Thor: Wielding Hammers to Integrate Language Models and Automated Theorem Provers
Open accessAbstract
In theorem proving, the task of selecting useful premises from a large library to unlock the proof of a given conjecture is crucially important. This presents a challenge for all theorem provers, especially the ones based on language models, due to their relative inability to reason over huge volumes of premises in text form. This paper introduces Thor, a framework integrating language models and automated theorem provers to overcome this difficulty. In Thor, a class of methods called hammers that leverage the power of automated theorem provers are used for premise selection, while all other tasks are designated to language models. Thor increases a language model's success rate on the PISA dataset from $39\%$ to $57\%$, while solving $8.2\%$ of problems neither language models nor automated theorem provers are able to solve on their own. Furthermore, with a significantly smaller computational budget, Thor can achieve a success rate on the MiniF2F dataset that is on par with the best existing methods. Thor can be instantiated for the majority of popular interactive theorem provers via a straightforward protocol we provide.
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 [54]
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
Olympiad-level formal mathematical reasoning with reinforcement learning
Hubert, T., Mehta, R., Sartran, L., Horváth, M. Z., Žužić, G., Wieser, E., Huang, A., Schrittwieser, J., Schroecker, Y., Masoom, H., et al. (2026) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09833-y · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Evaluating the Ability of GPT-4o to Generate Verifiable Specifications in VeriFast
Rego, M., Fan, W., Hu, X., Dod, S., Ni, Z., Xie, D., DiVincenzo, J., & Tan, L. (2025) · 2025 IEEE/ACM Second International Conference on AI Foundation Models and Software Engineering (Forge) · doi:10.1109/forge66646.2025.00035 · Cited by 2 · 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
Self-citation
- Authors
- Jiang, A. Q., Li, W., Tworkowski, S., Czechowski, K., Odrzygóźdź, T., Miłoś, P., Wu, Y., & Jamnik, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- University of Warsaw (PL)
- Polish Academy of Sciences (PL)
- Google (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Jamnik, Mateja
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2205.10893
- OpenAlex
- W4281491203
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 12
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Keywords
- automated theorem proving, language models, hammer, proof assistants, large language models
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