Towards Reliable Proof Generation with LLMs: A Neuro-Symbolic Approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14479v3
• Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 05:19:10 GMT
• Title: Towards Reliable Proof Generation with LLMs: A Neuro-Symbolic Approach
• Authors: Oren Sultan, Eitan Stern, Dafna Shahaf,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) struggle with formal domains that require rigorous logical deduction and symbolic reasoning.<n>We propose a neuro-symbolic approach that combines LLMs' generative strengths with structured components to overcome this challenge.
• Score: 14.213719696233934
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) struggle with formal domains that require rigorous logical deduction and symbolic reasoning, such as mathematical proof generation. We propose a neuro-symbolic approach that combines LLMs' generative strengths with structured components to overcome this challenge. As a proof-of-concept, we focus on geometry problems. Our approach is two-fold: (1) we retrieve analogous problems and use their proofs to guide the LLM, and (2) a formal verifier evaluates the generated proofs and provides feedback, helping the model fix incorrect proofs. We demonstrate that our method significantly improves proof accuracy for OpenAI's o1 model (58%-70% improvement); both analogous problems and the verifier's feedback contribute to these gains. More broadly, shifting to LLMs that generate provably correct conclusions could dramatically improve their reliability, accuracy and consistency, unlocking complex tasks and critical real-world applications that require trustworthiness.

Related papers

• The Open Proof Corpus: A Large-Scale Study of LLM-Generated Mathematical Proofs [7.20909461915203]
  We present the Open Proof Corpus (OPC), a dataset comprising over 5,000 human-evaluated proofs produced by state-of-the-art LLMs.<n>OPC was specifically designed for broad applicability and downstream usage in proof generation research.<n>We explore critical questions in automated proof generation: (1) the performance gap between natural language and formal proof generation, (2) the discrepancy between final-answer accuracy and full-proof validity, and (3) the impact of best-of-n selection on proof quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T13:31:58Z)
• Can Large Language Models Learn Formal Logic? A Data-Driven Training and Evaluation Framework [2.9334627971166336]
  This paper investigates the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>A trained LLM receives as input a set of assumptions and a goal, and produces as output a proof that formally derives the goal from the assumptions.<n>A critical obstacle for training is the scarcity of real-world proofs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-28T19:25:29Z)
• LeanProgress: Guiding Search for Neural Theorem Proving via Proof Progress Prediction [74.79306773878955]
  We introduce LeanProgress, a method that predicts the progress in the proof.<n>Our experiments show that LeanProgress achieves an overall prediction accuracy of 75.1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T07:46:36Z)
• One Example Shown, Many Concepts Known! Counterexample-Driven Conceptual Reasoning in Mathematical LLMs [57.48325300739872]
  Leveraging mathematical Large Language Models for proof generation is a fundamental topic in LLMs research.<n>We argue that the ability of current LLMs to prove statements largely depends on whether they have encountered the relevant proof process during training.<n>Inspired by the pedagogical method of "proof by counterexamples" commonly used in human mathematics education, our work aims to enhance LLMs' ability to conduct mathematical reasoning and proof through counterexamples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T02:01:10Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• Proof Automation with Large Language Models [6.587933406842906]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in automatically generating informal proofs in natural language. We propose PALM, a novel generate-then-repair approach that first prompts an LLM to generate an initial proof and then leverages targeted symbolic methods to iteratively repair low-level problems. Our results show that PALM significantly outperforms other state-of-the-art approaches, successfully proving 76.6% to 180.4% more theorems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T00:19:27Z)
• Deconfounded Causality-aware Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Problem-Solving Improvement of LLMs [12.48241058167222]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable efficiency in tackling various tasks based on human instructions. But studies reveal that they often struggle with tasks requiring reasoning, such as math or physics limitation. This raises questions about whether LLMs truly comprehend embedded knowledge or merely learn to replicate the token distribution without a true understanding of the content. We propose Decon Causal Adaptation (DCA), a novel parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) method to enhance the model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T13:17:09Z)
• MUSTARD: Mastering Uniform Synthesis of Theorem and Proof Data [85.50740598523818]
  MUSTARD is a framework that masters uniform synthesis of theorem and proof data of high quality and diversity. We present a theorem-and-proof benchmark MUSTARDSAUCE with 5,866 valid data points. We perform extensive analysis and demonstrate that MUSTARD generates validated high-quality step-by-step data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T05:57:58Z)
• Neuro-Symbolic Integration Brings Causal and Reliable Reasoning Proofs [95.07757789781213]
  Two lines of approaches are adopted for complex reasoning with LLMs.<n>One line of work prompts LLMs with various reasoning structures, while the structural outputs can be naturally regarded as intermediate reasoning steps.<n>The other line of work adopt LLM-free declarative solvers to do the reasoning task, rendering higher reasoning accuracy but lacking interpretability due to the black-box nature of the solvers.<n>We present a simple extension to the latter line of work. Specifically, we showcase that the intermediate search logs generated by Prolog interpreters can be accessed and interpreted into human-readable reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T11:26:21Z)
• Are LLMs Rigorous Logical Reasoner? Empowering Natural Language Proof Generation with Contrastive Stepwise Decoding [10.421832675327712]
  We introduce contrastive decoding to stepwise proof generation, making use of negative reasoning paths to strengthen the model's capacity for logical deduction.<n> Experiments on EntailmentBank underscore the success of our method in augmenting the proof planning abilities of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T05:12:49Z)
• Faithful Explanations of Black-box NLP Models Using LLM-generated Counterfactuals [67.64770842323966]
  Causal explanations of predictions of NLP systems are essential to ensure safety and establish trust. Existing methods often fall short of explaining model predictions effectively or efficiently. We propose two approaches for counterfactual (CF) approximation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T07:31:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.