Seed-Prover: Deep and Broad Reasoning for Automated Theorem Proving

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.23726v2
• Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 03:36:47 GMT
• Title: Seed-Prover: Deep and Broad Reasoning for Automated Theorem Proving
• Authors: 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, Yonghui Wu, Yuchen Wu, Yihang Xia, Huajian Xin, Fan Yang, Huaiyuan Ying, Hongyi Yuan, Zheng Yuan, Tianyang Zhan, Chi Zhang, Yue Zhang, Ge Zhang, Tianyun Zhao, Jianqiu Zhao, Yichi Zhou, Thomas Hanwen Zhu,
• Abstract summary: In this work, we propose textbfSeed-Prover, a lemma-style whole-proof reasoning model.<n>To solve IMO-level contest problems, we design three test-time inference strategies that enable both deep and broad reasoning.<n>Seed-Prover proves $78.1%$ of formalized past IMO problems, saturates MiniF2F, and achieves over 50% on PutnamBench, outperforming the previous state-of-the-art by a large margin.
• Score: 36.20164235042574
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs have demonstrated strong mathematical reasoning abilities by leveraging reinforcement learning with long chain-of-thought, yet they continue to struggle with theorem proving due to the lack of clear supervision signals when solely using natural language. Dedicated domain-specific languages like Lean provide clear supervision via formal verification of proofs, enabling effective training through reinforcement learning. In this work, we propose \textbf{Seed-Prover}, a lemma-style whole-proof reasoning model. Seed-Prover can iteratively refine its proof based on Lean feedback, proved lemmas, and self-summarization. To solve IMO-level contest problems, we design three test-time inference strategies that enable both deep and broad reasoning. Seed-Prover proves $78.1\%$ of formalized past IMO problems, saturates MiniF2F, and achieves over 50\% on PutnamBench, outperforming the previous state-of-the-art by a large margin. To address the lack of geometry support in Lean, we introduce a geometry reasoning engine \textbf{Seed-Geometry}, which outperforms previous formal geometry engines. We use these two systems to participate in IMO 2025 and fully prove 5 out of 6 problems. This work represents a significant advancement in automated mathematical reasoning, demonstrating the effectiveness of formal verification with long chain-of-thought reasoning.

Related papers

• Towards Solving More Challenging IMO Problems via Decoupled Reasoning and Proving [48.22540519786074]
  Recent studies show that the informal accuracy exceeds 80% while formal success remains below 8% on benchmarks like PutnamBench.<n>We propose a novel framework that decouples high-level reasoning from low-level proof generation.<n>We evaluate our method on a challenging set of post-2000 IMO problems, a problem set on which no prior open-source prover has reported success.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T22:38:49Z)
• Safe: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models via Retrospective Step-aware Formal Verification [56.218970738892764]
  Chain-of-Thought prompting has become the de facto method to elicit reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs)<n>To mitigate hallucinations in CoT that are notoriously difficult to detect, current methods operate as opaque boxes and do not provide checkable evidence for their judgments, possibly limiting their effectiveness.<n>We propose a retrospective, step-aware formal verification framework $Safe$. Rather than assigning arbitrary scores, we strive to articulate mathematical claims in formal mathematical language Lean 4 at each reasoning step and provide formal proofs to identify hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T03:16:08Z)
• MA-LoT: Model-Collaboration Lean-based Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning enhances Formal Theorem Proving [30.112351299773632]
  We propose a comprehensive framework for Lean4 theorem proving to solve this issue.<n>It separates the cognition tasks of general NL for whole-proof generation and error analysis for proof correction.<n>Our framework achieves a **61.07%** accuracy rate on the Lean4 version of the MiniF2F-Test dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:50:31Z)
• 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)
• Formal Theorem Proving by Rewarding LLMs to Decompose Proofs Hierarchically [29.908878832382523]
  This paper focuses on improving LLMs' ability to write proofs in formal languages that permit automated proof verification/evaluation. We work in a more natural setup where the lemmas that are directly relevant to the theorem are not given to the theorem prover at test time. We design an RL-based training algorithm that encourages the model to decompose a theorem into lemmas, prove the lemmas, and then prove the theorem by using the lemmas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T05:57:40Z)
• Lean-STaR: Learning to Interleave Thinking and Proving [53.923617816215774]
  We present Lean-STaR, a framework for training language models to produce informal thoughts prior to each step of a proof.<n>Lean-STaR achieves state-of-the-art results on the miniF2F-test benchmark within the Lean theorem proving environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-14T01:43:07Z)
• 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)
• LAMBADA: Backward Chaining for Automated Reasoning in Natural Language [11.096348678079574]
  Backward Chaining algorithm, called LAMBADA, decomposes reasoning into four sub-modules. We show that LAMBADA achieves sizable accuracy boosts over state-of-the-art forward reasoning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T18:06:03Z)

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.