Beyond Compilation: Evaluating Faithful Natural-Language-to-Lean Statement Formalization

Autoformalization, translating natural-language mathematics into formal proof assistants, is bottlenecked not by translation fluency but by \emph{faithfulness}: a formal statement can typecheck and be provable, yet still encode a different theorem than the source intended. We introduce \emph{Bidirectional Provability Fingerprinting} (\bpf{}), a framework that certifies faithfulness by characterizing each candidate through its forward and backward consequence neighborhoods in the ambient theory and matching these against probes derived from the natural-language statement. We further introduce four novel components: (i) \emph{Counterfactual Probe Generation} (\cpg{}), a contrastive procedure that synthesizes probes targeting specific drift directions; (ii) the \emph{Equivalence Spectrum}, a continuous faithfulness score that replaces brittle binary verdicts; (iii) \emph{Adaptive Probe Budget Allocation} (\apba{}), an information-theoretic budget router; and (iv) \emph{Faithfulness-Guided Decoding} (\fgd{}), which uses \bpf{} signals as a reward during autoformalization. We prove a \emph{drift detection theorem} and a \emph{PAC-faithfulness} result establishing that the equivalence class of a natural language statement is learnable from $\mathcal{O}(\log(1/δ)/\varepsilon)$ probes under mild assumptions. We release \driftbench{}, a benchmark of $2{,}183$ NL/Lean~4 pairs with controlled drift labels across six subfields of mathlib4. \bpf{},+,\cpg{} detects $89.6\%$ of drifted formalizations at a $3.0\%$ false-positive rate-against $41.2\%$ for typecheck and $63.3\%$ for LLM-judge baselines, and \fgd{} reduces the rate at which a state-of-the-art autoformalizer emits drifted statements by $47\%$. https://pmlrbd.github.io/BPF/

Benchmarks for LLM-assisted theorem proving in Lean are often treated as intrinsically reliable because every solved instance comes with a machine-checked proof. However, the kernel only checks that a proof establishes a \emph{formal} statement; it does not verify that the statement faithfully encodes the intended informal problem, nor that evaluation harnesses are robust to trivial or adversarial solutions. We audit five widely used Lean theorem-proving benchmarks and their forks, using corpus-scale static checkers to surface 4,833 findings, including 398 mechanically certified issues such as counterexamples, vacuous theorems, and unsound axioms. We also document semantic defects such as missing hypotheses, problem simplification, incomplete or incorrect translations, and Lean-specific specification hazards. Beyond dataset construction, we survey evaluation-time failure modes and show, on corrected subsets, that defects can both inflate and deflate reported prover scores. We propose a fault taxonomy, a suite of automated checkers and recall-oriented semantic audit prompts, and release standards to guide the creation of formal math datasets and to make evaluation more reproducible and trustworthy. Our checkers, audit prompts, and corrected dataset snapshots are available at https://github.com/Shashi456/atp-checkers.

Lean is increasingly used to judge natural-language mathematical answers, but its signal is partial: many answers never formalize, and a failed proof may reflect an ill-typed statement or a missing library fact, not a wrong answer. On MATH-500 we show this signal is (i) sharply coverage-dependent, that is the proof-winning answer is correct 96% of the time at high proved coverage but 20% at low, and (ii) sparse and often unfaithful: a 7B autoformalizer proves a class for only 28% of problems, and a manual audit finds only approximately 43% of those proofs faithful. We propose COVCAL, a selector over Lean-trace diagnostics that certifies a finite-sample selective-risk bound on accepted answers or abstains, under two regimes (a conservative Bonferroni bound and a tighter dev-then-cal rule). Feasibility depends on autoformalization coverage: with the 7B formalizer the signal is too sparse and Bonferroni abstains on all 20 bootstrap partitions, whereas a prover-specialized formalizer reaches 79% coverage and flips it to feasible on 17 of 20, accepting approximately 48% of problems at 0.98 accepted accuracy. Since self-consistency alone is already 91% accurate, our contribution is a precise account of when, and with which formalizer, a partial formal signal can be trusted under risk control.