REVIEW 3 cited by
Don't Trust: Verify -- Grounding LLM Quantitative Reasoning with Autoformalization
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Aria: An Agent For Retrieval and Iterative Auto-Formalization via Dependency Graph
A graph-of-thought agent with retrieval and a term-grounded semantic checker auto-formalizes research-level math statements in Lean, hitting 68.5% on ProofNet and 6/14 homological conjectures where baselines score 0.
-
LLMs and their Limited Theory of Mind: Evaluating Mental State Annotations in Situated Dialogue
LLMs can imitate mental-state annotation in team dialogue but systematically err on spatial reasoning and prosodic cues, per a six-dialogue CReST pilot.
-
StepProof: Step-by-step verification of natural language mathematical proofs
Decomposing natural-language proofs into sentence-level formal subproofs improves autoformalization success rates and efficiency compared with whole-proof formalization.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.