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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.28841 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.28841/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 31 of its 53 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Mathematical reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/mathematical-reasoning/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [Educational agents and math problem solving](https://mlsanity.com/agents/educational-agents-and-math-problem-solving/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 31)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.15626/) (2023)
- [Generative Language Modeling for Automated Theorem Proving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03393/) (2020)
- [Draft, Sketch, and Prove: Guiding Formal Theorem Provers with Informal Proofs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.12283/) (2022)
- [DeepSeek-Prover-V2: Advancing Formal Mathematical Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning for Subgoal Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.21801/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-Prover: Advancing Theorem Proving in LLMs through Large-Scale Synthetic Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14333/) (2024)
- [HyperTree Proof Search for Neural Theorem Proving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11491/) (2022)
- [DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5: Harnessing Proof Assistant Feedback for Reinforcement Learning and Monte-Carlo Tree Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08152/) (2024)
- [ProofNet: Autoformalizing and Formally Proving Undergraduate-Level Mathematics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12433/) (2023)
- [Kimina-Prover Preview: Towards Large Formal Reasoning Models with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11354/) (2025)
- [PutnamBench: Evaluating Neural Theorem-Provers on the Putnam Mathematical Competition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.11214/) (2024)
- [Goedel-Prover-V2: Scaling Formal Theorem Proving with Scaffolded Data Synthesis and Self-Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.03613/) (2025)
- [Formal Mathematics Statement Curriculum Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.01344/) (2022)
- [Goedel-Prover: A Frontier Model for Open-Source Automated Theorem Proving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.07640/) (2025)
- [Proof Artifact Co-training for Theorem Proving with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.06203/) (2021)
- [Lean Workbook: A large-scale Lean problem set formalized from natural language math problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.03847/) (2024)
- [Baldur: Whole-Proof Generation and Repair with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.04910/) (2023)
- [LEGO-Prover: Neural Theorem Proving with Growing Libraries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.00656/) (2023)
- [Lean-STaR: Learning to Interleave Thinking and Proving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10040/) (2024)
- [Lean Copilot: Large Language Models as Copilots for Theorem Proving in Lean](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12534/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Deep Learning for Theorem Proving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.09939/) (2024)
- [FormalMATH: Benchmarking Formal Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.02735/) (2025)
- [miniCTX: Neural Theorem Proving with (Long-)Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03350/) (2024)
- [InternLM2.5-StepProver: Advancing Automated Theorem Proving via Critic-Guided Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.15700/) (2024)
- [Prover Agent: An Agent-Based Framework for Formal Mathematical Proofs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.19923/) (2025)
- [Ax-Prover: A Deep Reasoning Agentic Framework for Theorem Proving in Mathematics and Quantum Physics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.12787/) (2025)
- [LeanExplore: A search engine for Lean 4 declarations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11085/) (2025)
- [LeanGeo: Formalizing Competitional Geometry problems in Lean](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.14644/) (2025)
- [TaoBench: Do Automated Theorem Prover LLMs Generalize Beyond MathLib?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.12744/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [VALG: An Agentic System for ML Theory Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13060/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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 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.