Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Mechanic: Sorrifier-Driven Formal Decomposition Workflow for Automated Theorem Proving

Ruichen Qiu, Yichuan Cao, Junqi Liu, Dakai Guo, Xiao-Shan Gao, Lihong Zhi, Ruyong Feng · Mar 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Provisional

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Signal confidence unavailable

Abstract

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents have substantially improved the capabilities of automated theorem proving. However, for problems requiring complex mathematical reasoning, current systems rarely succeed on the first try and must repeatedly modify their proof strategies. Existing approaches for handling failed attempts typically either discard the entire proof and regenerate it from scratch or iteratively fix errors within the proof. The former is inefficient, as it may abandon mostly correct reasoning due to localized errors, while the latter, although preserving prior progress, leads to progressively longer contexts which progressively degrades the model's ability to attend to the remaining unresolved subproblems. To address this dilemma, we propose Mechanic, a novel agent system that employs a sorry-driven formal decomposition strategy. By leveraging the sorry placeholder in Lean to precisely isolate unresolved subgoals while preserving the surrounding verified proof structure, Mechanic extracts each failed subproblem into a clean, self-contained context and resolves it independently. This avoids both the waste of full regeneration and the excessive context length induced by repeated repairs. Experimental results on challenging mathematical competition benchmarks, including IMO 2025 and Putnam 2025, demonstrate that our agent achieves significant advantages in proving efficiency.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents have substantially improved the capabilities of automated theorem proving.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents have substantially improved the capabilities of automated theorem proving.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents have substantially improved the capabilities of automated theorem proving.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents have substantially improved the capabilities of automated theorem proving.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents have substantially improved the capabilities of automated theorem proving.

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents have substantially improved the capabilities of automated theorem proving.

Human Data Lens

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents have substantially improved the capabilities of automated theorem proving.

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

Key Takeaways

  • Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based agents have substantially improved the capabilities of automated theorem proving.
  • However, for problems requiring complex mathematical reasoning, current systems rarely succeed on the first try and must repeatedly modify their proof strategies.
  • Existing approaches for handling failed attempts typically either discard the entire proof and regenerate it from scratch or iteratively fix errors within the proof.

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

Related Papers

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

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.