Skip to content
← Back to explorer

QED-Nano: Teaching a Tiny Model to Prove Hard Theorems

LM-Provers, Yuxiao Qu, Amrith Setlur, Jasper Dekoninck, Edward Beeching, Jia Li, Ian Wu, Lewis Tunstall, Aviral Kumar · Apr 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Apr 6, 2026, 5:44 PM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Apr 10, 2026, 7:22 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.70

Abstract

Proprietary AI systems have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities on complex proof-based problems, with gold-level performance reported at the 2025 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO). However, the training pipelines behind these systems remain largely undisclosed, and their reliance on large "internal" models and scaffolds makes them expensive to run, difficult to reproduce, and hard to study or improve upon. This raises a central question: can small, open models also be trained to achieve competitive reasoning performance on difficult Olympiad-level math? In this paper, we answer this question by building QED-Nano, a 4B model post-trained for Olympiad-level proofs. Our training recipe has three stages: (1) supervised fine-tuning to imbue good proof-writing styles by distilling from DeepSeek-Math-V2, (2) reinforcement learning (RL) with rubric-based rewards, and (3) expanding RL with a reasoning cache, which decomposes long proofs into iterative summarize-and-refine cycles and enables stronger test-time reasoning. QED-Nano surpasses the proof-generation performance of much larger open models, including Nomos-1 and GPT-OSS-120B, and approaches the performance of proprietary models like Gemini 3 Pro, at a fraction of the inference cost. To support further research on open mathematical reasoning, we release the full QED-Nano pipeline, including the QED-Nano and QED-Nano-SFT models, the FineProofs-SFT and FineProofs-RL datasets, and the training and evaluation code.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Eval-Fit Score

65/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence: Moderate

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Rubric Rating

Confidence: Moderate Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Directly usable for protocol triage.

Evidence snippet: Proprietary AI systems have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities on complex proof-based problems, with gold-level performance reported at the 2025 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO).

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Moderate Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Proprietary AI systems have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities on complex proof-based problems, with gold-level performance reported at the 2025 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO).

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Proprietary AI systems have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities on complex proof-based problems, with gold-level performance reported at the 2025 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO).

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Proprietary AI systems have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities on complex proof-based problems, with gold-level performance reported at the 2025 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO).

Reported Metrics

strong

Cost, Inference cost

Confidence: Moderate Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: QED-Nano surpasses the proof-generation performance of much larger open models, including Nomos-1 and GPT-OSS-120B, and approaches the performance of proprietary models like Gemini 3 Pro, at a fraction of the inference cost.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Proprietary AI systems have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities on complex proof-based problems, with gold-level performance reported at the 2025 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO).

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Rubric Rating
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Multi Dim Rubric
  • Expertise required: Math, Coding
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.70
  • Flags: None

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

costinference cost

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

To support further research on open mathematical reasoning, we release the full QED-Nano pipeline, including the QED-Nano and QED-Nano-SFT models, the FineProofs-SFT and FineProofs-RL datasets, and the training and evaluation code. HFEPX signals include Rubric Rating, Automatic Metrics with confidence 0.70. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Apr 10, 2026, 7:22 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • To support further research on open mathematical reasoning, we release the full QED-Nano pipeline, including the QED-Nano and QED-Nano-SFT models, the FineProofs-SFT and…

Researcher Actions

  • Compare its human-feedback setup against pairwise and rubric hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (cost, inference cost).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To support further research on open mathematical reasoning, we release the full QED-Nano pipeline, including the QED-Nano and QED-Nano-SFT models, the FineProofs-SFT and FineProofs-RL datasets, and the training and evaluation code.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • To support further research on open mathematical reasoning, we release the full QED-Nano pipeline, including the QED-Nano and QED-Nano-SFT models, the FineProofs-SFT and FineProofs-RL datasets, and the training and evaluation code.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Rubric Rating

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: cost, inference cost

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.