AoA lifts the agent off source text and onto the abstract syntax tree (AST): the model supplies proofs as JSON representations of Minilang's AST and drives the prover through a tree-edit model that fuses proof operations and states into one proof tree, so each operation carries its own subgoal's state, readable directly off the tree.
Abstract
Interactive theorem proving (ITP) underpins program verification and formalized mathematics, but its manual effort limits scalability. LLM-based proof agents promise to ease this effort, but their heavy token consumption and API cost remain a major obstacle. We trace this cost to a shared root: current agents operate on serialized concrete syntax, emitting proofs as source text and recovering proof states through separate, line-number-based queries, so every edit shifts later lines and forces repeated relocation of errors and states. This same dependence on concrete syntax also blocks adoption of Minilang, a recent proof language that reaches SOTA on LLM-based proving but is too new for LLMs'training corpora. We address both problems by lifting the agent off source text and onto the abstract syntax tree (AST): the model supplies proofs as JSON representations of Minilang's AST -- native to tool-calling LLMs -- and drives the prover through a tree-edit model that fuses proof operations and states into one proof tree, so each operation carries its own subgoal's state, readable directly off the tree. We realize this design in \emph{Agent over AST} (AoA). Against Amazon's Isabelle Agent on miniF2F and NTP4VC-Pearl common success sets, AoA cuts API cost by 2.3--4.7x (normalized input-cache accounting), uses 2.9--6.9x fewer tokens and 3.9--8.9x fewer tool calls, and finishes 1.4--2.0x faster -- while also solving far more problems on the harder verification benchmark.
It is shown that imposing a fixed, human-designed proof strategy into the system and constrain the model to follow it is unnecessary and limiting, and a state-of-the-art model can write proofs for verified software development fully and automatically.
Shuangxiang Kan, Shuanglong Kan, Sebastian Ertel· 0 citations
It is argued that semantic RAG is fundamentally unsuited for rule enforcement, and that Euclid-MCP can serve as a stable, shared reasoning substrate for both RAG-based assistants and agentic systems.
An anecdotal account of AI agents, equipped with a CLI and a proof assistant, producing thousands of lines of machine-checked code, and the role of the human expert, whose contribution reduces to providing natural-language problem descriptions, reviewing auto-generated specifications, and occasionally supplying a key i...
Eleftherios Ioannidis, Nikhil Swamy, Gabriel Ebner et al.· Proc. ACM Program. Lang.· 1 citation
ToMap is introduced, a multi-agent framework that structures proof autoformalization as a Decomposer-Formalizer-Prover pipeline with efficient test-time optimization guided by formal verification and semantic rubrics for proof quality.
This work presents a deductive verification framework based on a weighted assertion language and an intermediate verification language, whose weight domains are ordered structures with implication and coimplication, which let verification conditions express lower- and upper-bound obligations internally.
Emma Ahrens, Samuel Rode, Philipp Schröer et al.· 0 citations
These results show that compiling procedural structure improves the reliability and efficiency of skill execution while retaining model judgment where it is needed, and shows that compiling procedural structure improves the reliability and efficiency of skill execution while retaining model judgment where it is needed.
Jayanaka L. Dantanarayana, Savini Kashmira, Lingjia Tang et al.· arXiv.org· 1 citation
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.