FormInv: A Measurement Protocol for Semantic Invariance in Mathematical Reasoning Benchmarks

Lean 4 autoformalization has become increasingly popular in recent years, with frontier language models and open-weight autoformalizers now producing valid formalizations of mathematical theorems. However, these evaluations often rely on single canonical phrasings of theorems and rarely probe whether outputs are robust to natural variation in inputs, while prior work has shown that semantically equivalent paraphrases often induce divergent formal outputs. We study the structure of these divergences in Lean 4 by applying deterministic paraphrase rules to datasets of undergraduate and Olympiad-level math problems. Across four frontier models and three open-weight autoformalizers, we find that paraphrase sensitivity is dominated by failures at the code-generation layer, and that these failures are typed differently by dataset. Furthermore, these patterns generalize to open-weight models, showing that state-of-the-art autoformalizers still struggle to generate valid Lean code. Our results provide a failure-mode taxonomy for autoformalization and motivate training-time interventions targeted at specific compilation failures.

AI systems increasingly operate between flexible input representations and formal objects used by downstream tools. A key challenge is recognizing when an unfamiliar formulation denotes a known formal object. We study this challenge through theorem recognition: given an equivalence-preserving transformation of a theorem condition, a model must recover the theorem identity associated with the standard statement. We introduce TREAT, a benchmark for evaluating whether large language models can recover known theorem identities from equivalence-preserving formula-level transformations. Rather than paraphrasing theorem text, TREAT changes the mathematical form of theorem conditions themselves, expressing known results through residual equations, witness statements, optimization identities, set relations, operator forms, and proof-intermediate characterizations. Starting from scraped theorem pages, we filter for entries with usable mathematical expression forms, extract canonical theorem conditions, and generate transformed variants with recorded assumptions and inverse mappings. The final corpus contains 737 theorem identities and 29,480 transformed rows. On a test panel, the best model retrieves the correct theorem identity in only 60.73% of cases. Other systems reveal different failure modes, including abstention, wrong detection, and malformed outputs. These suggest that theorem knowledge can be fragile under equivalent changes in representation. TREAT therefore provides a controlled testbed for evaluating representation-robust access to formal knowledge, with broader relevance to domains that require stable target objects, explicit equivalence relations, validation procedures, and auditable scoring.

Autoformalisation (AF) systems map natural language reasoning steps into formal statements in a proof assistant such as Lean. We consider how to assess the faithfulness of these systems. Existing approaches require expensive human-annotated ground truth, or rely on LLM judges or embedding models, which come with limited guarantees of accuracy. In addition, these methods typically only consider inputs that are known to be correct, and therefore do not assess whether the AF translates incorrect inputs faithfully. To address these limitations, we propose a new benchmark for AF faithfulness that is cheap to apply, sound under weak assumptions, and assesses both positive and negative examples. Our method is based on automatically generating perturbed reasoning steps that are designed to be invalid, and then measuring validity preservation on unperturbed steps and invalidity preservation on perturbed steps. We apply our method to eight AF systems across four mathematical datasets, and observe pervasive sycophancy: many AFs "silently correct" invalid inputs into provable statements. The most validity-preserving fine-tuned AFs are also the most sycophantic, suggesting a tension between validity and invalidity preservation in current AF systems.