Proof-Refactor: Refactoring Generated Formal Proofs into Modular Artifacts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.03743v1
• Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 14:56:10 GMT
• Title: Proof-Refactor: Refactoring Generated Formal Proofs into Modular Artifacts
• Abstract summary: We argue that this gap stems in part from the compile-first objective implicit in most proof-generation pipelines.<n>We propose a process-guided approach inspired by human proof-refactoring.
• Score: 19.455779459310982
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in generating formal proofs, their outputs often remain less readable, modular, maintainable, and reusable than proofs in mature formal mathematics libraries. We argue that this gap stems in part from the compile-first objective implicit in most proof-generation pipelines, which encourages monolithic or ad hoc proof scripts rather than library-quality artifacts. Existing approaches to proof-quality improvement often rely on explicit, computable optimization objectives. In practice, however, the most tractable and experimentally validated objectives are largely length-based, while higher-level qualities such as readability, modularity, maintainability, and reusability are difficult to reduce to reliable automatic metrics. Instead of optimizing proof improvement against a single proxy metric, we take a process-guided approach inspired by human proof-refactoring workflows. We propose an agentic framework $\textbf{Proof-Refactor}$ that decomposes proof refactoring into four phases: extracting candidate proof fragments, designing helper declarations, formally proving the extracted and designed components, and repairing the original proof using the verified components. On generated Lean proofs from PutnamBench and Putnam2025, Proof-Refactor improves rubric-based refactoring scores over a strong Claude Code refactoring baseline, with the largest gains in signature quality and human readability. These results suggest that process-guided refactoring can improve proof structure without treating proof length as the primary objective.

Related papers

• PROMISE: Proof Automation as Structural Imitation of Human Reasoning [15.113069562646302]
  We present PROMISE, a structure-aware framework that reframes proof generation as a stateful search over proof-state transitions.<n>We evaluate PROMISE on the seL4 benchmark across multiple LLM backends and compare it with prior systems such as Selene and Rango.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T03:49:12Z)
• ExVerus: Verus Proof Repair via Counterexample Reasoning [8.819482630789217]
  We present EXVERUS, a counterexample-guided framework for large language models (LLMs)<n>When a proof fails, EXVERUS automatically generates and validates counterexamples, and then guides the LLM to generalize them into inductive invariants to block these failures.<n>Our evaluation shows that EXVERUS significantly improves proof accuracy, robustness, and token efficiency over the state-of-the-art prompting-based Verus proof generator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T18:14:34Z)
• Compile to Compress: Boosting Formal Theorem Provers by Compiler Outputs [48.390500145598544]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in formal theorem proving.<n>We exploit an informative structure in formal verification: the observation that compilers map a vast space of diverse proof attempts.<n>We introduce a learning-to-refine framework that leverages this compression to perform efficient learning and proof exploration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T01:33:20Z)
• Proof-RM: A Scalable and Generalizable Reward Model for Math Proof [67.53066972145183]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong math reasoning abilities through Reinforcement Learning with *Verifiable Rewards* (RLVR)<n>Many advanced mathematical problems are proof-based, with no guaranteed way to determine the authenticity of a proof by simple answer matching.<n>To enable automatic verification, a Reward Model (RM) capable of reliably evaluating full proof processes is required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T17:42:53Z)
• BRIDGE: Building Representations In Domain Guided Program Verification [67.36686119518441]
  BRIDGE decomposes verification into three interconnected domains: Code, Specifications, and Proofs.<n>We show that this approach substantially improves both accuracy and efficiency beyond standard error feedback methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T06:39:19Z)
• What's in a Proof? Analyzing Expert Proof-Writing Processes in F* and Verus [2.8003002159083237]
  We conduct a user study involving the collection and analysis of fine-grained source code telemetry from eight experts working with two languages.<n>Results reveal interesting trends and patterns about how experts reason about proofs and key challenges encountered during the proof development process.<n>We translate these findings into concrete design guidance for AI proof assistants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T22:16:30Z)
• 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)
• ImProver: Agent-Based Automated Proof Optimization [18.315243539816464]
  We present ImProver, a large-language-model agent that rewrites proofs to optimize arbitrary user-defined metrics in Lean. We test ImProver on rewriting real-world undergraduate, competition, and research-level mathematics theorems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T05:14:18Z)
• 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)
• LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Models [72.54339382005732]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in proving formal theorems using proof assistants such as Lean. Existing methods are difficult to reproduce or build on, due to private code, data, and compute requirements. This paper introduces LeanDojo: an open-source Lean toolkit consisting of toolkits, data, models. We develop ReProver: an LLM-based prover augmented with retrieval for selecting premises from a vast math library.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-27T17:05:32Z)

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.