Papers for

automated theorem proving engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Method guarantees consistent outcomes from complex rewrite systems

A new method for proving confluence on abstract reduction systems --- Confluence of non-E-overlapping weakly-shallow TRSs ---

Abstract: This paper proposes a new method for proving the confluence of an abstract reduction system (ARS) by clarifying the sufficient conditions, called compatibility and edge commutativity, for expanding a given finite sub-ARS into a confluent one by adding rewrite edges. This method can be regarded as an extension of our earlier work, which showed that a weakly non-overlapping, shallow, and non-collapsing term rewriting system (TRS) is confluent. Furthermore, we apply our method to demonstrate that a non-$E$-overlapping and weakly shallow TRS is confluent. Here, a term is weakly shallow if each defined function symbol occurs either at the root or in the ground subterms, and a TRS is weakly shallow if both sides of all its rewrite rules are weakly shallow. This drops the non-collapsing condition assumed in our previous work on weakly shallow TRSs. Moreover, since a weakly shallow TRS is non-$E$-overlapping whenever it is non-$ω$-overlapping, and the latter property is decidable, we also obtain a decidable sufficient condition for confluence: non-$ω$-overlapping and weakly shallow TRSs are confluent.

Wed 7 OctLogic in Computer Science
The gist
When computers simplify or change expressions step-by-step, different paths could lead to different results, which is a problem. This paper introduces a new way to prove that certain systems always reach the same outcome, no matter how they are simplified. The authors improve previous methods by allowing a broader class of rules to be handled and make it easier to check this property automatically.
Open → 2610.09572v1

Proof assistant model plans symbolic steps to certify numeric proofs

SCOPE: Certified Theorem Proving with a Language Model as the Policy Planner

Abstract: In proof assistants such as Lean, a generated proof must pass machine compilation checks, so evaluation needs no human scoring. Direct generation fails on multi-step numeric propositions: a proof is valid only if every content integer is correct, so the pass rate is bounded by the k-th power of the per-integer accuracy. Controlled corruption across 2,617 reference proofs confirms this power law. SCOPE (State-Conditioned Operator Planning and Execution) enforces the natural division of labor: the model plans over an operator vocabulary, a symbolic engine executes the numerics, and a compiler renders the proof. On a 218-problem suite it certifies 191/218 (87.6%) with a 135M backbone; the 7B DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5-RL certifies 18/218 at 27.5 times the tokens and 37.5 times the wall-clock, and DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B certifies zero on a bidirectional dual suite. Multi-step thinking costs 6.12 discrete decision actions per problem and produces no natural-language thinking text. Replacing the lagged engine state in the decision frame with the current one lifts the pass rate from 117/218 to 191/218, while up-weighting the chain-end loss hurts. On the public Lean-Workbook library, 2,132 of 3,536 gradeable admissible problems certify (60.29%) with zero regression on the main suite. All readings come from a version-frozen review with independent rechecks and reverse verification. Restricting free generation and keeping decision-time information visible is a more direct route than enlarging the model.

Tue 6 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Automatically generating proofs for math problems is hard when numbers must be exact at every step. The authors found that directly generating full proofs often fails because even small errors stack up quickly. Their system, called SCOPE, uses a language model to plan symbolic steps while relying on a separate engine to handle precise number calculations. This approach greatly increases the rate of correct, machine-verifiable proofs on tested problem sets compared to prior methods.
Open → 2610.08319v1