Goedel-Prover-SFT
Open-source Lean 4 whole-proof generation via a verifier-in-the-loop data flywheel — 57.6% on miniF2F, #1 on PutnamBench at release.
About
Goedel-Prover attacks the core bottleneck in formal theorem proving: there just aren't enough Lean proofs to train on. The team's answer is a data flywheel — autoformalize 1.64 million competition math statements from natural language into Lean 4, prove what you can with the current model, keep only the Lean-verified proofs, and retrain. Eight rounds of this expert iteration produced the SFT model.
The payoff was a new open-source state of the art: 57.6% pass@32 on miniF2F, 7.6 points clear of DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5-RL, plus 7 solved PutnamBench problems for the #1 leaderboard spot and nearly 30K new Lean Workbook proofs. The follow-up V2 line later pushed past 88%, but the SFT release remains the clean, reproducible baseline. Everything is MIT-licensed on GitHub and Hugging Face.
Specs
Context window
Pricing
Free quota
API access
Weights
Released
Benchmarks
- Paper-reported (arXiv 2502.07640): 57.6% Pass@32 on miniF2F, +7.6pp over DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5-RL
- Same paper: 7 PutnamBench problems solved @Pass@512 (#1 on the leaderboard); 29.7K Lean Workbook proofs generated
Provider-reported unless a source says otherwise. Benchmarks are marketing-adjacent by nature — treat them as directional.
Use cases
Trust score — 8/10
Scored 8/10 (TIER verified, metrics-v1). Evidence: peer-style paper (arXiv 2502.07640) from Princeton researchers with miniF2F and PutnamBench results; MIT license confirmed via HF API; open code, weights and datasets (Goedel-LM org); widely cited in the ATP community. Strengths: transparent data flywheel methodology, permissive license, reproducible. Docked for: (1) headline numbers are author-reported; (2) whole-proof generation only — no tactic-level search. License: MIT.
How the trust score is built
Full methodology →- Adoption · stars/downloads, log-scaled vs peers
- 7.0/10
- Maintenance · recency, releases, issue load
- 7.0/10
- Openness · license + docs
- 9.0/10
- Manual review · sanity read + red-flag check
- 8.0/10
- · Princeton researchers; released 2025-02-11
- · Paper arXiv 2502.07640; 57.6% Pass@32 miniF2F, #1 PutnamBench
- · Benchmarks are author-reported