PriorProof: A Point-in-Time Measure of Technique Novelty for Formal Proofs
Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningLogic in Computer Science
Summary
The authors created a tool called PriorProof to measure how unusual or nonstandard a mathematical proof is compared to earlier known proofs in a formal math library called Mathlib. Their method works by analyzing the logical dependencies of a proof and comparing them to what was common in an earlier snapshot, without needing human labeling. In tests with expert raters on topology proofs, PriorProof agreed with most expert judgments about which proofs were more unusual. The authors show it as a helpful, interpretable signal rather than a full replacement for human or AI judgment.
Authors
Neel Somani
Abstract
Mathematicians distinguish proofs that explain, simplify, or introduce a nonstandard route, but these judgments are difficult to operationalize. We study a deliberately narrower construct: time-relative proof-route nonstandardness in formal mathematics. For a Lean theorem, PriorProof extracts the dependency footprint of its elaborated proof term and scores the weighted surprisal of that footprint under a retrieval-conditioned, hierarchically smoothed prior built only from an earlier quarterly snapshot of Mathlib. The method requires no hand-built technique ontology and no human labels: statement retrieval is learned from proof-derived contrastive pairs, while the scored object is read mechanically from proof terms. In a blinded topology study, 100 presentations collapse to 76 distinct underlying pairs: 12 canonical contrasts shown three times for consistency screening and 64 distinct stratified pairs. Against the majority of three retained domain raters, PriorProof agrees on 53/76 pairs (69.7%, Wilson 95% CI 58.7-78.9%), including 11/12 canonical pairs (91.7%, 64.6-98.5%) and 42/64 stratified pairs (65.6%, 53.4-76.1%). Score-gap quartiles are nonmonotone after repeat collapse; the endpoints are 12/19 (63.2%, 41.0-80.9%) in the smallest-gap bin and 16/19 (84.2%, 62.4-94.5%) in the largest, supporting an endpoint-calibration tendency rather than a resolved staircase. The best language-model condition agrees on 60/76 pairs (78.9%, 68.5-86.6%); on paired outcomes, PriorProof alone is correct on 8 pairs and the model alone on 15 (exact two-sided McNemar p = 0.210), so the difference is not established at this sample size. We therefore present PriorProof not as a replacement for expert or model judgment, but as a decomposable, time-anchored signal whose score gap provides an interpretable reliability indicator.