Jiayi Wu, Robert Joseph George, Anima Anandkumarcs.AI cs.LO
Formal theorem proving has emerged as a frontier challenge for machine learning, yet the ecosystem is fragmented: proofs remain siloed across incompatible systems, limiting both training data for learning-based provers and the portability of verified results. We present ITPEval, the first benchmark for evaluating automated formal proof translation across four major ITPs (Lean 4, Rocq, Isabelle, and HOL Light), spanning two distinct logical foundations. Our benchmark comprises 1,560 source files and 6,848 theorems organized into a controlled tier of axiomatized files that isolates foundational translation difficulty, and an ecosystem tier drawn from real libraries that exposes API and proof-style mismatches. We release itpeval, a unified multi-ITP verification infrastructure with state-isolated warm backends that preserve per-artifact native checking semantics. We evaluate both statement and proof translation across five frontier and open-weight LLMs on 12 directed translation pairs: statement translation peaks at 29.1% pass@1 and proof translation at 10.5%; controlled theorems reach 29.7% proof pass@1 versus 5.2% for ecosystem-level translations, confirming that library mismatch is the dominant bottleneck. In addition to pass@k evaluation, a deterministic Lean 4 BEq check establishes equivalence for 54.0% of verified source-to-Lean 4 miniF2F statement translations, showing that native type-checking alone can substantially overestimate semantic fidelity; in an autoformalization/auto-informalization round-trip study, Rocq and HOL Light are easier formalization targets than Lean 4 and Isabelle, while multi-ITP context improves pooled Lean 4 success from 4.8% to 10.6%. Our benchmark, verification infrastructure, and evaluation pipelines are publicly released.
SAT solvers settle combinatorial problems beyond the reach of interactive theorem provers and produce LRAT certificates for independent verification. We present LRAT-Catcher, a standalone, general-purpose tool that imports a DIMACS formula together with an LRAT certificate into Lean 4 as a theorem. LRAT-Catcher runs the formally verified LRAT checker from Lean core as compiled native code via reflection. This scales to instances where Mathlib's explicit proof-term import exhausts memory. LRAT-Catcher also composes cube-and-conquer solving runs entirely inside Lean. Per-cube refutations are combined with a cover-completeness certificate, itself an LRAT proof, into a single unsatisfiability theorem. Verified encodings connect CNF-level results to the original combinatorial problems. We evaluate the tool against Mathlib's proof-term import and the external checker cake_lpr on establishing the Schur number S(4) = 44 and the Ramsey number R(4,4) = 18 as Lean theorems.
Large language models can often close proof gaps in interactive theorem provers, but a verified theorem is not the same thing as a reusable library contribution. We study this distinction through a detailed case study: a semi-autonomous formalization of Grothendieck's vanishing theorem. The initial version compiles with no sorries, but an expert review found serious problems in definitions, theorem generality, file organization, and the API. We then ran a review-driven refactor and compression process and obtained a second expert review. The before-and-after comparison shows a sharp split: agents adapted well to local, mechanically checkable feedback, but remained weak at choosing definitions and designing APIs. We argue that autoformalization should be evaluated not only by closed sorries, but by whether the resulting formalization survives expert review.