TheoremBench: Evaluating LLMs on Theorem Proving in Formal Mathematics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09450v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2026 12:57:18 GMT
• Title: TheoremBench: Evaluating LLMs on Theorem Proving in Formal Mathematics
• Abstract summary: We introduce TheoremBench, a Lean4 benchmark designed to evaluate theorem provers beyond contest settings.<n>The benchmark is built from nearly one hundred classical theorems and is released in two complementary forms.<n>Our experiments show that explicit premises substantially improve performance for Lean4-capable prover models.
• Score: 6.168228844241134
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks. However, existing evaluations remain heavily concentrated on competition-style problems and often fail to capture how models behave on longer, more dependency-rich mathematical developments. We introduce TheoremBench, a Lean4 benchmark designed to evaluate theorem provers beyond contest settings. The benchmark is built from nearly one hundred classical theorems and is released in two complementary forms: a plain main version containing one target theorem per instance, and a premised version that expands each theorem into a structured family of related proving tasks consisting of the main theorem together with automatically extracted supporting subtheorems. This design enables evaluation of not only whether the final theorem was proved from scratch, but also of partial progress through the internal proof structure of a theorem. Our experiments show that explicit premises substantially improve performance for Lean4-capable prover models. To provide a comprehensive evaluation, we introduce theorem-level coverage and token-efficiency metrics that expose qualitative differences in proof behavior. The results show that current provers remain strongly biased toward easy subtheorems and often solve theorems through long and inefficient tactic traces rather than compact proof plans. TheoremBench therefore provides a more fine-grained view of formal reasoning ability and highlights the importance of structural benchmark design for evaluating Lean4 theorem provers.

Related papers

• MathAdv: What Theorem Provers Know, Reason, Formalize, and Generalize [38.37332307303914]
  MathAdv is a diagnostic benchmark spanning 13 domains across undergraduate- and graduate-level mathematics.<n>We show how component-wise evaluation can reveal model capabilities and failure modes that aggregate theorem-proving accuracy obscures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T07:12:54Z)
• A Theoretical Framework for Self-Play Theorem Proving Algorithms [7.702779307300836]
  We provide a theoretical framework for understanding the self-improvement capabilities of self-play algorithms for theorem proving.<n>We show that if the underlying graph of theorems is well-connected, then a prover-conjecturer system, where the conjecturing algorithm is based on a reversible random walk, is sufficient to grow the set of proved theorems exponentially.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T08:12:47Z)
• Benchmarking Testing in Automated Theorem Proving [39.65133452374143]
  T is a framework that evaluates the semantic correctness of formal theorems.<n>We construct a benchmark from 5 real-world Lean 4 repositories.<n>Experiments demonstrate that while state-of-the-art models achieve high compilation success, they perform significantly worse under our semantic metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T13:24:20Z)
• 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)
• DeepTheorem: Advancing LLM Reasoning for Theorem Proving Through Natural Language and Reinforcement Learning [67.93945726549289]
  DeepTheorem is a comprehensive informal theorem-proving framework exploiting natural language to enhance mathematical reasoning.<n>DeepTheorem includes a large-scale benchmark dataset consisting of 121K high-quality IMO-level informal theorems and proofs.<n>We devise a novel reinforcement learning strategy (RL-Zero) explicitly tailored to informal theorem proving, leveraging the verified theorem variants to incentivize robust mathematical inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:59:39Z)
• Alchemy: Amplifying Theorem-Proving Capability through Symbolic Mutation [71.32761934724867]
  This work proposes Alchemy, a framework for data synthesis that constructs formal theorems through symbolic mutation.<n>For each candidate theorem in Mathlib, we identify all invocable theorems that can be used to rewrite or apply to it.<n>As a result, our method increases the number of theorems in Mathlib by an order of magnitude, from 110k to 6M.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T08:04:21Z)
• 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)
• Proving Theorems Recursively [80.42431358105482]
  We propose POETRY, which proves theorems in a level-by-level manner. Unlike previous step-by-step methods, POETRY searches for a sketch of the proof at each level. We observe a substantial increase in the maximum proof length found by POETRY, from 10 to 26.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T10:35:08Z)
• ATG: Benchmarking Automated Theorem Generation for Generative Language Models [83.93978859348313]
  Humans can develop new theorems to explore broader and more complex mathematical results. Current generative language models (LMs) have achieved significant improvement in automatically proving theorems. This paper proposes an Automated Theorem Generation benchmark that evaluates whether an agent can automatically generate valuable (and possibly brand new) theorems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-05T02:06:37Z)
• INT: An Inequality Benchmark for Evaluating Generalization in Theorem Proving [36.194330645092634]
  In this paper, we introduce an INequality Theorem proving benchmark, specifically designed to test agents' generalization ability. Int is based on a procedure for generating theorems and proofs; this procedure's knobs allow us to measure 6 different types of generalization. We then evaluate the same agents augmented with Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) at test time, and show that MCTS can help to prove new theorems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-06T17:55:33Z)

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.