We perform a thorough analysis of the formal and informal statements in the miniF2F benchmark from the perspective of an AI system that is tasked to participate in a math Olympiad consisting of the problems in miniF2F. In such setting, the model has to read and comprehend the problems in natural language, formalize them in Lean language, then proceed with proving the problems, and it will get credit for each problem if the formal proof corresponds to the original informal statement presented to the model. Our evaluation results reveal that the best accuracy of such pipeline can be about 36% using the SoTA models in the literature, considerably lower than the individual SoTA accuracies, 97% and 69% reported in the autoformalization and theorem proving literature. Analyzing the failure modes, we trace back a considerable portion of this drop to discrepancies between the formal and informal statements for more than half of the problems in miniF2F. We proceed with correcting all the errors, discrepancies and simplifications in formal and informal statements, and present the miniF2F-v2 with fully verified formal and informal statements and proofs. Evaluating the full theorem proving pipeline on miniF2F-v2 leads to the best accuracy of 70%, a significant improvement from the 40% on the original miniF2F, yet indicating considerable misalignment between the autoformalization models and theorem provers. Our deep analysis suggests that a higher quality benchmark can help the community better evaluate progress in the field of formal reasoning and also better diagnose the failure and success modes of autoformalization and theorem proving models.

We perform a thorough analysis of the formal and informal statements in the miniF2F benchmark from the perspective of an AI system that is tasked to participate in a math Olympiad consisting of the problems in miniF2F. In such setting, the model has to read and comprehend the problems in natural language, formalize them in Lean language, then proceed with proving the problems, and it will get credit for each problem if the formal proof corresponds to the original informal statement presented to the model. Our evaluation results reveal that the best accuracy of such pipeline can be about 36% using the SoTA models in the literature, considerably lower than the individual SoTA accuracies, 97% and 69% reported in the autoformalization and theorem proving literature. Analyzing the failure modes, we trace back a considerable portion of this drop to discrepancies between the formal and informal statements for more than half of the problems in miniF2F. We proceed with correcting all the errors, discrepancies and simplifications in formal and informal statements, and present the with fully verified formal and informal statements and proofs. Evaluating the full theorem proving pipeline on leads to the best accuracy of 70%, a significant improvement from the 40% on the original miniF2F, yet indicating considerable misalignment between the autoformalization models and theorem provers. Our deep analysis suggests that a higher quality benchmark can help the community better evaluate progress in the field of formal reasoning and also better diagnose the failure and success modes of autoformalization and theorem proving models.

Autoformalization, the process of translating informal statements into formal logic, has gained renewed interest with the emergence of powerful Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs show promise in generating structured outputs from natural language (NL), such as Gherkin Scenarios from NL feature requirements, there's currently no formal method to verify if these outputs are accurate. This paper takes a preliminary step toward addressing this gap by exploring the use of a simple LLM-based autoformalizer to verify LLM-generated outputs against a small set of natural language requirements. We conducted two distinct experiments. In the first one, the autoformalizer successfully identified that two differently-worded NL requirements were logically equivalent, demonstrating the pipeline's potential for consistency checks. In the second, the autoformalizer was used to identify a logical inconsistency between a given NL requirement and an LLM-generated output, highlighting its utility as a formal verification tool. Our findings, while limited, suggest that autoformalization holds significant potential for ensuring the fidelity and logical consistency of LLM-generated outputs, laying a crucial foundation for future, more extensive studies into this novel application.

We perform a thorough analysis of the formal and informal statements in the miniF2F benchmark from the perspective of an AI system that is tasked to participate in a math Olympiad consisting of the problems in miniF2F. In such setting, the model has to read and comprehend the problems in natural language, formalize them in Lean language, then proceed with proving the problems, and it will get credit for each problem if the formal proof corresponds to the original informal statement presented to the model. Our evaluation results reveal that the best accuracy of such pipeline can be about 36% using the SoTA models in the literature, considerably lower than the individual SoTA accuracies, 97% and 69% reported in the autoformalization and theorem proving literature. Analyzing the failure modes, we trace back a considerable portion of this drop to discrepancies between the formal and informal statements for more than half of the problems in miniF2F. We proceed with correcting all the errors, discrepancies and simplifications in formal and informal statements, and present the miniF2F-v2 with fully verified formal and informal statements and proofs. Evaluating the full theorem proving pipeline on miniF2F-v2 leads to the best accuracy of 70%, a significant improvement from the 40% on the original miniF2F, yet indicating considerable misalignment between the autoformalization models and theorem provers. Our deep analysis suggests that a higher quality benchmark can help the community better evaluate progress in the field of formal reasoning and also better diagnose the failure and success modes of autoformalization and theorem proving models. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/roozbeh-yz/miniF2F_v2.

Automating the formalization of mathematical statements for theorem proving remains a major challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs). LLMs struggle to identify and utilize the prerequisite mathematical knowledge and its corresponding formal representation in languages like Lean. Current retrieval-augmented autoformalization methods query external libraries using the informal statement directly, but overlook a fundamental limitation: informal mathematical statements are often complex and offer limited context on the underlying math concepts. To address this, we introduce DRIFT, a novel framework that enables LLMs to decompose informal mathematical statements into smaller, more tractable ''sub-components''. This facilitates targeted retrieval of premises from mathematical libraries such as Mathlib. Additionally, DRIFT retrieves illustrative theorems to help models use premises more effectively in formalization tasks. We evaluate DRIFT across diverse benchmarks (ProofNet, ConNF, and MiniF2F-test) and find that it consistently improves premise retrieval, nearly doubling the F1 score compared to the DPR baseline on ProofNet. Notably, DRIFT demonstrates strong performance on the out-of-distribution ConNF benchmark, with BEq+@10 improvements of 37.14% and 42.25% using GPT-4.1 and DeepSeek-V3.1, respectively. Our analysis shows that retrieval effectiveness in mathematical autoformalization depends heavily on model-specific knowledge boundaries, highlighting the need for adaptive retrieval strategies aligned with each model's capabilities.

Accurate auto-formalization of theorem statements is essential for advancing automated discovery and verification of research-level mathematics, yet remains a major bottleneck for LLMs due to hallucinations, semantic mismatches, and their inability to synthesize new definitions. To tackle these issues, we present Aria (Agent for Retrieval and Iterative Autoformalization), a system for conjecture-level formalization in Lean that emulates human expert reasoning via a two-phase Graph-of-Thought process: recursively decomposing statements into a dependency graph and then constructing formalizations from grounded concepts. To ensure semantic correctness, we introduce AriaScorer, a checker that retrieves definitions from Mathlib for term-level grounding, enabling rigorous and reliable verification. We evaluate Aria on diverse benchmarks. On ProofNet, it achieves 91.6% compilation success rate and 68.5% final accuracy, surpassing previous methods. On FA TE-X, a suite of challenging algebra problems from research literature, it outperforms the best baseline with 44.0% vs. 24.0% On a dataset of homological conjectures, Aria reaches 42.9% final accuracy while all other models score 0%. In recent years, Interactive Theorem Provers (ITPs) such as Coq (Barras et al., 1999), Isabelle (Paul-son, 1994) and Lean (Moura & Ullrich, 2021) have become crucial ecosystems for formalized mathematics. Among these, Lean 4, together with its comprehensive library Mathlib (mathlib Community, 2020), is pioneering a new paradigm for formalization. However, the continuous growth of this ecosystem is always constrained by the immense manual effort and the deep expertise that formalization demands. To address this, the research community has turned to Large Language Models (LLMs) for auto-formalization the process of translating informal (or natural language) mathematical statements and proofs into their formal counterparts. While these two processes are interconnected, the accurate formalization of statements is the foundational first step. A correctly formalized statement is a prerequisite for any valid proof and, on its own, is a valuable asset to the mathematical ecosystem, enabling better search, integration, and verification. Thus, despite progress in proof automation (Ren et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2025), the fidelity of this initial statement translation remains a critical bottleneck. LLMs frequently generate formal statements that suffer not only from compilation errors but also from more insidious semantic flaws, a challenge that intensifies when formalizing more complex research or conjecture-level statements.

This position paper provides a critical but constructive discussion of current practices in benchmarking and evaluative practices in the field of formal reasoning and automated theorem proving. We take the position that open code, open data, and benchmarks that are complete and error-free will accelerate progress in this field. We identify practices that create barriers to contributing to this field and suggest ways to remove them. We also discuss some of the practices that might produce misleading evaluative information. We aim to create discussions that bring together people from various groups contributing to automated theorem proving, autoformalization, and informal reasoning.

Verifiable formal languages like Lean have profoundly impacted mathematical reasoning, particularly through the use of large language models (LLMs) for automated reasoning. A significant challenge in training LLMs for these formal languages is the lack of parallel datasets that align natural language with formal language proofs. To address this challenge, this paper introduces a novel framework for translating the Mathlib4 corpus (a unified library of mathematics in formal language Lean 4) into natural language. Building upon this, we employ a dual augmentation strategy that combines tactic-based and informal-based approaches, leveraging the Lean-jixia system, a Lean 4 analyzer. We present the results of this pipeline on Mathlib4 as Herald (Hierarchy and Retrieval-based Translated Lean Dataset). We also propose the Herald Translator, which is fine-tuned on Herald. Herald translator achieves a 93.2% accuracy (Pass@128) on formalizing statements in the miniF2F-test and a 22.5% accuracy on our internal graduate-level textbook dataset, outperforming InternLM2-Math-Plus-7B (74.0% and 7.5%) and TheoremLlama (50.1% and 4.0%). Furthermore, we propose a section-level translation framework for real-world applications. As a direct application of Herald translator, we have successfully translated a template section in the Stack project, marking a notable progress in the automatic formalization of graduate-level mathematical literature. Our model, along with the datasets, will be open-sourced to the public soon.

Large language models show promise for autoformalization, the task of automatically translating natural language into formal languages. However, current autoformalization methods remain limited. The last reported state-of-the-art performance on the ProofNet formalization benchmark for the Lean proof assistant, achieved using Codex for Lean 3, only showed successful formalization of 16.1% of informal statements. Similarly, our evaluation of GPT-4o for Lean 4 only produces successful translations 34.9% of the time. Our analysis shows that the performance of these models is largely limited by their inability to generate formal statements that successfully type-check (i.e., are syntactically correct and consistent with types) - with a whopping 86.6% of GPT-4o errors starting from a type-check failure. In this work, we propose a method to fix this issue through decoding with type-check filtering, where we initially sample a diverse set of candidate formalizations for an informal statement, then use the Lean proof assistant to filter out candidates that do not type-check. Using GPT-4o as a base model, and combining our method with self-consistency, we obtain a +18.3% absolute increase in formalization accuracy, and achieve a new state-of-the-art of 53.2% on ProofNet with Lean 4.

Large language models (LLM), such as Google's Minerva and OpenAI's GPT families, are becoming increasingly capable of solving mathematical quantitative reasoning problems. However, they still make unjustified logical and computational errors in their reasoning steps and answers. In this paper, we leverage the fact that if the training corpus of LLMs contained sufficiently many examples of formal mathematics (e.g. in Isabelle, a formal theorem proving environment), they can be prompted to translate i.e. autoformalize informal mathematical statements into formal Isabelle code -- which can be verified automatically for internal consistency. This provides a mechanism to automatically reject solutions whose formalized versions are inconsistent within themselves or with the formalized problem statement. We evaluate our method on GSM8K, MATH and MultiArith datasets and demonstrate that our approach provides a consistently better heuristic than vanilla majority voting -- the previously best method to identify correct answers, by more than 12% on GSM8K. In our experiments it improves results consistently across all datasets and LLM model sizes. The code can be found at https://github.com/jinpz/dtv. Recently, language models (Devlin et al., 2018; Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022) have advanced significantly in many natural language processing tasks such as machine translation, question answering, summarization, etc. More recent large language models (LLMs) such as Minerva (Lewkowycz et al., 2022), GPT3.5 (OpenAI) and GPT4 (OpenAI, 2023) have also become increasingly capable of solving quantitative reasoning problems, ranging from middle school math word problems (Cobbe et al., 2021) to challenging high school mathematical competition problems (Hendrycks et al., 2021). By training or finetuning the model on high-quality natural language mathematical and scientific text, these LLMs can generate self-contained step-by-step solutions to quantitative reasoning problems without relying on external tools. However, just like human beings, the solutions LLMs generate are prone to simple calculation errors and unjustified logical leaps. Following Wang et al. (2022); Lewkowycz et al. (2022), one can sample many proposed solutions, extract the final answer from each, and select the most common answer. While aggregating answers like this improves performance at the problem level, the most common answer is sometimes wrong. Ideally, we would like a better heuristic to identify the correct answer.