aiqbench analysis
This research investigates whether Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPA) can effectively guide branch ordering in neural theorem provers using self-supervised signals from one-step Lean transitions. While the model outperforms InfoNCE on ranking diagnostics, it ultimately solves fewer theorems than a standard proposer-based approach, highlighting that accurate short-horizon state prediction is insufficient for long-horizon proof search without addressing proposal quality.
Predicting the Next State Is Not Enough: JEPA Representations for Lean Theorem Proving
arXiv:2609.32908v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Neural theorem provers must both propose tactics and decide which valid successor states to explore. We study whether one-step Lean transitions provide a self-supervised signal for branch ordering. A JEPA-style model predicts latent successor representations and scores only kernel-validated, nonterminal successors generated by a fixed pretrained ByT5 proposer. JEPA achieves higher Top-1 than matched InfoNCE on a same-theorem ranking diagnostic(50.18% versus 31.55%), but averages 282.3 of 987 solved theorems across three seeds versus 308 for proposer ordering, while requiring more tactic checks. In this setting, accurate one-step transition ranking is therefore insufficient as a long-horizon search value. The controlled evaluation separates representation from proposal quality and treats kernel-checked proof completion as the primary endpoint.
Abstract:Neural theorem provers must both propose tactics and decide which valid successor states to explore. We study whether one-step Lean transitions provide a self-supervised signal for branch ordering. A JEPA-style model predicts latent successor representations and scores only kernel-validated, nonterminal successors generated by a fixed pretrained ByT5 proposer. JEPA achieves higher Top-1 than matched InfoNCE on a same-theorem ranking diagnostic(50.18% versus 31.55%), but averages 282.3 of 987 solved theorems across three seeds versus 308 for proposer ordering, while requiring more tactic checks. In this setting, accurate one-step transition ranking is therefore insufficient as a long-horizon search value. The controlled evaluation separates representation from proposal quality and treats kernel-checked proof completion as the primary endpoint.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.32908 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.32908v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.32908 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 208 words
Related coverage

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026

World Models and Yann LeCun’s Bet Against Large Language Models
Quantum Zeitgeist · Jul 17, 2026

The Alignment Problem: Computer Science Meets Analytic Philosophy
LessWrong · Oct 18, 2026
Dyna-2: General Purpose Physical Agents with Hour-Long Autonomy — Jason Ma, Dyna Robotics
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026