PreprintCited by 1Logic, programming, and type systemsArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsMathematics, Computing, and Information Processing

A Theoretical Framework for Self-Play Theorem Proving Algorithms

Open access
Chen, Thomas, Li, Zhiyuan·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Self-play, a type of training algorithm that enables a model to self-improve, has recently shown promising empirical results in the context of formal theorem proving using Large Language Models (LLMs). (Dong & Ma, 2025) instantiate self-play with two cooperating agents: a prover, which proves theorems, and a conjecturer, which generates new theorems as a curriculum to the prover. In this paper, we provide a theoretical framework for understanding the self-improvement capabilities of self-play algorithms for theorem proving. First, we formalize the set of theorems as a graph, with nodes as theorems and edges between pairs of theorems with similar semantics. We introduce a set of primitive assumptions that characterize the guarantees of a trained prover and how a conjecturer can access the structure of the graph. Second, we show that if the underlying graph of theorems is well-connected, then a prover-conjecturer system, where the conjecturing algorithm is based on a reversible random walk, is sufficient to grow the set of proved theorems exponentially. Third, motivated by an issue encountered empirically by self-play algorithms, where the conjecturer tends to generate artificially complex and non-fundamental theorems, we propose a diversity measure for a training distribution of theorems generated by a conjecturer and an improved conjecturing algorithm that locally maximizes this diversity measure, by computing the diffusion similarity between neighboring theorems in the theorem graph. Finally, we describe a method to compute the diffusion similarity by using contrastive learning to embed nodes into Euclidean space and then computing the inner-product between embeddings.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2606.01861

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Formal verifiers such as proof checkers and type systems are sound by construction, so self-play theorem proving and verified skill evolution can iterate indefinitely without accepting a false improvement.

    “At the top sit formal verifiers - proof checkers, type systems which are sound by construction: self-play theorem proving and verified skill evolution can iterate indefinitely without accepting a false improvement [118, 82].”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [118]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, T., & Li, Z.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7163132336
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
Keywords
self-play, formal theorem proving, large language models, conjecture generation, diversity measures, contrastive learning, node embeddings, human development

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