2.1 KiB
2.1 KiB
Design Rationale
A great problem in machine learning is to use ML agents to automatically prove mathematical theorems. This sort of proof necessarily involves search. Compatibility for search is the main reason for creating Pantograph. The Lean 4 LSP interface is not conducive to search. Pantograph is designed with this in mind. It emphasizes the difference between 3 views of a proof:
- Presentation View: The view of a written, polished proof. e.g. Mathlib and math papers are almost always written in this form.
- Search View: The view of a proof exploration trajectory. This is not explicitly supported by Lean LSP.
- Kernel View: The proof viewed as a set of metavariables.
Pantograph enables proof agents to operate on the search view.
Name
The name Pantograph is a pun. It means two things
- A pantograph is an instrument for copying down writing. As an agent explores the vast proof search space, Pantograph records the current state to ensure the proof is sound.
- A pantograph is also an equipment for an electric train. It supplies power to a locomotive. In comparison the (relatively) simple Pantograph software powers theorem proving projects.
Caveats
Pantograph does not exactly mimic Lean LSP's behaviour. That would not grant the flexibility it offers. To support tree search means Pantograph has to act differently from Lean in some times, but never at the sacrifice of soundness.
- When Lean LSP says "don't know how to synthesize placeholder", this indicates the human operator needs to manually move the cursor to the placeholder and type in the correct expression. This error therefore should not halt the proof process, and the placeholder should be turned into a goal.
- When Lean LSP says "unresolved goals", that means a proof cannot finish where
it is supposed to finish at the end of a
byblock. Pantograph will raise the error in this case, since it indicates the termination of a proof search branch. pick_goalorswapwill not work since they run contrary to tree search paradigms.