Reasoning without Gold Standards: A Proxy-Judge Theory of Autoformalization
Authors: Lei Xu, Xin Quan, André Freitas
Organizations: 1Idiap Research Institute, Switzerland · 2École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland · Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, United Kingdom · 4CRUK National Biomarker Centre, University of Manchester, United Kingdom
Abstract
Complex reasoning tasks increasingly require systems to produce outputs whose correctness cannot be judged by exact match against a single reference. Autoformalization (AF) is a representative example; it asks a model to translate informal mathematical or logical reasoning into a formally checkable object, yet expert-validated formalizations do not scale beyond toy cases and a single informal argument can admit many valid formal renderings. Progress therefore depends on whether partial, structured proxies can substitute for exact references. We introduce a reference-free proxy-judge framework for AF that replaces gold-standard matching with a vector of per-axis property checks. The framework organizes the proxy along three structural scopes that cover global properties of the elicited object, per-module properties internal to its sub-components, and cross-domain properties that re-align it to the informal source, and aggregates each axis into a verdict vector. The vector drives a reflective refinement loop in which a violated coordinate routes the controller to a matching repair target, so each iteration changes only what is judged wrong. Under bounded judge noise, the expected intrinsic gap contracts geometrically to a noise-dependent plateau. Across seven formalization backbones on miniF2F, ProofNet, e-SNLI, and ProntoQA, refinement consistently lifts Pass Rate over the single-shot ICL baseline, and the per-axis proxy outperforms a matched scalar proxy on benchmarks where the baseline has room to improve. Structured proxy judgments therefore provide both a practical refinement signal and a theoretical handle on convergence when exact references are unavailable.
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.
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.
The veracious semantic alignment in autoformalization is significant for formal mathematical reasoning. However, existing evaluations provide only opaque binary verdicts or scalar scores, offering no interpretable insight into where or why translations fail. This opacity severely limits both human understanding and automated system improvement. To bridge this gap, we introduce FormalRx, a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation framework that transforms autoformalization assessment from black-box judgments into actionable feedback. At its core is SCI Error Taxonomy, a hierarchical classification scheme decomposing autoformalization errors into 28 distinct categories with strict priority ordering. Building on this taxonomy, FormalRx provides four critical diagnostic capabilities: alignment verdicts, error categorization, error localization, and correction. We instantiate the framework with a diagnostic model FormalRx-8B, trained on 56,287 NL-FL pairs with fine-grained diagnostic annotations, and release FormalRx-Test as the first fine-grained diagnostic benchmark. FormalRx-8B achieves F1-scores of 0.88 (verdict) and 0.71 (categorization), along with accuracies of 0.75 (localization) and 0.73 (correction), substantially outperforming both general-purpose LLMs and specialized baselines. By connecting evaluation with actionable insights, FormalRx enables systematic diagnosis and improvement of autoformalization systems.