Meta and NYU paper proposes the h1 loop, slightly outperforming on PutnamBench at lower cost…
A new paper from Meta and NYU proposes h1, a loop that provides the model with fast Lean feedback and search tools and keeps trying after each verification failure, without presupposing a solution plan and only generating a progress summary before each round begins. Under the same model, h1 slightly outperforms the hand-built Goedel-Architect on PutnamBench, solving 598 problems versus 597, at a cost of $1.08 versus $1.47 per problem. The authors also note that the interface still matters: with Opus 4.8, h1 solved 83 of 100 high-difficulty algebra problems, compared with 63 for Claude Code.
Why read this
AI score 60
The original text provides a direct comparison between a simple loop and a hand-crafted workflow under the same model, as well as the per-problem cost difference, making it easy to judge the actual gains from the workflow design.
Topics
Body
New Meta, NYU paper shows that a simple loop with good Lean tools and more compute matches or beats hand-built theorem-proving workflows.
Systems that write math proofs in Lean, a language a computer can check, increasingly use hand-designed workflows that plan and split up problems. Their gains often come with stronger models or more compute, hiding what the workflow adds.
They built h1, a loop that gives the model fast Lean feedback and search tools, and keeps it working after each failed check. It imposes no plan, only a progress summary before each new round.
With the same model, h1 beat the hand-built Goedel-Architect on PutnamBench, 598 problems to 597, at $1.08 against $1.47 per problem. The interface still matters: with Opus 4.8, h1 solved 83 of 100 hard algebra problems, against 63 for Claude Code.