Neural Theorem Proving (NTP) employs Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate formal proofs in proof assistants. While LLMs have achieved relatively remarkable success in informal reasoning tasks using natural languages, the transition to mechanized formal theorem proving presents persistent challenges. Mechanized proof languages often contain many syntactic constructs and diverse, specialized proof tactics, which facilitate expert use but have no direct counterpart in informal mathematical proofs. These prover-specific idioms represent an additional burden for LLM-based NTPs that might be otherwise successful in generating informal proofs. Seeking to bridge this gap between formal proof construction and informal reasoning, in order to better facilitate NTP, this work approaches these challenges from a language design perspective. We look at common reasoning patterns in informal proofs and in existing mechanized proofs, and design Minilang (formally named Isabelle/Minilang), a minimalist proof language that captures these reasoning patterns. In contrast to proof languages (informal and formal) that often feature a large collection of operations with unclear semantic boundaries, Minilang is deliberately kept minimalist – its core design comprises only 10 proof operations, each with clear semantic distinctions. We further develop a rule-based translator from Isabelle’s proof language (Isar) to Minilang, translating ∼340,000 existing Isabelle proofs with an ∼85% success rate. Using this translated corpus, we finetune two LLMs to compare machine learning performance on Minilang versus the original Isar language. Experiments show Minilang benefits the two LLMs by improving the pass@1 success rate on the PISA benchmark by up to 20/29 percentage points in comparison to the Isar-based LLMs w/wo Sledgehammer. The pass@1 rate reaches 69.1%, exceeding the prior work Baldur’s pass@64 (65.7%); the pass@8 rate reaches 79.2%, exceeding the state-of-the-art on PISA (71.0%) achieved by Magnushammer.

Foundational verification considers the functional correctness of programming languages with formalized semantics and uses proof assistants (e.g., Coq, Isabelle) to certify proofs. The need for verifying complex programs compels it to involve expressive Separation Logics (SLs) that exceed the scopes of well-studied automated proof theories, e.g., symbolic heap. Consequently, automation of SL in foundational verification relies heavily on ad-hoc heuristics that lack a systematic meta-theory and face scalability issues. To mitigate the gap, we propose a theory to specify SL predicates using abstract algebras including functors, homomorphisms, and modules over rings. Based on this theory, we develop a generic SL automation algorithm to reason about any data structures that can be characterized by these algebras. In addition, we also present algorithms for automatically instantiating the algebraic models to real data structures. The instantiation works compositionally, reusing the algebraic models of component structures and preserving their data abstractions. Case studies on formalized imperative semantics show our algorithm can instantiate the algebraic models automatically for a variety of complex data structures. Experimental results indicate the automatically instantiated reasoners from our generic theory show similar results to the state-of-the-art systems made of specifically crafted reasoning rules. The presented theories, proofs, and the verification framework are formalized in Isabelle/HOL.