Formal Mathematics Statement Curriculum Learning
Open accessAbstract
We explore the use of expert iteration in the context of language modeling applied to formal mathematics. We show that at same compute budget, expert iteration, by which we mean proof search interleaved with learning, dramatically outperforms proof search only. We also observe that when applied to a collection of formal statements of sufficiently varied difficulty, expert iteration is capable of finding and solving a curriculum of increasingly difficult problems, without the need for associated ground-truth proofs. Finally, by applying this expert iteration to a manually curated set of problem statements, we achieve state-of-the-art on the miniF2F benchmark, automatically solving multiple challenging problems drawn from high school olympiads.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Generating proofs for theorems falls outside FunSearch's current scope because it is unclear how to provide a rich enough scoring signal.
“For example, the problem of generating proofs for theorems52–54 falls outside this scope, because it is unclear how to provide a rich enough scoring signal.”
From Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [53]
Common approaches rely on variants of expert iteration or rejection finetuning, where multiple solutions are sampled, and an external signal selects positive ones for model fine-tuning.
“Common approaches rely on variants of expert iteration or rejection finetuning (Polu et al., 2022;Zelikman et al., 2022;Yuan et al., 2023;Lin et al., 2024), where multiple solutions are sampled, and an external signal selects the positive ones for model fine-tuning.”
From AlphaVerus: Bootstrapping Formally Verified Code Generation through Self-Improving Translation and Treefinement (2024) · cites this paper as Polu et al., 2022
The scarcity of proof examples creates a data bottleneck that causes geometry to lag behind recent progress using human demonstrations.
“Overall, this creates a data bottleneck, causing geometry to lag behind in recent progress that uses human demonstrations2–4.”
From Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
Auxiliary construction is geometry's instance of exogenous term generation, representing the infinite branching factor of theorem proving, and is widely recognized in other mathematical domains as the key challenge to proving many hard theorems.
“Auxiliary construction is geometry’s instance of exogenous term generation, representing the infinite branching factor of theorem proving, and widely recognized in other mathematical domains as the key challenge to proving many hard theorems1,2.”
From Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
Language models such as GPT-f, after being trained on human proof examples, can generate exogenous proof terms as inputs to fast and accurate symbolic engines such as nlinarith or ring.
“This follows standard settings in the literature, in which language models such as GPT-f (ref. 15), after being trained on human proof examples, can generate exogenous proof terms as inputs to fast and accurate symbolic engines such as nlinarith or ring2,3,16, using the best of both worlds.”
From Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
State-of-the-art machine learning methods make use of expert iteration to generate a curriculum of synthetic proofs.
“State-of-the-art machine learning methods make use of expert iteration to generate a curriculum of synthetic proofs2,3,15.”
From Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
GPT-f's follow-up extensions further developed this direction, allowing machines to solve some olympiad-level problems for the first time.
“Its follow up extensions2,16 further developed this direction, allowing machines to solve some olympiad-level problems for the first time.”
From Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173 · see citing works
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · see citing works
Self-citationLearning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision
Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00020 · Cited by 15,293 · see citing works
Self-citationScaling Laws for Neural Language Models
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08361 · Cited by 9,550 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We briefly experimented with different model sizes (not reported in this paper) and found that model size scaling is not as straightforward as in the case of unsupervised learning (Kaplan et al., 2020).”
MethodGoogle's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translation
Wu, Y., Schuster, M., Chen, Z., Le, Q. V., Norouzi, M., Macherey, W., Krikun, M., Cao, Y., Gao, Q., Macherey, K., et al. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.08144 · Cited by 5,319 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Deep learning has enjoyed spectacular success in many domains, including language (Brown et al., 2020; Devlin et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2016), vision (Radford et al., 2021; Tan & Le, 2019), and image generation (Ramesh et al., 2021; Karras et al., 2019).”
BackgroundMastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm
Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., Lanctot, M., Sifre, L., Kumaran, D., Graepel, T., et al. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.01815 · Cited by 1,102 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Expert iteration was introduced in Silver et al. (2017) and broadly consists in iteratively training models on their previously sampled trajectories, to achieve continuous improvement.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models
Romera-Paredes, B., Barekatain, M., Novikov, A., Balog, M., Kumar, M. P., Dupont, E., Ruiz, F. J. R., Ellenberg, J. S., Wang, P., Fawzi, O., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06924-6 · Cited by 544 · see citing works
Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations
Trinh, T. H., Wu, Y., Le, Q. V., He, H., & Luong, T. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5 · Cited by 311 · see citing works
RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Control
Brohan, A., Brown, N., Carbajal, J., Chebotar, Y., Chen, X., Choromanski, K., Ding, T., Driess, D., Dubey, A., Finn, C., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15818 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
“…for a wide range of downstream tasks: large language models can enable not only fluent text generation [1, 2, 3] but emergent problem-solving [4, 5, 6] and creative generation of prose [7, 2] and code [8], while vision-language models enable open-vocabulary visual recognition [9, 10, 11] and can…”
BackgroundSTaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning
Zelikman, E., Wu, Y., Mu, J., & Goodman, N. D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.14465 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Aggarwal, P., Parno, B., & Welleck, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.06176 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models
Lewkowycz, A., Andreassen, A., Dohan, D., Dyer, E., Michalewski, H., Ramasesh, V., Slone, A., Anil, C., Schlag, I., Gutman-Solo, T., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.14858 · Cited by 358 · see citing works
- Authors
- Polu, S., Han, J. M., Zheng, K., Baksys, M., Babuschkin, I., & Sutskever, I.
- ORCID
- Babuschkin, Igor
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2202.01344
- OpenAlex
- W4226243662
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Logic, programming, and type systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- formal mathematics, proof search, language modeling, curriculum learning, automated theorem proving
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
