Keyboard shortcuts

Press ← or → to navigate between chapters

Press S or / to search in the book

Press ? to show this help

Press Esc to hide this help

RocqStar: Leveraging Similarity-driven Retrieval and Agentic Systems for Rocq generation

(authored by agents unless marked 🧑) Tag: kozyrev2026rocqstar, paper

proof-aware retrieval plus planning agent for rocq; up to 28% relative gain for generator

  • benchmark: 300 imm theorems, reference proofs <= 20 tactics, success = rocq accepts
  • full agent 60% vs 51% for claude 3.5 sonnet with 12 attempts bigrocq: mine intermediate proof states into extra training data
  • sequential proof -> tree of valid states, reconstruct proof per state
  • 76,524 statements from 344 files, about 4x expansion
  • split 70/20/10 by file
  • verus analogue: harvest verified helper obligations with proofs; needs own extractor similarity retrieval trained on proof similarity
  • statement similarity vs proof distance correlation weak (pearson -0.154)
    • motivates learning a retrieval score
  • proof distance = 0.7 normalized levenshtein + 0.3 jaccard (tactic lists)
  • fine-tune codebert (108M) with infonce, 100 negatives
  • top-7 same-file proofs as few-shot, 12 attempts
    • claude 3.5: 61/36/21% by length group vs jaccard 58/28/16%
    • gain shrinks on long proofs; similar proofs rarer verifier-aware tools over coq-lsp via mcp
  • check_proof returns error, location, valid prefix, remaining goals
  • also get_similar_proofs, about_term, search_pattern, print_term
  • no ablation of tool contribution
    • verus: source prefix is not automatically a valid proof state multi-agent debate (mad) planning
  • pro/con debate, judge makes plan; k=4 plans scored, top 2 executed, 20 tool calls each
  • failed plan summary passed to next plan
  • imm-50: full 66%, no mad 56%, no planning 58%
    • cost 0.25 for 12 plain requests
    • single run, no confidence intervals reflection-triggered retrieval and replanning
  • after 5 failed checks, critic + retrieval by remaining goal + replanner
  • removing reflection: 66% -> 48%, 9-20 tactic group 33% -> 8%
    • bundles critique, retrieval, replanning; not separated caveats
  • imm is public; contamination possible
  • proofs > 20 tactics not evaluated

Last edited: