Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

LAMP: Lean-based Agentic framework with MCP and Proof Repair

Santhana Srinivasan R, Maithilee Patawar · Jun 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

Multi Agent
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify. Interactive theorem provers such as Lean 4 address this by accepting only kernel-checked proofs; however, their reach is bounded by the formalized knowledge available. While Mathlib, a repository of formalized Lean 4 theorems that covers diverse mathematical areas, certain specialized areas remain underrepresented; notably, the domain of Combinatorics on Words (CoW). CoW studies sequences, exploring their properties such as periodicity, borders, conjugacy, and morphisms. As a result, specialized provers, trained on Mathlib-centered data, lack the lemmas to operate in CoW. We present two contributions. First, we introduce a Lean 4 formalization of CoW containing eight modules and \textbf{93} declarations of core definitions and foundational lemmas. Second, we present LAMP, a multi-agent framework that synthesizes kernel-verified Lean 4 proofs by providing explicit, structured domain knowledge at inference time through an ontology, rather than by fine-tuning a prover. LAMP coordinates a Planner, Builder, and Verifier with Model Context Protocol based access to a domain-specific CoW ontology. In a suite of 90 CoW theorems that span all eight modules and three difficulty levels, LAMP synthesizes verified proofs for 96.7% of theorems, substantially exceeding both an unscaffolded baseline and existing specialized provers. An ablation shows that removing LAMP's tool-grounded architecture or its Planner/Builder separation each cost roughly 12 percentage points, even with the backbone model held fixed.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 20%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Math

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

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

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify.
  • Interactive theorem provers such as Lean 4 address this by accepting only kernel-checked proofs; however, their reach is bounded by the formalized knowledge available.
  • While Mathlib, a repository of formalized Lean 4 theorems that covers diverse mathematical areas, certain specialized areas remain underrepresented; notably, the domain of Combinatorics on Words (CoW).

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We present two contributions.
  • First, we introduce a Lean 4 formalization of CoW containing eight modules and 93 declarations of core definitions and foundational lemmas.
  • Second, we present LAMP, a multi-agent framework that synthesizes kernel-verified Lean 4 proofs by providing explicit, structured domain knowledge at inference time through an ontology, rather than by fine-tuning a prover.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Second, we present LAMP, a multi-agent framework that synthesizes kernel-verified Lean 4 proofs by providing explicit, structured domain knowledge at inference time through an ontology, rather than by fine-tuning a prover.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • 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.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

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