pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.23166 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-30 · 💻 cs.CL

Monotonic Reference-Free Refinement for Autoformalization

Lan Zhang , Marco Valentino , Andr\'e Freitas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords autoformalizationfull-theorem formalizationiterative refinementtheorem proversLLM judgesmonotonic improvementformal validitymathematical consistency
0
0 comments X

The pith

A reference-free iterative process refines full-theorem autoformalizations monotonically by jointly optimizing validity, preservation, consistency, and quality.

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

The paper introduces an iterative refinement method for converting complete mathematical theorems into formal statements without any reference formalizations or human input. It draws on feedback from theorem provers and LLM-based judges to improve four quality dimensions together through a masked composite objective. An acceptance policy ensures each accepted change improves the result in a certified way, with conditions for convergence. A reader would care because prior methods typically fix one aspect of formalization while harming others, whereas this process targets simultaneous gains for more usable automated proofs.

Core claim

The paper establishes a reference-free iterative monotonic process for full-theorem autoformalization at inference time. This process leverages complementary feedback from theorem provers and LLM-based judges without access to ground-truth formalizations. It optimizes a masked composite objective over Formal Validity, Logical Preservation, Mathematical Consistency, and Formal Quality, guided by a responsiveness map that shows how different LLMs improve each dimension preferentially. An acceptance policy guarantees certified monotonic improvement, along with conditions ensuring convergence and termination.

What carries the argument

The masked composite objective over Formal Validity, Logical Preservation, Mathematical Consistency, and Formal Quality, guided by an LLM responsiveness map and enforced by a monotonic acceptance policy.

Load-bearing premise

LLM-based judges can reliably assess logical preservation and mathematical consistency without access to ground-truth formalizations.

What would settle it

Running the process on the same benchmarks and observing that accepted steps produce lower composite scores than the initial formalizations or that overall scores fail to improve monotonically.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.23166 by Andr\'e Freitas, Lan Zhang, Marco Valentino.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the monotonic process with a running example. In this process, One-Off Generators (OOGs) produce formalizations from scratch, Recurrent Generators (REGs) refine the current best formalization using feedback from LLM judges, and FV-Repairers (FVRs) correct formally invalid candidates generated by OOGs and REGs. The acceptance policy retains only the formalization estimated to have … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance of the monotonic process on miniF2F and ProofNet test split. (GPT-Eval): soft-dimensions are estimated by GPT-4.1-mini judges; (Qwen-Eval): soft-dimensions are estimated by Qwen2.5-Coder-7B judges; (Mono): the monotonic process. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time Step (t) 40 60 80 100 Score (%) ¼FV ¼ c LP ¼ c MC ¼ c FQ J b (a) ISR-miniF2F 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time Step (t) 0 25 50 75 100 Score (%) ¼FV ¼ c LP ¼ c MC ¼ c F… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Performance of iterative self-refinement (ISR) using DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B with error feedback and no acceptance policy. We run the monotonic optimization process for six itera￾tions on both miniF2F and ProofNet. Performance at each iteration is reported in Figures 2a and 2b. The monotonic process guarantees non-decreasing progress and converges within a few steps. Across both datasets, all evaluation scor… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average of local responsiveness (%)for LLMs as different generators. 3.2.2. RESPONSIVENESS MAPS OF GENERATORS We evaluate the ability of LLMs to act as Recurrent Gener￾ators under iterative refinement with feedback from LLM judges. In addition to REG-LP, REG-MC, and REG-FQ, we also consider REG-ALL, which uses feedback aggregated across all evaluation dimensions. We consider Qwen2.5-7B, Seed-Coder-8B, Deep… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average and Cohen’s d of improvements using different feedback on each dataset. Algorithm 1 Candidates Construction at Step t 1: Inputs: Natural language statement and proof (snl, pnl), Previous formalization xt, Set of One-Off Generators Gi , Set of FV-Repairers Gj , Set of Recurrent Generators Gk, Theorem Prover T P. 2: Ct ← ∅ 3: for G ∈ Gi do 4: Sample one x ∼ pG(x | snl, pnl) 5: if πFV(x) == 0 from T P… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustrative example of a single step in the monotonic process. The monotonic process enables the construction of high-quality formalizations that are both formally valid, as verified by the theorem prover, and semantically aligned, as evaluated by LLM judges. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While statement autoformalization has advanced rapidly, full-theorem autoformalization remains largely unexplored. Existing iterative refinement methods in statement autoformalization typically improve isolated aspects of formalization, such as syntactic correctness, but struggle to jointly optimize multiple quality dimensions, which is critical for full-theorem autoformalization. We introduce a reference-free iterative monotonic process at inference time for full-theorem autoformalization that leverages complementary feedback from theorem provers and LLM-based judges, without access to ground-truth or existing formalizations and without human intervention. Our approach optimizes a masked composite objective over Formal Validity, Logical Preservation, Mathematical Consistency, and Formal Quality, guided by a responsiveness map that indicates how different LLMs acting as different roles preferentially improve each dimension. We further propose an acceptance policy that guarantees certified monotonic improvement, and provide conditions ensuring convergence and termination. Empirical experiments demonstrate the proposed process enables simultaneous improvement across multiple dimensions, achieving 100.00% formal validity and a 90.27% overall score on miniF2F, and 77.96% formal validity and a 52.45% overall score on ProofNet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a reference-free iterative monotonic refinement process for full-theorem autoformalization. It optimizes a masked composite objective consisting of Formal Validity (verified by theorem provers), Logical Preservation, Mathematical Consistency, and Formal Quality (assessed by LLM judges), using a responsiveness map to guide LLM roles. An acceptance policy ensures monotonic improvement in the composite score, with conditions for convergence. Experiments show 100.00% formal validity and 90.27% overall score on miniF2F, and 77.96% formal validity and 52.45% overall on ProofNet.

Significance. If the LLM-based components of the objective are shown to correlate reliably with actual logical and mathematical quality, the method would offer a practical inference-time technique for jointly improving multiple dimensions of full-theorem formalizations without references or human input, addressing a gap left by prior methods focused on isolated aspects such as syntactic correctness.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1] §3.1: The masked composite objective treats the weights on Logical Preservation, Mathematical Consistency, and Formal Quality as free parameters; no justification, ablation study, or sensitivity analysis is provided for the specific values used, which directly influences the reported overall scores.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2, Table 2: The 90.27% overall score on miniF2F and 52.45% on ProofNet incorporate LLM judgments for Logical Preservation and Mathematical Consistency; no correlation analysis, human validation, or comparison against ground-truth formalizations or additional prover checks is reported to establish that these judgments track actual theorem correctness.
  3. [§3.3] §3.3: The acceptance policy certifies monotonic increase only in the composite objective; because Formal Validity is the sole prover-anchored term while the other three rely on LLM judges, the policy does not guarantee progress on underlying formalization quality if the LLM components are noisy or biased toward superficial features.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] §2: The related-work section could more explicitly differentiate the proposed responsiveness map and acceptance policy from prior iterative refinement loops in statement autoformalization.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2: The diagram illustrating the iterative loop would be clearer with explicit arrows showing how the responsiveness map selects LLM roles at each step.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our work. We address each of the major comments point by point below and have made revisions to the manuscript where appropriate to strengthen the presentation and analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.1: The masked composite objective treats the weights on Logical Preservation, Mathematical Consistency, and Formal Quality as free parameters; no justification, ablation study, or sensitivity analysis is provided for the specific values used, which directly influences the reported overall scores.

    Authors: The weights were set to equal values (0.25 each) to provide a balanced optimization across the four dimensions without introducing bias toward any single component. We recognize that this choice lacks supporting analysis. In the revised version, we will include a sensitivity analysis by varying the weights and demonstrating the robustness of the reported results to these choices. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4.2, Table 2: The 90.27% overall score on miniF2F and 52.45% on ProofNet incorporate LLM judgments for Logical Preservation and Mathematical Consistency; no correlation analysis, human validation, or comparison against ground-truth formalizations or additional prover checks is reported to establish that these judgments track actual theorem correctness.

    Authors: We agree that establishing the reliability of LLM judgments is important. The formal validity component is directly verified by theorem provers, providing a solid anchor. For the LLM-based terms, we will add in the revision a discussion of their correlation with formal validity improvements and include a small-scale human validation study on a subset of examples to support their use. This will be presented as supplementary analysis. revision: partial

  3. Referee: §3.3: The acceptance policy certifies monotonic increase only in the composite objective; because Formal Validity is the sole prover-anchored term while the other three rely on LLM judges, the policy does not guarantee progress on underlying formalization quality if the LLM components are noisy or biased toward superficial features.

    Authors: The acceptance policy is designed to ensure monotonic improvement in the composite objective, which incorporates the prover-verified Formal Validity as a key term. While we acknowledge that LLM judges may introduce noise, the empirical results demonstrate simultaneous improvements in all dimensions, including 100% formal validity on miniF2F. We will revise the text to explicitly discuss the potential limitations of LLM-based components and how the inclusion of the verified term mitigates risks to underlying quality. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; inference-time feedback loop is externally anchored

full rationale

The paper describes an inference-time iterative process that optimizes a masked composite objective using theorem-prover feedback for Formal Validity and LLM judges for the remaining dimensions, with an acceptance policy enforcing monotonicity in the composite score. No equations or derivations are presented that reduce the claimed improvements to fitted parameters on the target data, self-citations, or ansatzes by construction. The responsiveness map and acceptance policy are procedural mechanisms driven by external signals rather than self-referential definitions. The reported scores on miniF2F and ProofNet are outcomes of this loop, not inputs that the method presupposes. This is a standard empirical refinement setup with no load-bearing self-referential steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that LLM judges supply reliable complementary signals across the four quality dimensions and that the acceptance policy guarantees monotonicity without external references.

free parameters (1)
  • weights in masked composite objective
    Weights balancing Formal Validity, Logical Preservation, Mathematical Consistency, and Formal Quality are required to define the objective but are not specified in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption LLM judges can assess logical preservation and mathematical consistency without ground-truth references
    Invoked to justify the reference-free setting and the use of LLM feedback.
invented entities (1)
  • responsiveness map no independent evidence
    purpose: Indicates how different LLMs acting in different roles preferentially improve each quality dimension
    Introduced to guide role assignment during iteration; no independent evidence provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5492 in / 1284 out tokens · 22729 ms · 2026-05-16T09:26:47.666421+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Reasoning without Gold Standards: A Proxy-Judge Theory of Autoformalization

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A proxy-judge framework for autoformalization organizes checks into three structural scopes to produce a verdict vector that drives targeted refinement, with geometric contraction of the intrinsic gap under bounded ju...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/ 6b493230205f780e1bc26945df7481e5-Paper

    URL https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/ 6b493230205f780e1bc26945df7481e5-Paper. pdf. Li, Z., Wu, Y ., Li, Z., Wei, X., Zhang, X., Yang, F., and Ma, X. Autoformalize mathematical statements by symbolic equivalence and semantic consistency. InThe Thirty- eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 2024. URL ...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.431 2020

  2. [2]

    Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T

    URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=HuvAM5x2xG. Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T. L., Cao, Y ., and Narasimhan, K. R. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. InThirty- seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=5Xc1ecxO1h. Ying, H., Wu, Z., G...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    findings-acl.856/

    URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=Vcw3vzjHDb. Yu, Z., Peng, R., Ding, K., Li, Y ., Peng, Z., Liu, M., Zhang, Y ., Yuan, Z., Xin, H., Huang, W., Wen, Y ., Zhang, G., and Liu, W. Formalmath: Benchmarking formal mathe- matical reasoning of large language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02735. Zhang, K., Lin, X., Wang, Y ., Zhang, X., Sun, F.,...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp 2025

  4. [4]

    findings-acl.310/

    URL https://aclanthology.org/2023. findings-emnlp.48. Zhang, L., Quan, X., and Freitas, A. Consistent autofor- malization for constructing mathematical libraries. In 11 Monotonic Reference-Free Refinement for Autoformalization Al-Onaizan, Y ., Bansal, M., and Chen, Y .-N. (eds.),Pro- ceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main 2023

  5. [5]

    emnlp-main.233/

    URL https://aclanthology.org/2024. emnlp-main.233/. Zhang, L., Valentino, M., and Freitas, A. Autoformal- ization in the wild: Assessing LLMs on real-world mathematical definitions. In Christodoulopoulos, C., Chakraborty, T., Rose, C., and Peng, V . (eds.),Pro- ceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1720...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.90 2024

  6. [6]

    emnlp-demos.44/

    URL https://aclanthology.org/2025. emnlp-demos.44/. Zhang, L., Valentino, M., and Freitas, A. Beyond gold standards: Epistemic ensemble of llm judges for for- mal mathematical reasoning, 2025c. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2506.10903. Zhang, M., Borchert, P., Gritta, M., and Lampouras, G. Drift: Decompose, retrieve, illustrate, then formalize theorems, 2025...

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    12 Monotonic Reference-Free Refinement for Autoformalization A

    URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=9ZPegFuFTFv. 12 Monotonic Reference-Free Refinement for Autoformalization A. Proof of Theorem 2.2 Proof.Recall: JOA(x) = 1 3 πFV(x) πLP(x) +π MC(x) +π FQ(x) LCBδ(x) = 1 3 πFV(x) h bπLP(x)−m LP(δLP) + bπMC(x)−m MC(δMC) + bπFQ(x)−m FQ(δFQ) i δ= 1−(1−δ LP)(1−δ MC)(1−δ FQ) We have: Pr LCBδ(x)≤J OA(x) ≥Pr bπLP(x)−m LP(δLP) ...

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    The original dataset lacks natural language proofs, but an improved version (Jiang et al., 2023) provides them

    and Lean formalizations. The original dataset lacks natural language proofs, but an improved version (Jiang et al., 2023) provides them. It contains 244 validation instances and 244 test instances. Due to the availability of natural language proofs and its relatively small size, miniF2F is considered as a representative benchmark for validating the method...

    work page 2023

  9. [11]

    You should wrap the formal code in a way illustrated as the following: %%%%%%%%%% Your Formal Code %%%%%%%%%% Strictly follow the instructions that have been claimed. User Prompt: Natural language statement:{Natural Language Statement} Natural language proof:{Natural Language Proof} Give me the Lean4 formal code of them: FV-Repairer System Prompt: You are...

    work page

  10. [14]

    You should wrap the formal code in a way illustrated as the following: %%%%%%%%%% Your Formal Code %%%%%%%%%% Strictly follow the instructions that have been claimed. User Prompt: Natural language statement:{Natural Language Statement} Natural language proof:{Natural Language Proof} There are some Lean4 formal codes describing the given mathematical state...

    work page

  11. [15]

    You should give the formal code directly without any additional comments or explanations

    work page

  12. [16]

    In case that you need to import any necessary preambles, you should not import any fake (non-exist) preambles

    work page

  13. [17]

    You should wrap the formal code in a way illustrated as the following: %%%%%%%%%% Your Formal Code %%%%%%%%%% Strictly follow the instructions that have been claimed. 16 Monotonic Reference-Free Refinement for Autoformalization User Prompt: Natural language statement:{Natural Language Statement} Natural language proof:{Natural Language Proof} There are so...

    work page

  14. [18]

    True” or “False

    the judgement of whether the formalization meets this aspect. This should be a binary value in “True” or “False”

    work page

  15. [19]

    Dummit-Foote exercise 1 1 20

    the detailed explanation of your judgement. You should wrap your final results in a way illustrated as the following: %%%%%%%%%% Explanation: Your Detailed Explanation Judgement: Your Binary Judgement %%%%%%%%%% Strictly follow the instructions that have been claimed. User Prompt: Natural language statement:{Natural Language Statement} Natural language pr...

    work page