BAIT: Benchmarking (Embedding) Architectures for Interactive Theorem-Proving

Artificial Intelligence for Theorem Proving has given rise to a plethora of benchmarks and methodologies, particularly in Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP). Research in the area is fragmented, with a diverse set of approaches being spread across several ITP systems. This presents a significant challenge to the comparison of methods, which are often complex and difficult to replicate. Addressing this, we present BAIT, a framework for fair and streamlined comparison of learning approaches in ITP. We demonstrate BAIT's capabilities with an in-depth comparison, across several ITP benchmarks, of state-of-the-art architectures applied to the problem of formula embedding. We find that Structure Aware Transformers perform particularly well, improving on techniques associated with the original problem sets. BAIT also allows us to assess the end-to-end proving performance of systems built on interactive environments. This unified perspective reveals a novel end-to-end system that improves on prior work. We also provide a qualitative analysis, illustrating that improved performance is associated with more semantically-aware embeddings. By streamlining the implementation and comparison of Machine Learning algorithms in the ITP context, we anticipate BAIT will be a springboard for future research.

TacticZero: Learning to Prove Theorems from Scratch with Deep Reinforcement Learning

We propose a novel approach to interactive theorem-proving (ITP) using deep reinforcement learning. Unlike previous work, our framework is able to prove theorems both end-to-end and from scratch (i.e., without relying on example proofs from human experts). We formulate the process of ITP as a Markov decision process (MDP) in which each state represents a set of potential derivation paths. The agent learns to select promising derivations as well as appropriate tactics within each derivation using deep policy gradients. This structure allows us to introduce a novel backtracking mechanism which enables the agent to efficiently discard (predicted) dead-end derivations and restart the derivation from promising alternatives. Experimental results show that the framework provides comparable performance to that of the approaches that use human experts, and that it is also capable of proving theorems that it has never seen during training. We further elaborate the role of each component of the framework using ablation studies.

Learning to Prove with Tactics

We implement a automated tactical prover TacticToe on top of the HOL4 interactive theorem prover. TacticToe learns from human proofs which mathematical technique is suitable in each proof situation. This knowledge is then used in a Monte Carlo tree search algorithm to explore promising tactic-level proof paths. On a single CPU, with a time limit of 60 seconds, TacticToe proves 66.4 percent of the 7164 theorems in HOL4's standard library, whereas E prover with auto-schedule solves 34.5 percent. The success rate rises to 69.0 percent by combining the results of TacticToe and E prover.