QED in Context: An Observation Study of Proof Assistant Users

Interactive theorem provers, or proof assistants, are important tools across many areas of computer science and mathematics, but even experts find them challenging to use effectively. To improve their design, we need a deeper, user-centric understanding of proof assistant usage. We present the results of an observation study of proof assistant users. We use contextual inquiry methodology, observing 30 participants doing their everyday work in Rocq and Lean. We qualitatively analyze their experiences to surface four observations: that proof writers iterate on their proofs by reacting to and incorporating feedback from the proof assistant; that proof progress often involves challenging conversations with the proof assistant; that proofs are constructed in consultation with a wide array of external resources; and that proof writers are guided by design considerations that go beyond "getting to QED." Our documentation of these themes clarifies what proof assistant usage looks like currently and identifies potential opportunities that researchers should consider when working to improve the usability of proof assistants.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
Published
2025-04-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3720426
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Logic, programming, and type systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.48
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

QED in Context: An Observation Study of Proof Assistant Users

Andrew J. Head, Jessica Shi, Harrison Goldstein, Benjamin C. Pierce et al.
1 citations
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
Logic, programming, and type systems
2.48
article

QED in Context: An Observation Study of Proof Assistant Users

Andrew J. Head, Jessica Shi, Harrison Goldstein, Benjamin C. Pierce, Cassia Torczon
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Interactive theorem provers, or proof assistants, are important tools across many areas of computer science and mathematics, but even experts find them challenging to use effectively. To improve their design, we need a deeper, user-centric understanding of proof assistant usage. We present the results of an observation study of proof assistant users. We use contextual inquiry methodology, observing 30 participants doing their everyday work in Rocq and Lean. We qualitatively analyze their experiences to surface four observations: that proof writers iterate on their proofs by reacting to and incorporating feedback from the proof assistant; that proof progress often involves challenging conversations with the proof assistant; that proofs are constructed in consultation with a wide array of external resources; and that proof writers are guided by design considerations that go beyond "getting to QED." Our documentation of these themes clarifies what proof assistant usage looks like currently and identifies potential opportunities that researchers should consider when working to improve the usability of proof assistants.

Proceedings of the ACM on Programming LanguagesVol. 9(OOPSLA1)
University of Maryland, College Park (US), University of Pennsylvania (US), Philadelphia University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Logic, programming, and type systems
2.48
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.