Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

CriticLean: Critic-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Mathematical Formalization

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Training a dedicated critic to judge semantic fidelity—not just compilation—is the key to reliable math formalization, lifting correct Lean 4 outputs from 54% to 84% on a 50-problem human check.

desk verdict Useful benchmark and corpus, but the headline accuracy claim is overstated and the 54→84% gain has a scoring ambiguity that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06181 v1 pith:ZP2DE6GR submitted 2025-07-08 cs.CL

Zhongyuan Peng , Yifan Yao , Kaijing Ma , Shuyue Guo , Yizhe Li , Yichi Zhang , Chenchen Zhang , Yifan Zhang
show 11 more authors
Zhouliang Yu Luming Li Minghao Liu Yihang Xia Jiawei Shen Yuchen Wu Yixin Cao Zhaoxiang Zhang Wenhao Huang Jiaheng Liu Ge Zhang
This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords autoformalizationLean4criticmodelreinforcementlearningsemanticfidelitytheoremprovingFineCorpusBench
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

The paper's central claim is that the critic step—checking whether a generated Lean 4 formalization really says what the original math problem says—has been neglected, and that training a dedicated critic model for this step is what makes autoformalization reliable. It builds CriticLeanBench, a 500-pair benchmark of correct and incorrect formalizations, and reports that its trained critic models outperform strong open- and closed-source baselines on it. It then uses the critic-guided pipeline to produce FineLeanCorpus, a 285,957-entry dataset of compiler- and critic-verified Lean statements together with a distinct high-difficulty subset. On a 50-problem human evaluation, adding the critic to a compiler-feedback loop raises correct formalizations from 54% to 84%, which is the paper's direct evidence that the critic phase carries the improvement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the trained critic model CriticLeanGPT, a learned judge of semantic alignment between a natural-language math problem and a Lean 4 theorem statement. It is trained in two stages: supervised fine-tuning on 48,000 critic examples that include human-selected correct and incorrect pairs with chain-of-thought explanations, then reinforcement learning with a rule-based reward equal to the minimum of a label-accuracy term and a format-validity term, using the GRPO algorithm. Around this model sits an iterative generate-compile-criticize loop: a base autoformalizer produces candidate statements, the Lean compiler rejects syntactic failures, and the critic rejects semantic mismatches, each rejection triggering a fresh attempt. This loop is the mechanism that turns compiler feedback into semantic filtering and doubles as the construction engine for FineLeanCorpus.

What would settle it

Run the same three pipeline variants—single-pass, compiler-only regeneration, and full critic-guided regeneration—on a held-out set of 500 human-reviewed problems drawn from several source datasets; if compiler-only regeneration matches or beats the critic-guided loop, the 54-to-84 percent gain does not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a critic explicitly trained on semantic fidelity—rather than a compiler that only checks syntax—is the bottleneck component of autoformalization. The paper claims CriticLeanGPT models, trained by supervised fine-tuning on a 48,000-sample instruction set and then refined by a rule-based reinforcement-learning reward that combines label accuracy with output-format validity, significantly outperform both open and closed baselines on CriticLeanBench. It further claims that the full pipeline, which regenerates formalizations until both the Lean compiler and the critic approve, converts a 54% compiler-only success rate into an 84% success rate on 50 hand-checked problems, and that the resulting FineLeanCorpus contains 285,957 problems whose correctness is supported by human evaluation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that critic feedback is what raises accuracy rests on a 50-problem human sample from one dataset being representative, and on the benchmark labels not having been memorized from the critic's own training data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Autoformalization pipelines can treat semantic checking as a trainable component instead of relying on compilation success, making the critic's judgment the gate for accepting a formalization.
  • The 285,957-entry FineLeanCorpus, including its 36,033-problem Diamond subset, gives theorem-proving systems a larger and more difficulty- and domain-balanced training set of verified statement-code pairs.
  • Pass@k results indicate that sampling many candidate formalizations and keeping the ones the critic approves raises accuracy, so test-time compute can substitute for generator strength.
  • Balanced evaluation with 250 correct and 250 incorrect pairs makes true-negative rate a first-class metric, focusing attention on catching plausible-but-wrong formalizations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the 54-to-84 percent comparison is based on 50 problems from one source, the size of the critic's measured contribution should be re-estimated on a larger, multi-source human sample before generalizing it.
  • Editorial inference: since CriticLeanBench and the CriticLeanInstruct training data draw on overlapping source datasets and no decontamination step is reported, an overlap check is needed to separate genuine critic skill from memorized examples.
  • Editorial inference: the same generate-compile-criticize loop should transfer to other proof assistants or to proof-term generation, because the critic acts as a semantic filter rather than a Lean-specific component.
  • Editorial inference: the 47.2% of problems that fail within 200 attempts could be investigated as either generator failures or critic over-rejection, which would determine where the next round of investment should go.
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 introduces CriticLean, a framework for autoformalizing natural-language mathematics into Lean 4 statements, with a trained critic model (CriticLeanGPT) that judges semantic fidelity. The authors construct CriticLeanBench, a 500-pair benchmark of correct/incorrect formalizations; build a 48K-sample training set, CriticLeanInstruct; and produce FineLeanCorpus, a 285,957-problem corpus with a high-difficulty Diamond subset. The central empirical claim is that critic-guided feedback raises autoformalization accuracy from 54% (compiler feedback only) to 84% (full CriticLean pipeline) on a 50-problem human-evaluated sample, and that CriticLeanGPT models outperform strong open- and closed-source baselines on CriticLeanBench.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would make a useful contribution: it reframes autoformalization around semantic criticism rather than compilation success, provides a reusable benchmark and trained critic models, and releases a large corpus with validated formalizations. Strengths include a detailed error taxonomy (Appendix D/E), human validation of benchmark labels, and a transparent attempt-yield analysis in Table 8. However, the central quantitative claims are currently not supported by the reported numbers: the 54%→84% gain conflicts with the 52.8% pipeline yield, the headline comparison against closed-source baselines is contradicted by Table 2, and the benchmark/training overlap is not decontaminated. The framework is plausible and the artifacts are valuable, but the evidence as presented requires substantial clarification and re-analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.1, Tables 7 and 8] The headline 54%→84% improvement is not interpretable without a precise accounting of failed formalizations. Table 7 reports 84.0% accuracy for CriticLean on 50 Omni-MATH problems, while Table 8 reports that on a 500-problem sample the pipeline retains only 52.8% of problems after 200 attempts. If failures are counted as incorrect, the 84% on 50 problems implies a yield of about 84%, which is inconsistent with the 52.8% yield unless the 50-problem sample is unrepresentative. If the 84% is computed only over problems that passed the critic gate, the unconditional accuracy is at most 0.528 × 0.84 ≈ 44%, which is below the 54.0% compiler-feedback baseline. The paper must specify the scoring denominator, report per-strategy yields on the same 50-problem set, and reconcile the two tables before the central claim can be evaluated.
  2. [Abstract and §5.2.1, Table 2] The abstract's claim that CriticLeanGPT models 'significantly outperform strong open- and closed-source baselines' is contradicted by Table 2, where Gemini-2.5-Pro achieves 89.2% accuracy, higher than the best CriticLeanGPT model (Qwen3-32B-RL, 87.0%). The text in §5.2.1 also states that 'Gemini 2.5 Pro, QwQ-32B, Qwen3-32B, and DeepSeek-R1 all attain scores above 80' and then claims superiority, which is internally inconsistent. The claim should be reformulated to match the data, e.g., that CriticLeanGPT matches or exceeds open-weight baselines at comparable or smaller scale, and any closed-source comparison should be stated per-model rather than as a blanket superiority.
  3. [§3.1.2 and §4.2] The benchmark and training data appear to draw from the same source datasets, and no decontamination procedure is disclosed. CriticLeanBench is built from Omni-MATH, AIME, U-MATH, DEMI-MathAnalysis, HARDMath, OlympiadBench, and BlueMO (§3.1.2), while CriticLeanInstruct uses OmniMath-based incorrect samples and FormalMATH correct pairs (§4.2) and FineLeanCorpus also covers these sources. If any CriticLeanBench problems appear in the 48K training samples or in the FineLeanCorpus construction pipeline, the reported critic accuracies would be inflated. The authors should provide an overlap analysis (e.g., n-gram or embedding-based decontamination) and exclude any leaked items from the benchmark.
  4. [§6.1, Table 7] The 54%→84% human-evaluated gain rests on only 50 problems, and no confidence interval, inter-annotator agreement, or per-item breakdown is provided. A difference of 30 percentage points on 50 binary outcomes is not statistically stable (a 95% Wilson interval for 42/50 is roughly 71%–92%), and the claim that 'optimizing the critic phase is essential' is made to depend on this single small sample. The authors should report the exact 50-problem results, annotator agreement, and an uncertainty interval, and ideally validate the gain on an additional independent sample.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (1)] The RL objective in Eq. (1) is written with a min over the clipped and unclipped terms but the standard GRPO clipping also includes the min inside the expectation; this is likely a typesetting issue, but the exact form used should be clarified.
  2. [§5.4.2, Figure 5 caption] The caption for Figure 5 says 'where k = 8 (left) and k = 32 (right)', but the figure appears to be a single panel with multiple grouped bars; the description should match the actual layout.
  3. [§6.1, Table 9] Table 9 lists human-evaluation accuracy per source (e.g., DeepTheorem 100%, NuminaMath-TIR 78%) without sample sizes or the number of evaluators; without this, the source-wise comparison is hard to interpret and should be supplemented with counts.
  4. [§3.1.4, Table 1] The question-token statistics (max 1,583, min 495, avg 700.94) appear to be reported with inconsistent precision and no mention of which tokenizer version is used; a sentence specifying Qwen2.5 tokenizer settings would be helpful.
  5. [General] The paper contains several typographical and formatting issues, including 'CriticLeanInstruct 4' and 'Seed Data 4.1' used as dataset names, duplicate references ([15]/[16], [41]/[36]), and a missing closing parenthesis in the footnote in Section 6.1. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity; human-validated benchmark and corpus claims give the central result independent content, though same-source training/benchmark data and the conditional Table 7 metric are non-circular validity risks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular by construction. CriticLeanBench labels are produced by an LLM-assisted pipeline and then submitted to human reviewers (Section 3.1.2: 'The results are then submitted to human reviewers for further validation'), so the critic's accuracy is measured against human judgment, not against the model's own outputs. The SFT/RL reward (Eq. 4) is a match to expert labels, and the headline 54-to-84 percent improvement in Table 7 is confirmed by manual human inspection, so the central empirical claim has independent content. Two non-circular concerns remain. First, the benchmark and CriticLeanInstruct both draw on Omni-MATH and FormalMATH (Sections 3.1.2 and 4.2), and no decontamination is disclosed; if test items overlap training items, results would be inflated, but the paper does not exhibit such overlap, so this is a contamination risk rather than a demonstrated circular reduction. Second, Table 7's 84.0 percent may be conditional on the critic gate: Table 8 reports only a 52.8 percent yield over 500 problems, and the paper never states how failed formalizations are scored; if failures are excluded, unconditional accuracy could fall below the 54.0 percent compiler baseline. This is an internal-consistency and accounting issue, not a definitional equivalence. Self-citations to FormalMATH [67] are load-bearing for data construction, but the cited dataset is public and compiler-checked, so it does not by itself make the argument circular. Score 2 reflects the residual same-source training/benchmark risk and the unsupported 74.7 percent filter-efficiency figure, not a founded circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new mathematical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are data quality and decontamination assumptions, which are not independently documented. One hand-chosen threshold (difficulty 5 for the Diamond subset) is a free parameter, but it does not affect the central critic claim.

free parameters (1)
  • Diamond difficulty threshold = 5
    Section 6 states FineLeanCorpus-Diamond includes problems with difficulty rating exceeding 5; this threshold is chosen by hand and defines the high-difficulty subset.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Lean 4 compiler success is a reliable proxy for syntactic correctness of a formalization.
    Used throughout to filter compile-failing statements (Sections 3.1.2 and 6).
  • domain assumption Human reviewers provide accurate ground-truth labels for semantic correctness of formalizations.
    The benchmark and human evaluations rely on manual review as the gold standard (Sections 3.1.3 and 6.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The error taxonomy and checklist in Appendix E cover the main failure modes of autoformalization.
    Used to generate negative training samples and benchmark pairs; if the taxonomy misses systematic errors, the critic may be biased.
  • domain assumption Training and evaluation data do not overlap between CriticLeanInstruct and CriticLeanBench.
    Not stated in the paper; both draw from overlapping sources (Omni-MATH, FormalMATH), so the assumption that scores are uncontaminated is load-bearing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CriticLean: Critic-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Mathematical Formalization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZP2DE6GR

@misc{pith2026250706181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CriticLean: Critic-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Mathematical Formalization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZP2DE6GR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06181}
}
read the original abstract

Translating natural language mathematical statements into formal, executable code is a fundamental challenge in automated theorem proving. While prior work has focused on generation and compilation success, little attention has been paid to the critic phase-the evaluation of whether generated formalizations truly capture the semantic intent of the original problem. In this paper, we introduce CriticLean, a novel critic-guided reinforcement learning framework that elevates the role of the critic from a passive validator to an active learning component. Specifically, first, we propose the CriticLeanGPT, trained via supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, to rigorously assess the semantic fidelity of Lean 4 formalizations. Then, we introduce CriticLeanBench, a benchmark designed to measure models' ability to distinguish semantically correct from incorrect formalizations, and demonstrate that our trained CriticLeanGPT models can significantly outperform strong open- and closed-source baselines. Building on the CriticLean framework, we construct FineLeanCorpus, a dataset comprising over 285K problems that exhibits rich domain diversity, broad difficulty coverage, and high correctness based on human evaluation. Overall, our findings highlight that optimizing the critic phase is essential for producing reliable formalizations, and we hope our CriticLean will provide valuable insights for future advances in formal mathematical reasoning.

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. Seed-Prover: Deep and Broad Reasoning for Automated Theorem Proving

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Seed-Prover and Seed-Geometry prove 121 of 155 formalized past IMO problems, reach 99.6% on MiniF2F-test, and solve 5 of 6 IMO 2025 problems after the competition deadline.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K-12 handwritten mathematical expressions dataset (hme100k)

    AI Research Group of TAL Education Group. K-12 handwritten mathematical expressions dataset (hme100k). https://ai.100tal.com/dataset. Accessed: 2025-04-05

    2025

  2. [2]

    Claude 3.5 sonnet model card addendum, 2024

    Anthropic. Claude 3.5 sonnet model card addendum, 2024. URL https://www.paperswithcode.com/ paper/claude-3-5-sonnet-model-card-addendum . Accessed: 2024-09-21

    2024

  3. [3]

    Proofnet: Autoformalizing and formally proving undergraduate-level mathematics

    Zhangir Azerbayev, Bartosz Piotrowski, Hailey Schoelkopf, Edward W Ayers, Dragomir Radev, and Jeremy Avigad. Proofnet: Autoformalizing and formally proving undergraduate-level mathematics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12433, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Qwen technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, Binyuan Hui, Luo Ji, Mei Li, Junyang Lin, Runji Lin, Dayiheng Liu, Gao Liu, Chengqiang Lu, Keming Lu, Jianxin Ma, Rui Men, Xingzhang Ren, Xuancheng Ren, Chuanqi Tan, Sinan Tan, Jianhong Tu, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Wei Wang, Shengguang Wu, Benfeng X...

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    U-math: A university-level benchmark for evaluating mathematical skills in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03205, 2024

    Konstantin Chernyshev, Vitaliy Polshkov, Ekaterina Artemova, Alex Myasnikov, Vlad Stepanov, Alexei Miasnikov, and Sergei Tilga. U-math: A university-level benchmark for evaluating mathematical skills in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03205, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Demidovich.Problems in Mathematical Analysis

    B.P. Demidovich.Problems in Mathematical Analysis. Edited by B. Demidovich. Translated From the Russian by G. Yankovsky. Russian Monographs and Texts on Advanced Mathematics and Physics. Mir Publishers, 1964. URL https://books.google.com/books?id=XdmpwgEACAAJ

    1964

  7. [7]

    Hardmath: A benchmark dataset for challenging problems in applied mathematics

    J Fan, S Martinson, EY Wang, K Hausknecht, J Brenner, D Liu, N Peng, C Wang, and MP Brenner. Hardmath: A benchmark dataset for challenging problems in applied mathematics. arxiv 2024.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09988

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Omni-math: A universal olympiad level mathematic benchmark for large language models

    Bofei Gao, Feifan Song, Zhe Yang, Zefan Cai, Yibo Miao, Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Chenghao Ma, Liang Chen, Runxin Xu, et al. Omni-math: A universal olympiad level mathematic benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07985, 2024

    arXiv

Show all 133 references
  1. [9]

    Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models, 2023

    Google. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

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

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Deepseek-R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Dong Guo, Faming Wu, Feida Zhu, Fuxing Leng, Guang Shi, Haobin Chen, Haoqi Fan, Jian Wang, Jianyu Jiang, Jiawei Wang, et al. Seed1. 5-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.07062, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems, 2024

    Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Leng Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, Jie Liu, Lei Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scienti...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Can large language models detect errors in long chain-of-thought reasoning?, 2025

    Yancheng He, Shilong Li, Jiaheng Liu, Weixun Wang, Xingyuan Bu, Ge Zhang, Zhongyuan Peng, Zhaoxiang Zhang, Zhicheng Zheng, Wenbo Su, and Bo Zheng. Can large language models detect errors in long chain-of-thought reasoning?, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19361

    2025 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Deepmath-103k: A large-scale, challenging, decontaminated, and verifiable mathematical dataset for advancing reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11456, 2025

    Zhiwei He, Tian Liang, Jiahao Xu, Qiuzhi Liu, Xingyu Chen, Yue Wang, Linfeng Song, Dian Yu, Zhenwen Liang, Wenxuan Wang, et al. Deepmath-103k: A large-scale, challenging, decontaminated, and verifiable mathematical dataset for advancing reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.1145...

    2025 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Think-j: Learning to think for generative llm-as-a-judge

    Hui Huang, Yancheng He, Hongli Zhou, Rui Zhang, Wei Liu, Weixun Wang, Wenbo Su, Bo Zheng, and Jiaheng Liu. Think-j: Learning to think for generative llm-as-a-judge. ArXiv, abs/2505.14268, 2025. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:278769843

    2025

  9. [18]

    Open r1: A fully open reproduction of deepseek-r1, January 2025

    Hugging Face. Open r1: A fully open reproduction of deepseek-r1, January 2025. URLhttps://github.com/ huggingface/open-r1

    2025

  10. [19]

    Binyuan Hui, Jian Yang, Zeyu Cui, Jiaxi Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Lei Zhang, Tianyu Liu, Jiajun Zhang, Bowen Yu, Kai Dang, et al. Qwen2. 5-coder technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12186, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Solving inequality proofs with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07927, 2025

    Sheng Jiayi, Lyu Luna, Jin Jikai, Xia Tony, Gu Alex, Zou James, and Lu Pan. Solving inequality proofs with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07927, 2025

    2025

  12. [21]

    Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Systems...

    2023

  13. [22]

    A read-eval-print-loop for Lean 4, 2023

    Leanprover Community. A read-eval-print-loop for Lean 4, 2023. https://github.com/ leanprover-community/repl

    2023

  14. [23]

    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 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Numinamath tir

    Jia LI, Edward Beeching, Lewis Tunstall, Ben Lipkin, Roman Soletskyi, Shengyi Costa Huang, Kashif Rasul, Longhui Yu, Albert Jiang, Ziju Shen, Zihan Qin, Bin Dong, Li Zhou, Yann Fleureau, Guillaume Lample, and Stanis- las Polu. Numinamath tir. [https://huggingface.co/AI-MO/Numi...

    2024

  16. [25]

    Reinforcement learning with human feedback: Learning dynamic choices via pessimism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18438, 2023

    Zihao Li, Zhuoran Yang, and Mengdi Wang. Reinforcement learning with human feedback: Learning dynamic choices via pessimism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18438, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Goedel-prover: A frontier model for open-source automated theorem proving, 2025

    Yong Lin, Shange Tang, Bohan Lyu, Jiayun Wu, Hongzhou Lin, Kaiyu Yang, Jia Li, Mengzhou Xia, Danqi Chen, Sanjeev Arora, and Chi Jin. Goedel-prover: A frontier model for open-source automated theorem proving, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07640

    2025 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Criticbench: Benchmarking llms for critique-correct reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14809, 2024

    Zicheng Lin, Zhibin Gou, Tian Liang, Ruilin Luo, Haowei Liu, and Yujiu Yang. Criticbench: Benchmarking llms for critique-correct reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14809, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Fimo: A challenge formal dataset for automated theorem proving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04295, 2023

    Chengwu Liu, Jianhao Shen, Huajian Xin, Zhengying Liu, Ye Yuan, Haiming Wang, Wei Ju, Chuanyang Zheng, Yichun Yin, Lin Li, et al. Fimo: A challenge formal dataset for automated theorem proving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04295, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    M2rc-eval: Massively multilingual repository-level code completion evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21157, 2024

    Jiaheng Liu, Ken Deng, Congnan Liu, Jian Yang, Shukai Liu, He Zhu, Peng Zhao, Linzheng Chai, Yanan Wu, Ke Jin, et al. M2rc-eval: Massively multilingual repository-level code completion evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21157, 2024

    arXiv

  21. [30]

    DDK: Distilling domain knowledge for efficient large language models

    Jiaheng Liu, Chenchen Zhang, Jinyang Guo, Yuanxing Zhang, Haoran Que, Ken Deng, ZhiqiBai, Jie Liu, Ge Zhang, JiakaiWang, Yanan Wu, Congnan Liu, Jiamang Wang, Lin Qu, Wenbo Su, and Bo Zheng. DDK: Distilling domain knowledge for efficient large language models. InThe Thirty-eigh...

    2024

  22. [31]

    A comprehensive survey on long context language modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17407, 2025

    Jiaheng Liu, Dawei Zhu, Zhiqi Bai, Yancheng He, Huanxuan Liao, Haoran Que, Zekun Wang, Chenchen Zhang, Ge Zhang, Jiebin Zhang, et al. A comprehensive survey on long context language modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17407, 2025

    2025

  23. [32]

    ProRL: Prolonged reinforcement learning expands reasoning boundaries in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24864, 2025

    Mingjie Liu, Shizhe Diao, Ximing Lu, Jian Hu, Xin Dong, Yejin Choi, Jan Kautz, and Yi Dong. ProRL: Prolonged reinforcement learning expands reasoning boundaries in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24864, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Process-driven autoformalization in lean 4,

    Jianqiao Lu, Yingjia Wan, Zhengying Liu, Yinya Huang, Jing Xiong, Chengwu Liu, Jianhao Shen, Hui Jin, Jipeng Zhang, Haiming Wang, Zhicheng Yang, Jing Tang, and Zhijiang Guo. Process-driven autoformalization in lean 4,

  25. [34]

    Deepscaler: Surpass- ing o1-preview with a 1.5b model by scaling rl

    Michael Luo, Sijun Tan, Justin Wong, Xiaoxiang Shi, William Tang, Manan Roongta, Colin Cai, Jeffrey Luo, Tianjun Zhang, Erran Li, Raluca Ada Popa, and Ion Stoica. Deepscaler: Surpass- ing o1-preview with a 1.5b model by scaling rl. https://pretty-radio-b75.notion.site/ DeepSca...

  26. [36]

    Leveraging online olympiad-level math problems for llms training and contamination-resistant evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14275, 2025

    Sadegh Mahdavi, Muchen Li, Kaiwen Liu, Christos Thrampoulidis, Leonid Sigal, and Renjie Liao. Leveraging online olympiad-level math problems for llms training and contamination-resistant evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14275, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [37]

    TAL-SCQ5K

    Math-eval. TAL-SCQ5K. https://github.com/math-eval/TAL-SCQ5K, 2023

    2023

  28. [38]

    The lean 4 theorem prover and programming language

    Leonardo de Moura and Sebastian Ullrich. The lean 4 theorem prover and programming language. InAutomated Deduction – CADE 28: 28th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Virtual Event, July 12–15, 2021, Proceedings, page 625–635, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2021. Springer-Ve...

    2021 doi

  29. [39]

    s1: Simple test-time scaling

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Paulson.Isabelle/HOL: a proof assistant for higher-order logic

    Tobias Nipkow, Markus Wenzel, and Lawrence C. Paulson.Isabelle/HOL: a proof assistant for higher-order logic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002. ISBN 3540433767

    2002

  31. [41]

    Online math contest.https://onlinemathcontest.com/

    Online Math Contest. Online math contest.https://onlinemathcontest.com/. Accessed: 2025-04-05

    2025

  32. [42]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    R OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report. arxiv 2303.08774.View in Article, 2(5), 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Ai4math: A native spanish benchmark for university-level mathematical reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18978, 2025

    Miguel Angel Peñaloza Perez, Bruno Lopez Orozco, Jesus Tadeo Cruz Soto, Michelle Bruno Hernandez, Miguel Angel Alvarado Gonzalez, and Sandra Malagon. Ai4math: A native spanish benchmark for university-level mathematical reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

    2025

  34. [44]

    Liquid tensor experiment.Experimental Mathematics, 31(2):349–354, 2022

    Peter Scholze. Liquid tensor experiment.Experimental Mathematics, 31(2):349–354, 2022

    2022

  35. [46]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [47]

    Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2409.19256, 2024

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework.arXiv preprint arXiv: 2409.19256, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [48]

    A promising path towards autoformalization and general artificial intelligence

    Christian Szegedy. A promising path towards autoformalization and general artificial intelligence. In Intelligent Computer Mathematics: 13th International Conference, CICM 2020, Bertinoro, Italy, July 26–31, 2020, Proceedings 13, pages 3–20. Springer, 2020

    2020

  38. [49]

    The polynomial freiman-ruzsa conjecture, 2023.https://github.com/teorth/pf

    Terence Tao. The polynomial freiman-ruzsa conjecture, 2023.https://github.com/teorth/pf

    2023

  39. [50]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  40. [51]

    Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, September 2024

    Qwen Team. Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, September 2024. URLhttps://qwenlm.github.io/ blog/qwen2.5/

    2024

  41. [52]

    Qwen3 technical report, 2025

    Qwen Team. Qwen3 technical report, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388

    2025 arXiv

  42. [53]

    Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforcement learning, March 2025

    Qwen Team. Qwq-32b: Embracing the power of reinforcement learning, March 2025. URLhttps://qwenlm. github.io/blog/qwq-32b/. 19

    2025

  43. [54]

    Kimina-prover preview: Towards large formal reasoning models with reinforcement learning

    Haiming Wang, Mert Unsal, Xiaohan Lin, Mantas Baksys, Junqi Liu, Marco Dos Santos, Flood Sung, Marina Vinyes, Zhenzhe Ying, Zekai Zhu, Jianqiao Lu, Hugues de Saxcé, Bolton Bailey, Chendong Song, Chenjun Xiao, Dehao Zhang, Ebony Zhang, Frederick Pu, Han Zhu, Jiawei Liu, Jonas B...

    2025 arXiv

  44. [55]

    Reinforcement learning optimization for large-scale learning: An efficient and user-friendly scaling library

    Weixun Wang, Shaopan Xiong, Gengru Chen, Wei Gao, Sheng Guo, Yancheng He, Ju Huang, Jiaheng Liu, Zhendong Li, Xiaoyang Li, Zichen Liu, Haizhou Zhao, Dakai An, Lunxi Cao, Qi Cao, Wanxi Deng, Feilei Du, Yiliang Gu, Jiahe Li, Xiang Li, Mingjie Liu, Yijia Luo, Zihe Liu, Yadao Wang...

    2025

  45. [56]

    Reinforcement learning for reasoning in large language models with one training example, 2025

    Yiping Wang, Qing Yang, Zhiyuan Zeng, Liliang Ren, Liyuan Liu, Baolin Peng, Hao Cheng, Xuehai He, Kuan Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Weizhu Chen, Shuohang Wang, Simon Shaolei Du, and Yelong Shen. Reinforcement learning for reasoning in large language models with one training example, 20...

    2025

  46. [57]

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

    2022

  47. [58]

    Naturalproofs: Mathematical theorem proving in natural language, 2021

    Sean Welleck, Jiacheng Liu, Ronan Le Bras, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Yejin Choi, and Kyunghyun Cho. Naturalproofs: Mathematical theorem proving in natural language, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2104.01112

    2021 arXiv

  48. [59]

    Naturalprover: Grounded mathematical proof generation with language models, 2022

    Sean Welleck, Jiacheng Liu, Ximing Lu, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Yejin Choi. Naturalprover: Grounded mathematical proof generation with language models, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12910

    2022 arXiv

  49. [60]

    Jiang, Wenda Li, Markus N

    Yuhuai Wu, Albert Q. Jiang, Wenda Li, Markus N. Rabe, Charles Staats, Mateja Jamnik, and Christian Szegedy. Autoformalization with large language models, 2022

    2022

  50. [61]

    Deepseek-prover: Advancing theorem proving in llms through large-scale synthetic data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14333, 2024

    Huajian Xin, Daya Guo, Zhihong Shao, Zhizhou Ren, Qihao Zhu, Bo Liu, Chong Ruan, Wenda Li, and Xiaodan Liang. Deepseek-prover: Advancing theorem proving in llms through large-scale synthetic data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14333, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  51. [62]

    Huajian Xin, Z. Z. Ren, Junxiao Song, Zhihong Shao, Wanjia Zhao, Haocheng Wang, Bo Liu, Liyue Zhang, Xuan Lu, Qiushi Du, Wenjun Gao, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, Zhibin Gou, Z. F. Wu, Fuli Luo, and Chong Ruan. Deepseek-prover-v1.5: Harnessing proof assistant feedback for reinforcem...

  52. [63]

    Llava-critic: Learning to evaluate multimodal models

    Tianyi Xiong, Xiyao Wang, Dong Guo, Qinghao Ye, Haoqi Fan, Quanquan Gu, Heng Huang, and Chunyuan Li. Llava-critic: Learning to evaluate multimodal models. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 13618–13628, 2025

    2025

  53. [64]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08152

    arXiv

  54. [65]

    Lean workbook: A large-scale lean problem set formalized from natural language math problems, 2025

    Huaiyuan Ying, Zijian Wu, Yihan Geng, Zheng Yuan, Dahua Lin, and Kai Chen. Lean workbook: A large-scale lean problem set formalized from natural language math problems, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2406.03847

    2025 arXiv

  55. [66]

    Formal mathematical reasoning: A new frontier in ai, 2024

    Kaiyu Yang, Gabriel Poesia, Jingxuan He, Wenda Li, Kristin Lauter, Swarat Chaudhuri, and Dawn Song. Formal mathematical reasoning: A new frontier in ai, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16075

    2024 arXiv

  56. [67]

    Formalmath: Benchmarking formal mathematical reasoning of large language models, 2025

    Zhouliang Yu, Ruotian Peng, Keyi Ding, Yizhe Li, Zhongyuan Peng, Minghao Liu, Yifan Zhang, Zheng Yuan, Huajian Xin, Wenhao Huang, Yandong Wen, Ge Zhang, and Weiyang Liu. Formalmath: Benchmarking formal mathematical reasoning of large language models, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org...

    2025 arXiv

  57. [68]

    DAPO: An open-source LLM reinforcement learning system at scale

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, Xin Liu, et al. DAPO: An open-source LLM reinforcement learning system at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14476, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  58. [69]

    Does reinforcement learning really incentivize reasoning capacity in LLMs beyond the base model?arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13837, 2025

    Yang Yue, Zhiqi Chen, Rui Lu, Andrew Zhao, Zhaokai Wang, Shiji Song, and Gao Huang. Does reinforcement learning really incentivize reasoning capacity in LLMs beyond the base model?arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13837, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  59. [70]

    Generating symbolic world models via test-time scaling of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04728, 2025

    Zhouliang Yu, Yuhuan Yuan, Tim Z Xiao, Fuxiang Frank Xia, Jie Fu, Ge Zhang, Ge Lin, and Weiyang Liu. Generating symbolic world models via test-time scaling of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04728, 2025. 20

    2025 arXiv

  60. [71]

    Codecriticbench: A holistic code critique benchmark for large language models

    Alexander Zhang, Marcus Dong, Jiaheng Liu, Wei Zhang, Yejie Wang, Jian Yang, Ge Zhang, Tianyu Liu, Zhongyuan Peng, Yingshui Tan, et al. Codecriticbench: A holistic code critique benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16614, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  61. [72]

    VAPO: Efficient and reliable reinforcement learning for advanced reasoning tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05118, 2025

    Yu Yue, Yufeng Yuan, Qiying Yu, Xiaochen Zuo, Ruofei Zhu, Wenyuan Xu, Jiaze Chen, Chengyi Wang, TianTian Fan, Zhengyin Du, et al. VAPO: Efficient and reliable reinforcement learning for advanced reasoning tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05118, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  62. [73]

    Bluemo: A comprehensive collection of challenging mathematical olympiad problems from the little blue book series., 2024

    Yifan Zhang, Yifan Luo, and Yizhou Chen. Bluemo: A comprehensive collection of challenging mathematical olympiad problems from the little blue book series., 2024

    2024

  63. [74]

    Map-neo: Highly capable and transparent bilingual large language model series.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19327, 2024

    Ge Zhang, Scott Qu, Jiaheng Liu, Chenchen Zhang, Chenghua Lin, Chou Leuang Yu, Danny Pan, Esther Cheng, Jie Liu, Qunshu Lin, et al. Map-neo: Highly capable and transparent bilingual large language model series.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19327, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  64. [75]

    Minif2f: a cross-system benchmark for formal olympiad-level mathematics

    Kunhao Zheng, Jesse Michael Han, and Stanislas Polu. Minif2f: a cross-system benchmark for formal olympiad-level mathematics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00110, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  65. [76]

    Deeptheorem: Advancing llm reasoning for theorem proving through natural language and reinforcement learning, 2025

    Ziyin Zhang, Jiahao Xu, Zhiwei He, Tian Liang, Qiuzhi Liu, Yansi Li, Linfeng Song, Zhenwen Liang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Rui Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. Deeptheorem: Advancing llm reasoning for theorem proving through natural language and reinforcement learning, 2025....

    2025

  66. [77]

    Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models

    Yaowei Zheng, Richong Zhang, Junhao Zhang, Yanhan Ye, Zheyan Luo, Zhangchi Feng, and Yongqiang Ma. Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume3: System De...

    2024 arXiv

  67. [78]

    Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595–46623, 2023

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595–46623, 2023

    2023

  68. [80]

    Lima: Less is more for alignment.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 55006–55021, 2023

    Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srinivasan Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, et al. Lima: Less is more for alignment.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 55006–55021, 2023. 21 Appendix A Fine-Grained Domain Distributio...

    2023

  69. [81]

    A, B, C form a triangle

    Semantic and Logical Errors 1.1 Premise Translation Error • Description: This error occurs when formalizing the given conditions, constraints, or assumptions from the original problem, resulting in a discrepancy between the logical premises in the Lean code and the problem’s d...

    2002

  70. [82]

    2.1 Syntax Error • Description: The code does not conform to the basic syntax rules of Lean 4

    Lean Syntax and Technical Errors • Description: These are technical issues at the code level that prevent the code from compiling or cause unexpected runtime behavior. 2.1 Syntax Error • Description: The code does not conform to the basic syntax rules of Lean 4. • Examples: A ...

  71. [83]

    prove or disprove

    Translation Completeness and Other Meta-Errors • Description: These errors reflect that the formalization fails to cover all requirements of the problem, or that the problem itself is difficult to formalize. 3.1 Unformalizable Problem • Description: The original problem descri...

  72. [84]

    Completeness of Preconditions: Are all explicitly stated preconditions in the problem translated without omission? 28

  73. [85]

    Accuracy of Variable Domains: Are the domains of variables (e.g., N, N+, R, Fin k , Set.Icc a b ) accurately translated?

  74. [86]

    Accuracy of Indexing: Do the starting points and ranges of sequence/function indices (e.g.,a0 vs a1, Finset.range n vs Finset.Icc 1 n ) align with the original intent?

  75. [87]

    Clarity of Object Properties: Are the properties of specific objects (e.g., geometric figures like trapezoids, incircles; algebraic structures like groups, rings) clearly expressed?

  76. [88]

    Inclusion of Implicit Conditions: Are common implicit contextual conditions in mathematics (e.g., non-zero divisors, non-negative radicands, non-degenerate geometric objects, definedness of functions/sequences at application points, default to real numbers if unspecified) appr...

  77. [89]

    not equal to 0

    Accuracy of Conditional Semantics: Is the mathematical meaning of conditions (e.g., "not equal to 0" (̸= 0) vs "greater than 0" (> 0), direction of inequality signs (> vs ≥)) accurately translated? Goals & Conclusions:

  78. [90]

    Completeness of Goals/Conclusions: Are all goals/conclusions that need to be proven or solved translated? (Pay special attention to multi-part conclusions and multiple solution scenarios)

  79. [91]

    Precision of Goal Type: Is the type of goal to be solved precise (e.g., specific value, extremum, existence/uniqueness, universal property, equivalence relation, implication)?

  80. [92]

    attainability

    Attainability in Extremum Problems: For extremum problems, is "attainability" explicitly stated (i.e., demonstrating not just an inequality, but also that equality can be achieved)?

  81. [93]

    Accuracy of Goal Semantics: Is the mathematical meaning of the goals accurately translated? Combination of Preconditions Logical Structure:

  82. [94]

    Accuracy of Logical Connectives: Does the use of logical connectives (↔ (iff), → (if...then...), ∧ (and), ∨ (or), ¬ (not)) accurately reflect the logical relationships of the original proposition?

  83. [95]

    Appropriateness of Quantifiers: Is the use of quantifiers (∀ (for all),∃ (exists), ∃! (exists uniquely)) appropriate?

  84. [96]

    , δdepends on ϵ)?

    Correctness of Quantifier Scope and Nesting: Do the order, scope, and nesting of quantifiers correctly express the dependencies between variables (e.g., in∀ϵ >0, ∃δ >0, . . . , δdepends on ϵ)?

  85. [97]

    Combination of Preconditions: How do multiple preconditions combine to affect the conclusion (e.g., differentiate (A ∧ B) → C from A → (B → C))?

  86. [98]

    Fidelity to Original Logic: Does the formalization faithfully represent the inherent logic and key steps of the original mathematical problem? Lean Technical Accuracy:

  87. [99]

    Correctness of Basic Syntax: Is the basic Lean syntax (parenthesis matching, keywords like theorem , def , variable , let , by ) entirely correct?

  88. [100]

    Adherence to Type Constraints: Do all operations, function parameters, and return values satisfy Lean’s type constraints?

  89. [101]

    Correct Mapping of Mathematical Concepts: Are mathematical concepts correctly mapped to their Lean counterparts?

  90. [102]

    Clarity of Custom Definitions: Are all custom functions, predicates, and notations used clearly defined?

  91. [103]

    Correctness of Imports: Are necessary definitions and lemmas correctly imported from Mathlib? 29 Overall Consistency:

  92. [104]

    Capturing Core Mathematical Ideas: Does the formalization truly capture the core mathematical ideas and goals of the original problem?

  93. [105]

    Absence of Logical Contradictions: Are there any logical contradictions between the translated conditions, definitions, and goals?

  94. [106]

    Appropriateness for Formalization: Is the problem itself suitable for precise, unambiguous mathematical formalization?

  95. [107]

    Your task is to evaluate whether the Lean4 code accurately and semantically represents the mathematical text

    Documentation of Assumptions: Are any assumptions or interpretative choices made during the formalization process documented? F Prompt:Critical Feedback to CoT Prompt:Critical Feedback to CoT Instruction:You will be provided with a mathematical text and its Lean4 code represen...

  96. [108]

    Mathematical Text: A string containing mathematical content

  97. [109]

    Lean4Code: A string representing the code equivalent of the mathematical text

  98. [110]

    Conversion Success: A boolean value (True or False) indicating whether the mathematical text was successfully converted to the Lean4 code representation

  99. [111]

    Reason: A string representing the code equivalent of the mathematical text

  100. [112]

    You must generate the detailed justification for the success

    If Conversion Success is True, this field will typically be empty. You must generate the detailed justification for the success

  101. [113]

    You must elaborate on this identified failure, incorporating the analysis modules described below

    If Conversion Success is False, this field will contain specific information pinpointing why the conversion failed. You must elaborate on this identified failure, incorporating the analysis modules described below. Your Role: You are an AI language assistant. Your role is to a...

  102. [114]

    Understand the Content: Carefully read the mathematical text, the code representation, the Conversion Success value, and the Reason input (if Conversion Success is False)

  103. [115]

    Generating the Explanation for Success (if Conversion Success is True): If the conversion is successful, provide a detailed, step-by-step explanation using COT to justify why it is successful. Your justification should implicitly cover: (a) Mathematical Text Analysis: Briefly ...

  104. [116]

    This establishes the intended meaning

    Elaborating on Failure (if Conversion Success is False): If the conversion is unsuccessful, use a step-by-step COT approach structured around the following analysis modules to elaborate on the specific failure identified in the input Reason field: (a) Mathematical Text Analysi...

  105. [117]

    The provided reason indicates

    Crucially: Your final explanation should present this analysis directly. Do not explicitly state "The provided reason indicates..." or similar phrases referring back to the input Reason field in your output. Simply explain the error based on the structure above. • Focus on Exp...

  106. [118]

    The analysis should be based on the actual content of the text

    Math Assertion Analysis Identify all structurally and semantically relevant components of the mathematical problem, including variables, types, quantifiers, constraints, logic structure, conclusion, and so on. The analysis should be based on the actual content of the text

  107. [119]

    The analysis should reflect the actual content present in the Lean code

    Lean Statement Analysis (ignore proof part) Extract all structurally and semantically relevant components from the Lean statement, including variables, types, conditions, quantifiers, constraints, the final claim, and so on. The analysis should reflect the actual content prese...

  108. [120]

    - Preservation of constraints and boundary assumptions

    Comparative Verification Check for exact correspondence between the math and Lean statements; you may refer to aspects like: - Semantic alignment, logic structure, and quantifier correctness. - Preservation of constraints and boundary assumptions. - Accurate typing and use of ...

  109. [121]

    Final Judgement Based solely on the above analysis, judge whether the Lean statement is a correct and exact formalization of the mathematical problem

  110. [122]

    reasons":

    Accuracy Confirmation If correct: clearly confirm why all elements match. If incorrect: list all mismatches and explain how each one affects correctness. 33 Note: While the analysis may be broad and open to interpreting all relevant features, the final judgment must be based o...

  111. [123]

    Math Assertion Analysis: [...]

  112. [124]

    Lean Statement Analysis (Proof Ignored): [...]

  113. [125]

    Comparative Verification: [...]

  114. [126]

    , "is_assistant_correct

    Accuracy Confirmation: [match confirmation or list of discrepancies...]", "is_assistant_correct": "[Correct/Incorrect]" } ‘‘‘ Input Data: — Start of Mathematical_Text — {mathematical_statement} — End of Mathematical_Text — — Start of Lean4Code — {autoformalization_placeholder}...

  115. [127]

    (b) Its corresponding correct Lean 4 code formalization

    A problem pair consisting of: (a) A mathematical definition or statement. (b) Its corresponding correct Lean 4 code formalization

  116. [128]

    Note that the proof is intentionally omitted (e.g., usingsorry)

    An error checklist and Lean 4 theorem statement: A list of potential error types or modification strategies, along with a Lean 4 theorem statement that formalizes the problem. Note that the proof is intentionally omitted (e.g., usingsorry). Your process should be as follows:

  117. [129]

    Each chosen item must be directly and plausibly applicable to the structure, logic, or types within the provided 34 mathematical statement and its Lean 4 code

    From the provided checklist, select exactly 2 error types or modification strategies. Each chosen item must be directly and plausibly applicable to the structure, logic, or types within the provided 34 mathematical statement and its Lean 4 code

  118. [130]

    The modification should be contextually relevant to the provided mathematical statement and its original Lean 4 formalization

    Based on your selection(s), intentionally modify the Lean 4 code to make it incorrect or subtly deviate from the original mathematical intent. The modification should be contextually relevant to the provided mathematical statement and its original Lean 4 formalization. Aim for...

  119. [131]

    When applying multiple selected error types, aim to incorporate all of them naturally into the code modification. If this proves too complex or makes the resulting error contrived, you may focus on a primary subset of the selected types, but clearly explain your rationale and ...

  120. [132]

    Detailed Explanation of Modifications

    Important: Do not add any comments directly within the mathematical description or the Lean 4 code itself to explain your changes. All explanations should be in the "Detailed Explanation of Modifications" section. You must then return your response as a JSON object with the fo...

  121. [133]

    Summarize the math problem in one or two sentences, highlighting the key mathematical concepts or structures involved

  122. [134]

    Summary":

    Classify the problem into one or more mathematical domains, using a hierarchical classification chain. For example: Algebra -> Intermediate Algebra -> Inequalities . The classification should be based on the mathematical content of thenatural languageproblem, even if no formal...

  123. [135]

    Summarize the math problem in a brief sentence, describing the concepts involved in the math 39 problem

  124. [136]

    === report over ===

    Based on the source of the given problem, as well as the difficulty of the problems referenced in these materials and the solution to the current problem, please provide an overall difficulty score for the current problem. The score should be a number between 1 and 10, with in...

  125. [2024]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01940. 18

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.