There's a lot of criticism of Mistral being unable to compete with large model, and that's fair. But I think it dismisses what Mistral is actually doing, which is making specific capabilities available at high quality in tiny models.
I do a lot of OCR, file analysis, stuff like that. I use Mistral for that. I put 100$ into my account, and it just runs for a year without any worries about the amount of requests I make, because the cost is minuscule. That's valuable, even if it doesn't compete with Opus 4.8.
But how does it compete on OCR? I find that having good quality at a cheap price is more niche than having the best quality at 10x the cheap price, because for most use cases you want to pay a bit more if it saves you mistakes later.
It seems to heavily depend on what exactly you're transcribing, the performance/quality between them is really uneven. Some models work really well for old cursive but then fail reading 8-bit segment LCD digital fonts, vice-versa or any combination out there.
Basically, to find the answer you really need your own benchmark you run with real examples from what you want to do. Basically the same goes for anything ML nowadays as the public benchmarks cannot really be trusted to give you any sort of indication on how we'll it'd work for you.
It's really good. I didn't do any type of statistical evaluation or comparison to other models, but it's so good that it doesn't matter to me if there's an option that might be even better.
Big AI labs aren't making money. They're buying revenue. Sure, the product is amazing, but it wouldn't be as amazing if offered at cost - which is exactly where "good enough" smaller and specialized models will survive.
And yet, they are highly unprofitable. Yes, people pay for the API because it's a frontier model, but it's a frontier model because of billions of capex that are (so far) not getting recouped. And if they stopped the capex on new frontier models, that API revenue would walk off to whoever else does. If, at some point, the entire industry decides to stop burning money and start squeezing customers, that will be the test of which business models actually survive, and in that scenario I am bullish on scrappier shops that can't possible compete on all fronts now.
I'm not sure the "a year of document processing for under 100 USD/y" is such as great thing as you think it is (at least not for European competitiveness)... It means Mistral is essentially setting a revenue ceiling very low. OCR is a commodity at this point, and open source models, AWS, etc already do it out of the box.
Plus, you can't really build loyalty on a 100 USD/Y price tag. Since there are no switching costs holding them back, those buyers will leave the moment somebody offers a lower rate. An easily cloned, low cost tool with zero customer lock in is not a business. It is a feature.
That might sound great for the buyer (you), but it is a terrible strategy if we want a European company to compete long term against global competitors on actual product merit instead of just regulatory arbitrage.
well all commodities are like this. replace AI with milk, or plastic. It's easy for me to just move to different milk provider, this does not mean that milk industry is not a business.
And yes, its good that "its good for buyer" after all we do business so that living would be nicer, not the other way around (live to do business)
There are three different supermarkets in my neighborhood but they all sell milk from the same two suppliers. It would actually be quite difficult for me to turn to a third brand.
It does mean that the milk industry is a low value add commodity business where suppliers compete primarily on price and only survive due to protectionism and subsidies.
Food is important for national security so we should subsidize it, but it's a cost center. It'll never drive growth.
If that's what Mistral is aiming for, it would probably be better to give up now.
In some sense all commodities are "important for national security". Generic drugs are important for national security. Computer technology is important for national security. Im not sure what we arguing about. Im saying that AI is good thing to have like other commodity and it should net be one provider worth gazillion money.
How we got from competition to assuming subsidies is beyond me.
There are a whole lot of commodity businesses that flourishes and that are profitable. It's true, that, yes, they will not have huge margins.
Grocery stores are like that - some of their suppliers might be subsidised but they are not, and many places they operate with typical margins in the 2% range. Discount supermarkets in the UK are operating on around 0.7% margins.
They are still huge, profitable businesses.
And they are examples of what happens when markets work.
How is that different from any other model provider, though? I used to use Anthropic for 100% of my code. Now I use GLM 5.2 for half of it, and as soon as something better appears, I'll use that.
This is nice work, but I found the bug finding example to be weird:
> One such bug was in the sign function for zigzag decoding of the datrs/varinteger library. On input Std.U64.MAX, the expression (value + 1) overflowed, causing crashes in debug mode and silent corruption in release mode—an edge case that testing and fuzzing would typically miss.
In what way would this boundary condition case be considered something that "testing [...] would typically miss"? It's certainly something that bad tests would miss or not think about, but I find that (a) careful people and (b) ML coding systems are actually really good at "oh, I should test the extreme values". Especially for things that parse user input.
I'm curious if they found other bugs that were more interesting, but found them too hard to explain quickly.
particularly "and fuzzing", yea. fuzzing generally does intentionally explore boundary values, from what I've seen. for an encoding library like this, I think it's fair to say that fuzzing is a baseline expectation for any decent code, and it almost certainly would've caught this in seconds.
--- edit
concretely, I made a very simple round-trip test with proptest, and got dozens of failures and this in less than a second:
thread 'signed_round_trip' (50528) panicked at tests/test.rs:72:1:
Test failed: attempt to multiply with overflow.
minimal failing input: value = 4611686018427387904
successes: 2
local rejects: 0
global rejects: 0
Yes, it's basic QA. If tests missed this kind of thing, they would be of much more limited use than we generally expect them to be. It raises questions about the authors' background.
Every property-based testing system (invented ca. 1980) will explore boundary values. The semantics (or lack thereof) of C and C++ can make this difficult to actually test for because the compiler is allowed to say "test passed" to any input leading to UB.
Property based testing is good at generating boundary values for inputs. But for any more complicated piece of code getting boundary value coverage of interior values is an open problem that requires instrumentation feedback to understand branch coverage and value coverage of the code that got tested. It’s not an easy thing at all.
>One such bug was in the sign function for zigzag decoding of the datrs/varinteger library. On input Std.U64.MAX, the expression (value + 1) overflowed, causing crashes in debug mode and silent corruption in release mode—an edge case that testing and fuzzing would typically miss.
it seems probably correct, as there's an identical issue filed on that repo a week before this was published: https://github.com/datrs/varinteger/issues/8 (is this a leanstral employee? they have almost no info and only very sparse activity. or did leanstral perhaps just pick up this issue?)
I don't think I'd consider that such a smashing success that it's worth bringing up as the sole example tbh. though automated detection is certainly useful. or is this a noteworthy accomplishment for this sub-field? I haven't played with proof-writing LLMs, but given the paucity of training data I wouldn't be surprised if they're a bit rough compared to general coding.
The problem with proof is that it’s a bit hard sometimes to convey the value. The point is not to find bugs, but to prove that there are none (of a certain class; under certain assumptions; etc). But it’s a hard story to sell, so often the marketing is around “look at this bug we found”.
Halfway thru the article it shows a comparison with several frontier-ish LLMs. But they're all from half a year ago. "Our new model is better than all these Chinese models from 3 generations ago" is pretty funny to me.
Can this be useful for someone with no prior knowledge of lean? I'd like to verify a software I'm working on, but I have no experience in formal verification. Can I get useful result with the spec, the code and some (limited) learning time on my side?
You need to understand the bits you are trying to prove, but not the full proof. It's more like reading haskell types than math, even though the vocabulary is heavily inspired by math.
Read this section of the article “ Bug Discovery: Finding Hidden Flaws”, they appear to have used the model on open source Rust to find issues starting with just the Rust code.
You might be also able to have conversations that help you write the Lean to verify your application, but I’m not certain about this.
I think at minimum you would need to understand which theorems you want to prove about your code, and how to express those in Lean. Otherwise you won’t be able to verify the output. It may have proven some statement that is machine checked to be correct, but it’s pointless if you don’t understand what that statement means and if it covers what you want to verify about your code.
I've gone from zero knowledge of lean4 to the point where I'm doing most of my coding with it in ~6 months, and this was dramatically helped by how facile the AI assist is: it's remarkable how consistently fluent models are in lean4. I've found this to be true of the near frontier and smaller local models alike, LLMs just seem to get lean4.
I still have a ways to go before calling myself a lean4 expert, but I don't need assist to get useful programs anymore.
The ability to start with very little knowledge and still be able to trust parts you don't fully understand is a real unlock on learning progress: it's both practical and motivating to get useful programs you can rely on with incomplete knowledge, it sort of drags you in. You're bounded by the subset of the language that describes your axiom and proposition surface, not the subset that describes the intermediate steps. Over time as your ambition goes up, you need to understand more to do more things, but you can operate safely at level N+1 in a sense.
It's also just a delightful programming language irrespective of its theorem proving role, and it's remarkably fast. I've got it bolted to io_uring and in many cases it blows the ass off of C++ with libuv or Rust with Tokio. Now and again you'll see some huge tail at the p99.99 latency or something and you go make a number fixed width or something, but you have to tune C++ and Rust too.
Curious that they are pitching Lean 4 for formal verification. I thought that this was more the domain of Isabelle/HOL and TLA+. At least I would have expected a model trained at using all three. Maybe also Isabell/Isar, which seems preferable for forward derivations in linear algebra. Could anyone shed some light on this?
It is true that Lean has seen relatively little adoption in software verification compared to e.g. Isabelle and Rocq (previously Coq). Even Agda has had more traction in that domain.
However, Lean is currently gaining significant momentum as an alternative, particularly due to its capabilities as a general-purpose functional programming language.
Personally, I think something based on Hoare or separation logic would be more practical as it'd be easier to align requirements with specifications. I like Dafny and F*.
Was fun to see their developers make nods to Le Chaton Fat in the announcements for this on Twitter.
I suspect a true "big new general-purpose" model is around the corner from them, whether or not they were in on Le Chaton Fat for real. They've mentioned it after the media circus. Hopefully more creatively named than just "Large 4".
Try out Leanstral 1.5 on the latest version of OpenATP! OpenATP is an open-source Python package and CLI for agentic automated theorem provers. It natively supports running provers locally in Docker or remotely in Modal sandboxes.
Earnest question: any recommendation to not come off this way in forums?
I created this tool for my own research and have found it really helpful to benchmark different automated theorem provers (my experience so far has been that Claude Code + Codex still out-perform Leanstral). My genuine aim is to share that usefulness with others, not self promote!
Self promotion is fine here typically, I’d say the main thing here is it sounds like a tv ad. Try X! And not in response to a question or stated problem.
Here’s a tip, imagine how you’d comment if this wasn’t your library but just one that you knew and used. Would you have commented at all? Would you explain why you’d use it, how, the direct and clear relevance to the article?
Take that and add in that it’s your library.
If you wouldn’t comment otherwise, you’re just advertising a thing where people are. If you would, you’re contributing to a conversation with something you built.
Oh and there’s lots of open source products that have most useful features paid saas or licensed, or it’s an oss library that only talks to a paid saas thing.
Edit - the other thing you can do is just call out the comment at the start as self promotion or a plug, I think your work is more directly relevant here and doesn’t need that but it’s another approach when it’s a bit more tangential. That’s better here than other communities.
This is how it's often done, but personally, I'd prefer if the information "With this comment I want to promote something I made" came first, so that people who aren't interested can skip it.
You know, I was going to reply to the person who called out your comment as an "ad", because I visited the site and it's actually relevant to the topic under discussion (Leanstral). And not even selling anything.
My thought was: Good job, this is tasteful personable marketing for a product with genuine value. I wish more marketing were done this way. So I think it's totally fine to be talking about the cool thing you're working on. I for one found it interesting and added to the discussion.
Your comment is helpful, useful, and relevant. Please keep going.
Just my 2c, but maybe your original post could’ve been written in a less promotional / less excited way. It looked a little like spam at _first_ glance.
I don't know why but sometime ago, HN started resembling reddit, and there seems to be just widespread fear/jealousy/cynicism towards anybody advertising their work or services even, I don't think there was anything wrong with your post, it was informative.
Probably the most annoying part about Reddit and HN and X (although it let you mute people) is the abundance of "expert" opinions from people who aren't experts at all. You just end up with a bunch of false signals that you shouldn't even be listening to.
all in all I say invest in spreading the words via other channels, maybe even X is better and even the right time zone (besides US working hours, I find European time the worst statistically for sharing your work).
Have you ever been downvoted for calling 'dupe?' I once was downvoted after calling dupe on a link posted thrice. HN is an interesting place to hang out, that's for sure.
It would be nice if special purpose models provided a some diverse examples of exactly the input required to get its expected performance on a mix of problem types. Maybe also a document intended for LLMs to read that advises on prompt construction.
I've found that you can get wildly different quality results from these sorts of models due to seemingly insignificant differences in prompt construction. It would be much easier to guess at what it wants if I could just see some RL transcripts -- and so the model author is in a much better position to provide initial advice.
Identify bugs in [datrs/varinteger](https://github.com/datrs/varinteger) . Do NOT look at the GitHub issues, just inspect the source
It also found the bug that Leanstral 1.5 found and the authors highlighted. I think this bug wasn't especially tricky; it's just a case of too few eyeballs on this repo.
Congrats on the release regardless! Excited for the direction Lean + automated AI proofs are headed.
> It also found the bug that Leanstral 1.5 found and the authors highlighted
This is a little bit like someone pointing the moon and you look at the finger.
The formal proof domain goes way beyond just finding bugs.
It has tons of usages in term of functional safety, protocol validation, cryptography, etc...
The fact Mistral tackle this kind of problem is both smart and not so surprising.
Smart because it is niche enough that they do not front face the big competitors (yet).
No so surprising because the French labs have a well known and long time expertise with formal proof tools (Coq and all its Ocaml associated tools). It has been historically mainly pushed by the aerospace and train industries (Airbus, Dassault, Alsthom).
Given that they directly compare to GPT-5.5 in their documentation. This comes off as puppy kicking to me. They state it is not SOTA, even IN its domain!
Honestly: Think twice before dragging your firm into what you say.
Disclaimer: I speak for myself. Not any firm I am associated with.
I applaud mistral's efforts but reading this release made me realize that Europe is far far behind and that once the gap is solidified I don't think its recoverable in the same way Canada's brain drain had on its economy
The best and the brightest from Europe have no incentive to build in Europe when they can do it in America and be compensated and treated far better
At this point I wouldn’t move to USA if you paid me double the salary. There are more things in life than money.
That said, if (or when) the progress of the LLMs flatten out, then I think even Europe can catch up in a few years. If they don’t, and that seems unlikely to me, if the required compute needs to increase at the rate it does today, then I am not sure any of us can predict where society ends up.
I think there is a non-zero chance that Europe stumbled into an optimal scenario where they avoided all the losses incurred by US companies, but still benefit from the research. Having said that, doing so would require moving at the exact right time.
I wouldn't underestimate the capability of European companies to build rock-solid industries on established science. We may not be the pioneers wedging new product categories into the market, but there are millions of highly qualified people here, working hard every day.
For example, Mercedes autonomous driving team is moving ahead at glacial speed, but the system they have so far is excellent and reliable. I'd prefer that over the sad joke Tesla is promoting any day.
I like to make less money and pay more taxes for higher quality of life reasons. Sure I could go to America and have more many in my pocket by eating mcdonalds every day, but I'd rather eat amazing high quality food and have less money in my pocket.
There's a lot of criticism of Mistral being unable to compete with large model, and that's fair. But I think it dismisses what Mistral is actually doing, which is making specific capabilities available at high quality in tiny models.
I do a lot of OCR, file analysis, stuff like that. I use Mistral for that. I put 100$ into my account, and it just runs for a year without any worries about the amount of requests I make, because the cost is minuscule. That's valuable, even if it doesn't compete with Opus 4.8.
i would argue it is more valuable
But how does it compete on OCR? I find that having good quality at a cheap price is more niche than having the best quality at 10x the cheap price, because for most use cases you want to pay a bit more if it saves you mistakes later.
It seems to heavily depend on what exactly you're transcribing, the performance/quality between them is really uneven. Some models work really well for old cursive but then fail reading 8-bit segment LCD digital fonts, vice-versa or any combination out there.
Basically, to find the answer you really need your own benchmark you run with real examples from what you want to do. Basically the same goes for anything ML nowadays as the public benchmarks cannot really be trusted to give you any sort of indication on how we'll it'd work for you.
It's really good. I didn't do any type of statistical evaluation or comparison to other models, but it's so good that it doesn't matter to me if there's an option that might be even better.
curious if you tried local LLM models for OCR, like a Gemma4, or your volume is too much for that
Haven't tried them in a while, so I can't comment on current performance.
Stupid Europoors, optimizing for making a good product, instead of optimizing for making as much money as possible /s
big AI labs make so much money because they have a good (amazing) product
Big AI labs aren't making money. They're buying revenue. Sure, the product is amazing, but it wouldn't be as amazing if offered at cost - which is exactly where "good enough" smaller and specialized models will survive.
Anthropic is selling API tokens at 80% margin.
And API is 80% of their business (subscriptions the other 20%)
But they're still not making money (apart from two quarters when they got massive discounts from xAI).
And yet, they are highly unprofitable. Yes, people pay for the API because it's a frontier model, but it's a frontier model because of billions of capex that are (so far) not getting recouped. And if they stopped the capex on new frontier models, that API revenue would walk off to whoever else does. If, at some point, the entire industry decides to stop burning money and start squeezing customers, that will be the test of which business models actually survive, and in that scenario I am bullish on scrappier shops that can't possible compete on all fronts now.
Do they even _make_ actual money? https://isaiprofitable.com/ seems to disagree.
I'm not sure the "a year of document processing for under 100 USD/y" is such as great thing as you think it is (at least not for European competitiveness)... It means Mistral is essentially setting a revenue ceiling very low. OCR is a commodity at this point, and open source models, AWS, etc already do it out of the box.
Plus, you can't really build loyalty on a 100 USD/Y price tag. Since there are no switching costs holding them back, those buyers will leave the moment somebody offers a lower rate. An easily cloned, low cost tool with zero customer lock in is not a business. It is a feature.
That might sound great for the buyer (you), but it is a terrible strategy if we want a European company to compete long term against global competitors on actual product merit instead of just regulatory arbitrage.
well all commodities are like this. replace AI with milk, or plastic. It's easy for me to just move to different milk provider, this does not mean that milk industry is not a business.
And yes, its good that "its good for buyer" after all we do business so that living would be nicer, not the other way around (live to do business)
There are three different supermarkets in my neighborhood but they all sell milk from the same two suppliers. It would actually be quite difficult for me to turn to a third brand.
It does mean that the milk industry is a low value add commodity business where suppliers compete primarily on price and only survive due to protectionism and subsidies.
Food is important for national security so we should subsidize it, but it's a cost center. It'll never drive growth.
If that's what Mistral is aiming for, it would probably be better to give up now.
In some sense all commodities are "important for national security". Generic drugs are important for national security. Computer technology is important for national security. Im not sure what we arguing about. Im saying that AI is good thing to have like other commodity and it should net be one provider worth gazillion money.
How we got from competition to assuming subsidies is beyond me.
There are a whole lot of commodity businesses that flourishes and that are profitable. It's true, that, yes, they will not have huge margins.
Grocery stores are like that - some of their suppliers might be subsidised but they are not, and many places they operate with typical margins in the 2% range. Discount supermarkets in the UK are operating on around 0.7% margins.
They are still huge, profitable businesses.
And they are examples of what happens when markets work.
How is that different from any other model provider, though? I used to use Anthropic for 100% of my code. Now I use GLM 5.2 for half of it, and as soon as something better appears, I'll use that.
This is nice work, but I found the bug finding example to be weird:
> One such bug was in the sign function for zigzag decoding of the datrs/varinteger library. On input Std.U64.MAX, the expression (value + 1) overflowed, causing crashes in debug mode and silent corruption in release mode—an edge case that testing and fuzzing would typically miss.
In what way would this boundary condition case be considered something that "testing [...] would typically miss"? It's certainly something that bad tests would miss or not think about, but I find that (a) careful people and (b) ML coding systems are actually really good at "oh, I should test the extreme values". Especially for things that parse user input.
I'm curious if they found other bugs that were more interesting, but found them too hard to explain quickly.
Maybe it's not something they would "typically miss", but, from proof by existence, it's something they sometimes miss.
It does speak to the benefits of using lean in that you don't need to be clever about the different examples you test.
particularly "and fuzzing", yea. fuzzing generally does intentionally explore boundary values, from what I've seen. for an encoding library like this, I think it's fair to say that fuzzing is a baseline expectation for any decent code, and it almost certainly would've caught this in seconds.
--- edit
concretely, I made a very simple round-trip test with proptest, and got dozens of failures and this in less than a second:
Yes, it's basic QA. If tests missed this kind of thing, they would be of much more limited use than we generally expect them to be. It raises questions about the authors' background.
Because this is garbage PR. That's it.
Every property-based testing system (invented ca. 1980) will explore boundary values. The semantics (or lack thereof) of C and C++ can make this difficult to actually test for because the compiler is allowed to say "test passed" to any input leading to UB.
Property based testing is good at generating boundary values for inputs. But for any more complicated piece of code getting boundary value coverage of interior values is an open problem that requires instrumentation feedback to understand branch coverage and value coverage of the code that got tested. It’s not an easy thing at all.
>One such bug was in the sign function for zigzag decoding of the datrs/varinteger library. On input Std.U64.MAX, the expression (value + 1) overflowed, causing crashes in debug mode and silent corruption in release mode—an edge case that testing and fuzzing would typically miss.
that library is: https://github.com/datrs/varinteger
it seems probably correct, as there's an identical issue filed on that repo a week before this was published: https://github.com/datrs/varinteger/issues/8 (is this a leanstral employee? they have almost no info and only very sparse activity. or did leanstral perhaps just pick up this issue?)
it's a tiny, surprisingly-poorly tested, long-untouched (8y) library: https://github.com/datrs/varinteger/blob/master/tests/test.r... that has about 1k downloads per day: https://crates.io/crates/varinteger [1] which seems rather low.
I don't think I'd consider that such a smashing success that it's worth bringing up as the sole example tbh. though automated detection is certainly useful. or is this a noteworthy accomplishment for this sub-field? I haven't played with proof-writing LLMs, but given the paucity of training data I wouldn't be surprised if they're a bit rough compared to general coding.
1: https://crates.io/crates/varinteger lists it as https://github.com/mafintosh/varinteger-rs which redirects to https://github.com/datrs/varinteger , so despite looking different at a glance it does appear to be the same library
The problem with proof is that it’s a bit hard sometimes to convey the value. The point is not to find bugs, but to prove that there are none (of a certain class; under certain assumptions; etc). But it’s a hard story to sell, so often the marketing is around “look at this bug we found”.
Yes. Most people don’t actually understand what a program proof is - the answer is usually ‘I have very good tests’.
Now, go write the code for an artificial heart , and sleep at night thanks to strong testing !
I would be much more interested in "here is a provably memory safe version of openssl with all its memory safety bugs fixed"
Halfway thru the article it shows a comparison with several frontier-ish LLMs. But they're all from half a year ago. "Our new model is better than all these Chinese models from 3 generations ago" is pretty funny to me.
It’s a 6bn model. Totally different class. I’m more excited about “frontier small language models” tbh.
Agreed, though open weights + relatively small is still headline worthy. This thing really cooks.
Can this be useful for someone with no prior knowledge of lean? I'd like to verify a software I'm working on, but I have no experience in formal verification. Can I get useful result with the spec, the code and some (limited) learning time on my side?
You need to understand the bits you are trying to prove, but not the full proof. It's more like reading haskell types than math, even though the vocabulary is heavily inspired by math.
Read this section of the article “ Bug Discovery: Finding Hidden Flaws”, they appear to have used the model on open source Rust to find issues starting with just the Rust code. You might be also able to have conversations that help you write the Lean to verify your application, but I’m not certain about this.
I think at minimum you would need to understand which theorems you want to prove about your code, and how to express those in Lean. Otherwise you won’t be able to verify the output. It may have proven some statement that is machine checked to be correct, but it’s pointless if you don’t understand what that statement means and if it covers what you want to verify about your code.
I've gone from zero knowledge of lean4 to the point where I'm doing most of my coding with it in ~6 months, and this was dramatically helped by how facile the AI assist is: it's remarkable how consistently fluent models are in lean4. I've found this to be true of the near frontier and smaller local models alike, LLMs just seem to get lean4.
I still have a ways to go before calling myself a lean4 expert, but I don't need assist to get useful programs anymore.
The ability to start with very little knowledge and still be able to trust parts you don't fully understand is a real unlock on learning progress: it's both practical and motivating to get useful programs you can rely on with incomplete knowledge, it sort of drags you in. You're bounded by the subset of the language that describes your axiom and proposition surface, not the subset that describes the intermediate steps. Over time as your ambition goes up, you need to understand more to do more things, but you can operate safely at level N+1 in a sense.
It's also just a delightful programming language irrespective of its theorem proving role, and it's remarkably fast. I've got it bolted to io_uring and in many cases it blows the ass off of C++ with libuv or Rust with Tokio. Now and again you'll see some huge tail at the p99.99 latency or something and you go make a number fixed width or something, but you have to tune C++ and Rust too.
Are you writing general use programs in it, then? Have any good examples?
Curious that they are pitching Lean 4 for formal verification. I thought that this was more the domain of Isabelle/HOL and TLA+. At least I would have expected a model trained at using all three. Maybe also Isabell/Isar, which seems preferable for forward derivations in linear algebra. Could anyone shed some light on this?
It is true that Lean has seen relatively little adoption in software verification compared to e.g. Isabelle and Rocq (previously Coq). Even Agda has had more traction in that domain.
However, Lean is currently gaining significant momentum as an alternative, particularly due to its capabilities as a general-purpose functional programming language.
Personally, I think something based on Hoare or separation logic would be more practical as it'd be easier to align requirements with specifications. I like Dafny and F*.
Discussed the other day:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48738938
Was fun to see their developers make nods to Le Chaton Fat in the announcements for this on Twitter.
I suspect a true "big new general-purpose" model is around the corner from them, whether or not they were in on Le Chaton Fat for real. They've mentioned it after the media circus. Hopefully more creatively named than just "Large 4".
Try out Leanstral 1.5 on the latest version of OpenATP! OpenATP is an open-source Python package and CLI for agentic automated theorem provers. It natively supports running provers locally in Docker or remotely in Modal sandboxes.
GitHub: https://github.com/henryrobbins/open-atp
Docs: https://open-atp.henryrobbins.com
This is an ad.
Earnest question: any recommendation to not come off this way in forums?
I created this tool for my own research and have found it really helpful to benchmark different automated theorem provers (my experience so far has been that Claude Code + Codex still out-perform Leanstral). My genuine aim is to share that usefulness with others, not self promote!
Self promotion is fine here typically, I’d say the main thing here is it sounds like a tv ad. Try X! And not in response to a question or stated problem.
Here’s a tip, imagine how you’d comment if this wasn’t your library but just one that you knew and used. Would you have commented at all? Would you explain why you’d use it, how, the direct and clear relevance to the article?
Take that and add in that it’s your library.
If you wouldn’t comment otherwise, you’re just advertising a thing where people are. If you would, you’re contributing to a conversation with something you built.
Oh and there’s lots of open source products that have most useful features paid saas or licensed, or it’s an oss library that only talks to a paid saas thing.
Edit - the other thing you can do is just call out the comment at the start as self promotion or a plug, I think your work is more directly relevant here and doesn’t need that but it’s another approach when it’s a bit more tangential. That’s better here than other communities.
I like this format:
"I love Lean because <abc>. I found it failed in <xyz> case because <123>. I created a thing <blah> which handles that like this: <ahhh>.
I'd love feedback! It's open source here: "
This is how it's often done, but personally, I'd prefer if the information "With this comment I want to promote something I made" came first, so that people who aren't interested can skip it.
You know, I was going to reply to the person who called out your comment as an "ad", because I visited the site and it's actually relevant to the topic under discussion (Leanstral). And not even selling anything.
My thought was: Good job, this is tasteful personable marketing for a product with genuine value. I wish more marketing were done this way. So I think it's totally fine to be talking about the cool thing you're working on. I for one found it interesting and added to the discussion.
Your comment is helpful, useful, and relevant. Please keep going.
Just my 2c, but maybe your original post could’ve been written in a less promotional / less excited way. It looked a little like spam at _first_ glance.
I don't know why but sometime ago, HN started resembling reddit, and there seems to be just widespread fear/jealousy/cynicism towards anybody advertising their work or services even, I don't think there was anything wrong with your post, it was informative.
Probably the most annoying part about Reddit and HN and X (although it let you mute people) is the abundance of "expert" opinions from people who aren't experts at all. You just end up with a bunch of false signals that you shouldn't even be listening to.
all in all I say invest in spreading the words via other channels, maybe even X is better and even the right time zone (besides US working hours, I find European time the worst statistically for sharing your work).
this is HN, not gwern. relevant ads by authors are ok and actually expected.
Lean is such a wonderful language. So hyped by these releases.
I also submitted the HuggingFace link itself here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48779902
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48738938
Have you ever been downvoted for calling 'dupe?' I once was downvoted after calling dupe on a link posted thrice. HN is an interesting place to hang out, that's for sure.
It would be nice if special purpose models provided a some diverse examples of exactly the input required to get its expected performance on a mix of problem types. Maybe also a document intended for LLMs to read that advises on prompt construction.
I've found that you can get wildly different quality results from these sorts of models due to seemingly insignificant differences in prompt construction. It would be much easier to guess at what it wants if I could just see some RL transcripts -- and so the model author is in a much better position to provide initial advice.
I gave Codex with GPT-5.5 High this prompt:
It also found the bug that Leanstral 1.5 found and the authors highlighted. I think this bug wasn't especially tricky; it's just a case of too few eyeballs on this repo.Congrats on the release regardless! Excited for the direction Lean + automated AI proofs are headed.
Disclosure: I work at OpenAI.
> It also found the bug that Leanstral 1.5 found and the authors highlighted
This is a little bit like someone pointing the moon and you look at the finger.
The formal proof domain goes way beyond just finding bugs.
It has tons of usages in term of functional safety, protocol validation, cryptography, etc...
The fact Mistral tackle this kind of problem is both smart and not so surprising.
Smart because it is niche enough that they do not front face the big competitors (yet).
No so surprising because the French labs have a well known and long time expertise with formal proof tools (Coq and all its Ocaml associated tools). It has been historically mainly pushed by the aerospace and train industries (Airbus, Dassault, Alsthom).
Given that they directly compare to GPT-5.5 in their documentation. This comes off as puppy kicking to me. They state it is not SOTA, even IN its domain!
Honestly: Think twice before dragging your firm into what you say.
Disclaimer: I speak for myself. Not any firm I am associated with.
Leanstral 1.5 has 6B active parameters. How many parameters does GPT-5.5 have?
We can run Leanstral locally on commodity/consumer hardware. Nuff said.
GPT-5.5 is what, a trillion+ parameter model? I think the insight here is that you can do this with a tiny model.
the mechanism is whats interesting, rather than whether it could do it.
this sounds like a great tool to add to the toolbelt, as part of the "how do we handle all the code output from LLMs" problem
I applaud mistral's efforts but reading this release made me realize that Europe is far far behind and that once the gap is solidified I don't think its recoverable in the same way Canada's brain drain had on its economy
The best and the brightest from Europe have no incentive to build in Europe when they can do it in America and be compensated and treated far better
At this point I wouldn’t move to USA if you paid me double the salary. There are more things in life than money.
That said, if (or when) the progress of the LLMs flatten out, then I think even Europe can catch up in a few years. If they don’t, and that seems unlikely to me, if the required compute needs to increase at the rate it does today, then I am not sure any of us can predict where society ends up.
I think there is a non-zero chance that Europe stumbled into an optimal scenario where they avoided all the losses incurred by US companies, but still benefit from the research. Having said that, doing so would require moving at the exact right time.
I wouldn't underestimate the capability of European companies to build rock-solid industries on established science. We may not be the pioneers wedging new product categories into the market, but there are millions of highly qualified people here, working hard every day.
For example, Mercedes autonomous driving team is moving ahead at glacial speed, but the system they have so far is excellent and reliable. I'd prefer that over the sad joke Tesla is promoting any day.
Sure some people like to make less money and pay more taxes for ideological reasons. I respect that.
I like to make less money and pay more taxes for higher quality of life reasons. Sure I could go to America and have more many in my pocket by eating mcdonalds every day, but I'd rather eat amazing high quality food and have less money in my pocket.
Fortunately for Europe, the US is doing its best to make itself both an undesirable and unavailable immigration target.
treated far better != earn more money