z. Horváth, Goran Žuži ´c, Eric Wieser, Aja Huang, Julian Schrittwieser, Yannick Schroecker, Hussain Masoom, Ottavia Bertolli, Tom Za- havy, Amol Mandhane, Jessica Yung, Iuliya Beloshapka, Borja Ibarz, Vivek Veeriah, Lei Yu, Oliver Nash, Paul Lezeau, Salvatore Mercur...

work page arXiv
[6]

Highly accu- rate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold.Nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2. Samuel Karlin. Central limit theorems for certain infinite urn schemes.Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17(4):373–401,

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2
[7]

Mathematical methods and human thought in the age of AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.26524, March

Tanya Klowden and Terence Tao. Mathematical methods and human thought in the age of AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.26524, March

work page arXiv
[8]

Amichai Painsky

doi: 10.1109/ITW48936.2021.9611389. Amichai Painsky. Convergence guarantees for the Good-Turing estimator.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(279):1–37,

work page doi:10.1109/itw48936.2021.9611389 2021
[9]

URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/2604.05057. 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, Yux- uan Liu, Wenjun Gao, Daya Guo, and Chong Ruan. DeepSeek-Prover-V2: Advancing formal mathematical reasoning via reinforcement learning for subg...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[10]

2021.9518169

doi: 10.1109/ISIT45174. 2021.9518169. 11 Geoffrey Wolfer and Aryeh Kontorovich. Statistical estimation of ergodic Markov chain kernel over discrete state space.Bernoulli, 27(1):532–553,

work page doi:10.1109/isit45174 2021
[11]

Huajian Xin, Z.Z

doi: 10.3150/20-BEJ1248. Huajian Xin, Z.Z. Ren, Junxiao Song, Zhihong Shao, Wanjia Zhao, Haocheng Wang, Bo Liu, Liyue Zhang, Xuan Lu, Qiushi Du, Wenjun Gao, Haowei Zhang, 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. InICLR,

work page doi:10.3150/20-bej1248
[12]

A language modelM t generates candidate proofs in a formal lan- guage (e.g., Lean 4)

12 A Motivating Examples Example 1: Discovering new mathematical proofs.ConsiderKas the set of valid formal proofs of mathematical conjectures. A language modelM t generates candidate proofs in a formal lan- guage (e.g., Lean 4). The verification step is performed by a proof assistant: the Lean type-checker mechanically checks whether each candidate is a ...

work page 2025
[13]

, XN be i.i.d

and McAllester and Schapire [2000]).LetX 1, . . . , XN be i.i.d. from a discrete distributionQ, and let MN = X x Q(x)1[x /∈ {X1, . . . , XN }] be the missing mass after the batch. The Good–Turing estimatorf 1/N, wheref 1 is the number of species observed exactly once, is the classical estimator forM N , the probability that the next draw belongs to a spec...

work page 2000

[1] [1]

Anna Ben-Hamou, Stéphane Boucheron, and Mesrob I

doi: 10.1109/ISIT.2018.8437620. Anna Ben-Hamou, Stéphane Boucheron, and Mesrob I. Ohannessian. Concentration inequalities in the infinite urn scheme for occupancy counts and the missing mass, with applications.Bernoulli, 23(1):249–287,

work page doi:10.1109/isit.2018.8437620 2018

[2] [2]

Gersho, Asymptotically optimal block quantization, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 25 (1979) 373–380

doi: 10.1109/TIT. 2024.3440661. Prafulla Chandra, Andrew Thangaraj, and Nived Rajaraman. How good is good-turing for markov samples?Transactions on Machine Learning Research,

work page doi:10.1109/tit 2024

[3] [3]

Bradley Efron and Ronald Thisted

doi: 10.1109/TSP.2022.3186176. Bradley Efron and Ronald Thisted. Estimating the number of unseen species: How many words did Shakespeare know?Biometrika, 63(3):435–447,

work page doi:10.1109/tsp.2022.3186176 2022

[4] [4]

Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modeling

Caglar Gulcehre, Tom Le Paine, Srivatsan Srinivasan, Ksenia Konyushkova, Lotte Weerts, Abhishek Sharma, Aditya Siddhant, Alex Ahern, Miaosen Wang, Chenjie Gu, Wolfgang Macherey, Arnaud Doucet, Orhan Firat, and Nando de Freitas. Reinforced self-training (ReST) for language model- ing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

[5] [5]

org/abs/2509.07355

URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2509.07355. Thomas Hubert, Rishi Mehta, Laurent Sartran, Miklós Z. Horváth, Goran Žuži ´c, Eric Wieser, Aja Huang, Julian Schrittwieser, Yannick Schroecker, Hussain Masoom, Ottavia Bertolli, Tom Za- havy, Amol Mandhane, Jessica Yung, Iuliya Beloshapka, Borja Ibarz, Vivek Veeriah, Lei Yu, Oliver Nash, Paul Lezeau, Salvatore Mercur...

work page arXiv

[6] [6]

Highly accu- rate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold.Nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2. Samuel Karlin. Central limit theorems for certain infinite urn schemes.Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17(4):373–401,

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2

[7] [7]

Mathematical methods and human thought in the age of AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.26524, March

Tanya Klowden and Terence Tao. Mathematical methods and human thought in the age of AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.26524, March

work page arXiv

[8] [8]

Amichai Painsky

doi: 10.1109/ITW48936.2021.9611389. Amichai Painsky. Convergence guarantees for the Good-Turing estimator.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(279):1–37,

work page doi:10.1109/itw48936.2021.9611389 2021

[9] [9]

URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/2604.05057. 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, Yux- uan Liu, Wenjun Gao, Daya Guo, and Chong Ruan. DeepSeek-Prover-V2: Advancing formal mathematical reasoning via reinforcement learning for subg...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

[10] [10]

2021.9518169

doi: 10.1109/ISIT45174. 2021.9518169. 11 Geoffrey Wolfer and Aryeh Kontorovich. Statistical estimation of ergodic Markov chain kernel over discrete state space.Bernoulli, 27(1):532–553,

work page doi:10.1109/isit45174 2021

[11] [11]

Huajian Xin, Z.Z

doi: 10.3150/20-BEJ1248. Huajian Xin, Z.Z. Ren, Junxiao Song, Zhihong Shao, Wanjia Zhao, Haocheng Wang, Bo Liu, Liyue Zhang, Xuan Lu, Qiushi Du, Wenjun Gao, Haowei Zhang, 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. InICLR,

work page doi:10.3150/20-bej1248

[12] [12]

A language modelM t generates candidate proofs in a formal lan- guage (e.g., Lean 4)

12 A Motivating Examples Example 1: Discovering new mathematical proofs.ConsiderKas the set of valid formal proofs of mathematical conjectures. A language modelM t generates candidate proofs in a formal lan- guage (e.g., Lean 4). The verification step is performed by a proof assistant: the Lean type-checker mechanically checks whether each candidate is a ...

work page 2025

[13] [13]

, XN be i.i.d

and McAllester and Schapire [2000]).LetX 1, . . . , XN be i.i.d. from a discrete distributionQ, and let MN = X x Q(x)1[x /∈ {X1, . . . , XN }] be the missing mass after the batch. The Good–Turing estimatorf 1/N, wheref 1 is the number of species observed exactly once, is the classical estimator forM N , the probability that the next draw belongs to a spec...

work page 2000