Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

StepProof: Step-by-step verification of natural language mathematical proofs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read StepProof verifies natural-language mathematical proofs one sentence at a time, and reports that this stepwise strategy beats whole-proof autoformalization on pass rate and efficiency.

desk verdict Useful step-by-step autoformalization system with real engineering, but the 'significant improvement' claim is statistically unsupported; worth reviewing with expectations of major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10558 v2 pith:SCI4NJQJ submitted 2025-06-12 cs.LO cs.AI

Xiaolin Hu , Qinghua Zhou , Bogdan Grechuk , Ivan Y. Tyukin This is my paper
classification cs.LOcs.AI
keywords autoformalizationsentence-levelverificationinteractivetheoremproverslargelanguagemodelsGSM8KIsabelleproofdecompositionstep-by-stepreasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

StepProof is an autoformalization method that verifies natural-language mathematical proofs sentence by sentence instead of translating the whole proof at once. Its central claim is that decomposing a proof into independently formalizable sub-proofs, checking each against the accumulated stack in Isabelle, raises proof pass rates, cuts formalization and proof time, and localizes errors to individual sentences. On GSM8K the paper reports a one-attempt pass rate of 6.10% for StepProof versus 5.30% for whole-proof formalization, and a 10-attempt pass rate of 27.9% with an 8-billion-parameter open model, against 25.3% for a reimplemented whole-proof baseline given 64 attempts. The authors also report that lightly rewriting informal proofs so that each sentence is a self-contained provable step further improves the pass rate. If these results hold, stepwise verification is the more reliable pipeline for turning informal proofs into machine-checked ones.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the formal proof stack combined with sentence-level formalization. Each informal sentence is translated into an Isabelle lemma or proof step, checked against the stack of previously verified steps, and only then added to the stack; failed steps trigger backtracking that preserves the accepted part of the proof. This keeps each generation short, removes the need to tune max_new_tokens to proof length, and gives each formal step a direct informal counterpart for error location.

What would settle it

Take a set of naturally written proofs whose sentences are not self-contained, run StepProof without any manual tailoring, and compare its pass rate with FULL-PROOF on the same proofs under equal token budgets; if the stepwise pipeline shows no pass-rate or time advantage and gains appear only after rewriting, the central claim about sentence-level verification would be refuted. A sharper version: split the same proofs into sentences in two orders (correct proof order and shuffled order) and check whether the advantage persists, which would isolate reuse of verified context from mere output shortening.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that sentence-level decomposition with incremental verification is superior to whole-proof autoformalization on both success rate and efficiency. StepProof splits a natural-language proof into sentences, formalizes each sentence in context, pushes the formalized step onto a proof stack, and asks Isabelle to verify it against the already-verified stack; a failed step can be retried or suspended without discarding the rest of the proof. The reported evidence is that on GSM8K StepProof achieves 6.10% one-attempt proof pass rate versus 5.30% for FULL-PROOF, with 38.9% less average formalization time and 39.5% less average proof time, and that a 10-attempt StepProof run on Llama3 8B reaches 27.9% proof pass rate versus 25.3% for a reimplemented DTV baseline at 64 attempts. The paper additionally introduces a step pass rate metric and shows that roughly half the proof steps pass after 10 attempts even when the full proof does not.

Load-bearing premise

StepProof assumes every sentence of the informal proof can be turned into a standalone formal statement that the theorem prover can check; the paper itself notes that many steps in the test set are not formalizable into provable steps, so proofs that do not decompose cleanly would need to be rewritten before the method helps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Automated verification of informal proofs can locate the erroneous sentence instead of rejecting the whole proof.
  • Small open-source models (8B parameters) can do competitive autoformalization when the workload is decomposed into short steps.
  • Rewriting informal proofs into self-contained, order-correct steps is itself a practical lever for raising formalization pass rates.
  • Partial verification becomes meaningful: a proof with unverified steps still yields a verified prefix and a quantified step pass rate.
  • The same verification budget covers more attempts because failed steps do not force full regeneration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported gain may partly come from the rewriting of proofs into step-friendly form rather than from the decomposition strategy itself; the Number Theory experiment, where pass rate roughly doubled after manual tailoring, suggests this effect is real and testable.
  • The approach points toward a corpus of 'step-verifiable' proofs as a training resource, which the paper names as future work; such a corpus could also serve as a benchmark for autoformalization independent of any one theorem prover.
  • One could extend StepProof to structured proofs (cases, induction, contradiction), where whole-proof methods currently retain an advantage; the paper's own limitation statement indicates that structured proof is the natural next stress test.
  • If step decomposability is the binding constraint, an LLM-based proof-splitting preprocessor that rewrites prose into standalone steps could become as important as the theorem prover itself.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes StepProof, an autoformalization pipeline that splits a natural-language proof into sentence-level steps, formalizes each step with an LLM, verifies each step incrementally with Isabelle, and retains verified steps when retrying failed ones. It compares StepProof against a FULL-PROOF baseline on GSM8K, reporting a higher one-attempt pass rate (6.10% vs 5.30%), lower average formalization and proof times (Table 1), and a higher multi-attempt pass rate (27.9% at 10 attempts vs 25.3% for a reimplemented DTV at 64 attempts; Table 2). It also introduces a step-pass-rate metric and reports a manual-modification experiment on 100 Number Theory problems (Table 4).

Significance. StepProof is a useful engineering contribution: it offers open-source, small-model autoformalization with sentence-level verification, an interactive user interface, and a stack-based backtracking mechanism. The step-pass-rate metric is a meaningful extension beyond binary pass/fail outcomes. If the reported gains were robust, the method would strengthen the case for decomposed autoformalization. However, the paper's headline claim that StepProof 'significantly improves proof success rates and efficiency' is not supported by the presented statistics: the key success-rate differences are within sampling noise, the multi-attempt comparison uses incompatible attempt budgets, and the manual-modification experiment is uncontrolled. The work is best treated as a promising system demonstration whose central comparative claim needs substantially stronger evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 1] The central success-rate claim rests on a one-attempt pass-rate difference of 0.8 percentage points (6.10% vs 5.30%). For the standard GSM8K test set size (n = 1319), the standard error of this difference is roughly 0.9 percentage points, so the observed gain is within binomial sampling noise; if the paper used a smaller subset, the uncertainty is even larger. No confidence intervals, significance tests, or paired analyses are reported, and the 15.1% relative improvement quoted in the text has no uncertainty quantification. A bootstrap or paired test should accompany the point estimates.
  2. [§4.2, Table 2] The multi-attempt comparison is not on equal footing. StepProof's '10 attempts' allow up to 10 retries per failed step, so with a typical 4-5 step proof a single run can consume 40-50 step generations, whereas DTV*'s 64 attempts are 64 whole-proof generations. The text's claim that StepProof 'required fewer attempts compared to DTV' conflates these different definitions of an attempt. Moreover, DTV* is a reimplementation with a different model (Llama3 8B instead of Minerva 8B) and a lower comments rate, so the 27.9% vs 25.3% margin cannot be attributed to the stepwise strategy alone. Report a comparable metric such as total generated tokens or total proof attempts, and include the original DTV numbers if possible.
  3. [§4.2, Table 4] The manual-modification experiment is post-hoc and uncontrolled: the authors rewrite 100 Number Theory proofs to satisfy StepProof's decomposition requirements, and no FULL-PROOF baseline is run on the same modified proofs. The increase in full-pass rate from 6% to 12% could reflect the specific editing decisions rather than a general benefit of step-level formatting. The modification rule should be made explicit and reproducible (e.g., deleting meta-level sentences and reordering dependencies), and both strategies should be evaluated on the original and modified versions.
  4. [Table 1, efficiency metrics] The formalization and proof time comparisons in Table 1 are computed only over the small subsets of passed proofs, which differ between pipelines (5.30% vs 6.10% of the test set). Without error bars or significance tests on these means and variances, the claimed 38.9% and 39.5% improvements in formalization and proof time are not established. The paper should report the sample sizes, distributions, and appropriate tests or confidence intervals for these efficiency metrics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The 'Comments Rate' column is not defined in the text; please explain what it measures and why StepProof consistently reports 100%.
  2. [§4.1] Please report the number of problems in each evaluation set (the GSM8K test set and the 100-question MATH Number Theory subset) so that the reader can assess the precision of the reported percentages.
  3. [Table 1] The column header 'µf ± σ2f' is ambiguous: if σ2 is a variance, the units are seconds squared and the '±' notation is misleading; if it is a standard deviation, the header is incorrect. Use standard deviations with clear units.
  4. [§3.2] The 'HOLD' feature allows users to proceed with an unverified step; please clarify the soundness status of a final proof that contains held steps, since a QED verification in that case does not constitute axiom-level verification.
  5. [§2 and Introduction] The claim of being 'the first to realize the test of automatic formalization capabilities on small open-source LLMs' is a strong novelty statement and should be supported with citations to prior open-source autoformalization evaluations or qualified accordingly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Secondary manual-modification experiment is partly definitional; the central StepProof-vs-FullProof benchmark comparison is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, Section 4.2 (Table 4), Appendix A.1]
    "we extracted 100 questions from the Number theory of MATH and made simple manual modifications to make the proof step more consistent with the proof requirement of StepProof ... Therefore, in order to meet the requirements of StepProof, I deleted the statements that could not be formalized and corrected the sequence."

    The paper reports as a finding that 'the proof pass rate was significantly improved after simple fitting of the informal proof' (Section 4.2), but the fitting consists of deleting sentences that are not formalizable and reordering steps (Appendix A.1). Since StepProof's own assumption is that 'each sentence in the proof is a verifiable sub-proposition' (Section 3.2), the modified inputs are constructed to satisfy the method's precondition. Removing non-verifiable steps mechanically removes guaranteed failures, so a rise in the step/proof pass rate is partly built into the experiment rather than derived from an independent capability of the method.

full rationale

The central derivation chain of the paper is empirical: StepProof's one-attempt pass rate (6.10% vs 5.30%, Table 1) and multi-attempt pass rate (27.9% at 10 attempts vs DTV* 25.3% at 64 attempts, Table 2) are measured against external benchmarks, with no free parameter fitted to the test set and no equation whose output equals its input. The stepwise Isabelle verification described in Appendix A.2 is a concrete engineering pipeline, and the self-citations (e.g., the mention of 'Qinghua et al.' for SlideRule) are not load-bearing for the main claim. The only definitional circularity is the secondary manual-modification experiment: the proof texts are deliberately edited to satisfy StepProof's own 'verifiable sub-proposition' assumption, so the reported improvement after 'fitting' the proofs is partly an artifact of input construction. Because the paper discloses this modification and the headline GSM8K comparison does not rely on it, this is a minor circularity. The statistical concerns about Table 1's small absolute difference and Table 2's non-comparable attempt definitions are correctness risks, not circularity, and are not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical comparison of two pipelines. The listed free parameters are experimental settings chosen by the authors; the axioms are the domain assumptions about decomposability and the verification backend. No new mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • temperature = 0.3
    Sampling temperature for Llama3 and GLM4 in all experiments; chosen to balance stability and flexibility, affects all reported rates.
  • max_new_tokens (FULL-PROOF) = 1024
    Token budget for whole-proof formalization; larger budgets affect truncation and generation loops.
  • max_new_tokens (STEP-PROOF) = 256
    Token budget per sentence-level step; chosen because each step is short, directly affecting generation quality and time measurements.
  • few-shot example count = 1
    A single in-context example is used for both strategies; the specific example is not shown in the paper and may materially affect performance.
  • retry limit for failed steps = 10
    In multi-attempt tests, each failed step may be re-formalized up to 10 times; this ceiling shapes the 10-attempt pass rates.
  • Isabelle proof library = Main only
    The authors deliberately restrict Isabelle to the Main library so results are comparable; they note that adding libraries would improve proof capability.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Each sentence in a natural-language proof is a verifiable sub-proposition.
    Section 3.2 states this assumption; Section 4.3 admits many steps are not formalizable. This is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Isabelle2024 with only the Main library is a sufficient verification backend for the formalized steps.
    Footnote on page 5 states only Main is used; more libraries would improve results. This limits generalization.
  • domain assumption The informal proofs in GSM8K and MATH can be cleanly segmented into independent sentence-level steps.
    Section 4.1 says 'These informal proofs can be easily segmented into a series of sub-steps.' This is an assumption about the datasets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of StepProof: Step-by-step verification of natural language mathematical proofs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCI4NJQJ

@misc{pith2026250610558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: StepProof: Step-by-step verification of natural language mathematical proofs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCI4NJQJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10558}
}
read the original abstract

Interactive theorem provers (ITPs) are powerful tools for the formal verification of mathematical proofs down to the axiom level. However, their lack of a natural language interface remains a significant limitation. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have enhanced the understanding of natural language inputs, paving the way for autoformalization - the process of translating natural language proofs into formal proofs that can be verified. Despite these advancements, existing autoformalization approaches are limited to verifying complete proofs and lack the capability for finer, sentence-level verification. To address this gap, we propose StepProof, a novel autoformalization method designed for granular, step-by-step verification. StepProof breaks down complete proofs into multiple verifiable subproofs, enabling sentence-level verification. Experimental results demonstrate that StepProof significantly improves proof success rates and efficiency compared to traditional methods. Additionally, we found that minor manual adjustments to the natural language proofs, tailoring them for step-level verification, further enhanced StepProof's performance in autoformalization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10558 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Full-Proof Strategy generate from the whole proof and only provide proof result instead of detailed feedback [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. User Interface of StepProof used as the formal theorem prover with only Main prove library as the theorem base2 , with Isabelle-client [35] as the testing service proxy. 2Here, we only use Main as the proof library, considering that the use of different libraries will greatly affect the formal verification ability of the theorem prover, in order to provide a relatively standard index. In StepProof, we do not introdu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time Cost of Two Strategies in Formalization and Proof [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Passed Proofs and Steps in Different Attempts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Theory-Level Autoformalization: From Isolated Statements to Unified Formal Knowledge Bases

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Autoformalization should target complete theories—axioms, definitions, lemmas, proofs—as unified formal libraries, not isolated statements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    History of interactive theorem proving

    John Harrison, Josef Urban, and Freek Wiedijk. History of interactive theorem proving. In Jörg H. Siekmann, editor, Computational Logic, volume 9 of Handbook of the History of Logic , pages 135–214. North-Holland, 2014. 8 Running Title for Header

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    A survey of interactive theorem proving

    Filip Maric. A survey of interactive theorem proving. Zbornik radova, 18(26):173–223, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    A Survey on Theorem Provers in Formal Methods

    M Saqib Nawaz, Moin Malik, Yi Li, Meng Sun, and M Lali. A survey on theorem provers in formal methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.03028, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1912

  4. [4]

    A survey of large language models

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing

    Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1–35, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning

    Yaqing Wang, Quanming Yao, James T Kwok, and Lionel M Ni. Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning. ACM computing surveys (csur), 53(3):1–34, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Survey of hallucination in natural language generation

    Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12):1–38, 2023

    2023

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet

    Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xinying Song, and Denny Zhou. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01798, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A survey on deep learning for theorem proving

    Zhaoyu Li, Jialiang Sun, Logan Murphy, Qidong Su, Zenan Li, Xian Zhang, Kaiyu Yang, and Xujie Si. A survey on deep learning for theorem proving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09939, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A survey on interactive theorem proving

    Andrea Asperti. A survey on interactive theorem proving. URL: http://www. cs. unibo. it/˜ asperti/SLIDES/itp. pdf, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    A survey of automated theorem proving

    John Harrison. A survey of automated theorem proving. Sat, 17:20–18, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Isabelle: A generic theorem prover

    Lawrence C Paulson. Isabelle: A generic theorem prover. Springer, 1994

    1994

  6. [14]

    The coq proof assistant a tutorial

    Gérard Huet, Gilles Kahn, and Christine Paulin-Mohring. The coq proof assistant a tutorial. Rapport Technique, 178, 1997

    1997

  7. [15]

    The lean theorem prover (system description)

    Leonardo De Moura, Soonho Kong, Jeremy Avigad, Floris Van Doorn, and Jakob von Raumer. The lean theorem prover (system description). In Automated Deduction-CADE-25: 25th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Berlin, Germany, August 1-7, 2015, Proceedings 25, pages 3...

    2015

  8. [16]

    Comparison of two theorem provers: Isabelle/hol and coq

    Artem Yushkovskiy. Comparison of two theorem provers: Isabelle/hol and coq. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09701, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A comprehensive capability analysis of gpt-3 and gpt-3.5 series models

    Junjie Ye, Xuanting Chen, Nuo Xu, Can Zu, Zekai Shao, Shichun Liu, Yuhan Cui, Zeyang Zhou, Chao Gong, Yang Shen, et al. A comprehensive capability analysis of gpt-3 and gpt-3.5 series models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10420, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Chatglm: A family of large language models from glm-130b to glm-4 all tools, 2024

    Team GLM, Aohan Zeng, Bin Xu, Bowen Wang, Chenhui Zhang, Da Yin, Diego Rojas, Guanyu Feng, Hanlin Zhao, Hanyu Lai, Hao Yu, Hongning Wang, Jiadai Sun, Jiajie Zhang, Jiale Cheng, Jiayi Gui, Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Juanzi Li, Lei Zhao, Lindong Wu, Lucen Zhong, Mingdao Liu, Minlie H...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Do large language models understand logic or just mimick context? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12091, 2024

    Junbing Yan, Chengyu Wang, Jun Huang, and Wei Zhang. Do large language models understand logic or just mimick context? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12091, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A & b== b & a: Triggering logical reasoning failures in large language models

    Yuxuan Wan, Wenxuan Wang, Yiliu Yang, Youliang Yuan, Jen-tse Huang, Pinjia He, Wenxiang Jiao, and Michael R Lyu. A & b== b & a: Triggering logical reasoning failures in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00757, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of large language models

    Shalom Lappin. Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of large language models. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 33(1):9–20, 2024. 9 Running Title for Header

    2024

  15. [23]

    A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models

    Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks

    Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02406, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Relation extraction: Perspective from convolutional neural networks

    Thien Huu Nguyen and Ralph Grishman. Relation extraction: Perspective from convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 1st workshop on vector space modeling for natural language processing, pages 39–48, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Exploring neural models for parsing natural language into first-order logic

    Hrituraj Singh, Milan Aggrawal, and Balaji Krishnamurthy. Exploring neural models for parsing natural language into first-order logic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06544, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Parsing natural language into propositional and first-order logic with dual reinforcement learning

    Xuantao Lu, Jingping Liu, Zhouhong Gu, Hanwen Tong, Chenhao Xie, Junyang Huang, Yanghua Xiao, and Wenguang Wang. Parsing natural language into propositional and first-order logic with dual reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computati...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Exploration of neural machine translation in autoformalization of mathematics in mizar

    Qingxiang Wang, Chad Brown, Cezary Kaliszyk, and Josef Urban. Exploration of neural machine translation in autoformalization of mathematics in mizar. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs, pages 85–98, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models, 2022

    Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Draft, sketch, and prove: Guiding formal theorem provers with informal proofs

    Albert Q Jiang, Sean Welleck, Jin Peng Zhou, Wenda Li, Jiacheng Liu, Mateja Jamnik, Timothée Lacroix, Yuhuai Wu, and Guillaume Lample. Draft, sketch, and prove: Guiding formal theorem provers with informal proofs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12283, 2022

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Don’t trust: Verify–grounding llm quantitative reasoning with autoformalization

    Jin Peng Zhou, Charles Staats, Wenda Li, Christian Szegedy, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yuhuai Wu. Don’t trust: Verify–grounding llm quantitative reasoning with autoformalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18120, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lego-prover: Neural theorem proving with growing libraries

    Haiming Wang, Huajian Xin, Chuanyang Zheng, Lin Li, Zhengying Liu, Qingxing Cao, Yinya Huang, Jing Xiong, Han Shi, Enze Xie, et al. Lego-prover: Neural theorem proving with growing libraries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00656, 2023

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Python client for isabelle server

    Boris Shminke. Python client for isabelle server. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11173, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. NeurIPS, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    We know that 7−1 exists modulo 50 because 7 and 50 are relatively prime

    Mohammadreza Pourreza and Davood Rafiei. Din-sql: Decomposed in-context learning of text-to-sql with self-correction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. A Appendix A.1 Additional Case of Manual Modification for Step Proof Fitting For the following inf...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.