FaithformBench: Benchmarking Faithfulness of Mathematical Chain-of-Thought Autoformalisation

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/

Proof autoformalization aims to translate a mathematical informal proof written in natural language into a formal proof in a formal language such as Lean~4. Several works have developed LLM-based models for proof autoformalization. However, existing evaluations have typically focused on translating well-formed informal proofs from curated datasets. We argue that a robust proof autoformalizer must remain faithful even for informal proofs that diverge from these idealized ones, and we present the first study on the robustness of proof autoformalization models. We formulate two categories of perturbations and evaluate robustness under each: a global perturbation paraphrases the informal proof in a different style, under which the formalization should remain consistent; a local perturbation alters a value, symbol, or proof step, possibly in a counterfactual way, and a robust formalization should faithfully reflect the perturbation rather than reverting to the original one or inferring a different one on its own. We build a benchmark with both perturbations on miniF2F and MATH-500, and automatically measure how stable a proof autoformalization's correctness is under global perturbations and how faithfully its output reflects local perturbations. We evaluate seven recent models, all of which are sensitive to global perturbations and mostly fail to remain faithful under local perturbations. Code and data are available via https://github.com/ucr-rai/robust-proof-autoformalization.

Lean verifies that a generated declaration is well typed, but not that it expresses the statement a user intended. We study two questions for autoformalization without canonical Lean targets: whether LLM judges can provide a usable proxy for human semantic review, and how much compilation overstates faithfulness across systems. Our criterion combines Lean compilation with strict semantic consensus between GPT-5.2 and Gemini-2.5-Pro. On an independently audited random sample, it agrees with human majority on 89.7% of cases (Wilson 95% CI: 82.1--94.3%). Across eight systems evaluated on 400 graduate-level statements, every system has a nonzero compile--faithfulness gap, whose observed magnitude ranges from 3.0 to 29.0 percentage points. The full GPT-5.2 tool-augmented agent shows the largest gap, compiling 89.5% while satisfying the semantic criterion on 60.5%. Human review, an independent third-family judge, and a BEq formal cross-check provide complementary evidence that the accepted core is reliable and that most audited outputs in the gap are genuine semantic mismatches. A secondary $2^3$ factorial analysis shows that elaboration feedback is the largest validity intervention, yet does not eliminate semantic drift. LLM judging is therefore useful as a human-calibrated, conservative aggregate measure, not as an equivalence oracle.