PreprintCited by 8Mathematics, Computing, and Information ProcessingLogic, programming, and type systemsArtificial Intelligence Applications

DeepSeek-Prover: Advancing Theorem Proving in LLMs through Large-Scale Synthetic Data

Open access
Xin, Huajian, Guo, Daya, Shao, Zhihong, Ren, Zhizhou, Zhu, Qihao, Liu, Bo, Ruan, Chong, Li, Wenda +1 more·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Proof assistants like Lean have revolutionized mathematical proof verification, ensuring high accuracy and reliability. Although large language models (LLMs) show promise in mathematical reasoning, their advancement in formal theorem proving is hindered by a lack of training data. To address this issue, we introduce an approach to generate extensive Lean 4 proof data derived from high-school and undergraduate-level mathematical competition problems. This approach involves translating natural language problems into formal statements, filtering out low-quality statements, and generating proofs to create synthetic data. After fine-tuning the DeepSeekMath 7B model on this synthetic dataset, which comprises 8 million formal statements with proofs, our model achieved whole-proof generation accuracies of 46.3% with 64 samples and 52% cumulatively on the Lean 4 miniF2F test, surpassing the baseline GPT-4 at 23.0% with 64 samples and a tree search reinforcement learning method at 41.0%. Additionally, our model successfully proved 5 out of 148 problems in the Lean 4 Formalized International Mathematical Olympiad (FIMO) benchmark, while GPT-4 failed to prove any. These results demonstrate the potential of leveraging large-scale synthetic data to enhance theorem-proving capabilities in LLMs. Both the synthetic dataset and the model will be made available to facilitate further research in this promising field.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2405.14333

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [16]16. The Coq Development Team. Coq. URL https://coq.inria.fr . - A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017. - M. Wang and J. Deng. Learning to prove theorems by learning to generate theorems. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:18146-18157, 2020. - M. Wu, M. Norrish, C. Walder, and A. Dezfouli. Tacticzero: Learning to prove theorems from scratch with deep reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34: 9330-9342, 2021. - Y. Wu, A. Q. Jiang, J. Ba, and R. Grosse. Int: An inequality benchmark for evaluating generalization in theorem proving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.02924 , 2020. - Y. Wu, A. Q. Jiang, W. Li, M. Rabe, C. Staats, M. Jamnik, and C. Szegedy. Autoformalization with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:32353-32368, 2022. - H. Xin, H. Wang, C. Zheng, L. Li, Z. Liu, Q. Cao, Y. Huang, J. Xiong, H. Shi, E. Xie, et al. Lego-prover: Neural theorem proving with growing libraries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00656 , 2023. - J. Xiong, J. Shen, Y. Yuan, H. Wang, Y. Yin, Z. Liu, L. Li, Z. Guo, Q. Cao, Y. Huang, et al. Trigo: Benchmarking formal mathematical proof reduction for generative language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10180 , 2023. - K. Yang, A. Swope, A. Gu, R. Chalamala, P. Song, S. Yu, S. Godil, R. J. Prenger, and A. Anandkumar. Leandojo: Theorem proving with retrieval-augmented language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024. - X. Zhao, W. Li, and L. Kong. Decomposing the enigma: Subgoal-based demonstration learning for formal theorem proving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16366 , 2023. - K. Zheng, J. M. Han, and S. Polu. Minif2f: a cross-system benchmark for formal olympiad-level mathematics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00110 , 2021. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xin, H., Guo, D., Shao, Z., Ren, Z., Zhu, Q., Liu, B., Ruan, C., Li, W., & Liang, X.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4398796786
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
theorem proving, large language models, Lean 4, synthetic training data, formalized mathematics, mathematics competition problems, proof assistants, mathematical reasoning

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