Commit Graph

4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
claude-bot 04d827b3b3 Split pipeline into real bench (exercises) vs library candidates (body)
Restructures the textbook pipeline around the distinction the body-derived
dataset had been blurring: a bench should be actual unsolved problems, and
a reusable premise library should only ever contain statements that have
really been proven, the way Mathlib itself works.

- library_candidates/goodman-1.6.jsonl (renamed from datasets/goodman-1.6.jsonl):
  the book's own Theorem/Proposition/Lemma/Corollary claims from the main
  text. Not bench targets -- premises waiting to be proven once via a real
  lean-bench run, then assembled into the reusable library by
  build_library.py (which already only keeps success:true entries with
  their checked proof, unchanged by this commit).
- datasets/goodman-1.6-exercises.jsonl (new): the actual bench, sourced
  from the book's Exercises 1.6 block via two new scripts,
  textbook/extract_exercises.py (slices the Exercises block, lists its
  numbered items, drops a known false-positive class where a wrapped
  cross-reference like "...Proposition\n1.6.19." looks like a real
  exercise heading) and textbook/formalize_exercises.py (LLM step, given
  both the exercises and body text together since many exercises say
  "Prove Proposition N.N.N" instead of restating the claim).
- Both formalize.py and formalize_exercises.py's validate() now enforce
  that every checklist item is covered by at least one output entry
  (included or explicitly excluded with a reason); formalize_exercises.py
  did not have this yet and a first real run silently dropped 7 of 15
  checklist items with no trace before this was added.
- All 12 model-produced exercise entries needed real fixes before commit,
  the same review pass applied to the body pilot: 3 exercises literally
  ask to prove an already-stated body claim (Exercise 1.6.1 -> Proposition
  1.6.7, 1.6.2 -> Proposition 1.6.9, 1.6.7 -> Proposition 1.6.18, 1.6.9 ->
  Corollary 1.6.20, 1.6.15 -> Lemma 1.6.26) and now reuse that claim's own
  already-checked statement verbatim instead of an independently
  re-derived (and in one case strictly weaker) restatement; two entries
  (1.6.2, 1.6.11) had literal math prose like "I(m, n)" or
  "gcd(n1,...,nk)" leaked into the statement field, which is not valid
  Lean; several had untyped/ambiguous gcd or Prime usage fixed the same
  way the earlier body fixes were (Nat.Prime, IsCoprime, explicit casts,
  IsGreatest instead of max on a Set); and Exercise 1.6.12 part (a) turned
  out to be a discussion question whose unconditional-identity reading is
  actually false (6, 10, 15 are jointly coprime but not pairwise coprime),
  so it was moved to the excluded file with a reason instead of committed
  as a false theorem.
- Definitions can now be real, compiled Lean, not only JSON metadata:
  Definition 1.6.22 (gcd of a list of integers, previously a null
  placeholder since no single Mathlib constant matches it) now has a real
  hand-written `def IsGCDOfList`, and textbook/build_definitions.py
  compiles any manifest's non-null lean_code entries into
  lib/Definitions.lean. goodman-1-6-24 (library) and the new
  goodman-1-6-ex-11-b/c, goodman-1-6-ex-12 (bench) all now use
  IsGCDOfList instead of repeating an inline existential.
- textbook/README.md rewritten around the two-track design and records
  how this is meant to connect to lean-agent's eventual goal-directed
  proof search against the growing library (not yet built).
- New tests for extract_exercises.py and build_definitions.py; full
  local suite still green (18/19, the one failure is the pre-existing,
  unrelated lean_agent import error in test_dataset.py).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017vbLFFJiHSZqGZHEkjvG5x
2026-09-18 19:27:40 +00:00
claude-bot 5aa048593c Note goodman-1.6 dataset now fully elaborates (test push)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017vbLFFJiHSZqGZHEkjvG5x
2026-09-18 17:03:07 +00:00
claude-bot caedf2e6f4 Add textbook formalization pipeline (extract -> LLM formalize -> elaboration check -> library assembly)
- extract_section.py: slice a book section out of a pdftotext -layout dump and
  list its labeled Theorem/Proposition/Lemma/Corollary/Definition items.
- formalize.py: LLM-formalize a section into Lean 4 candidate statements
  (preferring Mathlib vocabulary) plus a definitions manifest.
- check_statements.py: elaboration-only sanity check against a real
  Mathlib-backed Lean project (must run outside the Cowork sandbox, which has
  no Lean toolchain and can't run macOS binaries anyway).
- build_library.py: assemble solved lean-bench results into a reusable .lean
  file, reusing each winning proof verbatim.
- llm.py: standalone OpenAI-compatible chat client + .env loader, kept
  independent of lean_agent so this pipeline works without it installed.
- Source PDFs and raw/layout text dumps are gitignored (copyrighted material);
  only code and the final short Lean statement datasets are tracked.
2026-09-17 17:04:19 +00:00
codex-bot 99638be637 Implement provider-neutral Lean reasoning and evaluation foundation 2026-09-15 19:15:05 +08:00