The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ProofNet: Autoformalizing and Formally Proving Undergraduate-Level Mathematics
Abstract
We introduce ProofNet, a benchmark for autoformalization and formal proving of undergraduate-level mathematics. The ProofNet benchmarks consists of 371 examples, each consisting of a formal theorem statement in Lean 3, a natural language theorem statement, and a natural language proof. The problems are primarily drawn from popular undergraduate pure mathematics textbooks and cover topics such as real and complex analysis, linear algebra, abstract algebra, and topology. We intend for ProofNet to be a challenging benchmark that will drive progress in autoformalization and automatic theorem proving. We report baseline results on statement autoformalization via in-context learning. Moreover, we introduce two novel statement autoformalization methods: prompt retrieval and distilled backtranslation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The outcome-only paradigm was demonstrated at scale in 2024 with DeepSeek-Prover-v1.5 (Xin et al., 2025), which releases an end-to-end RL pipeline in Lean based solely on binary verifier feedback, resulting in significant improvements in proof success on benchmarks like miniF2F (Zheng et al., 2022) and ProofNet (Azerbayev et al., 2023).”
From The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey (2025) · cites this paper as Azerbayev et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm
Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., Lanctot, M., Sifre, L., Kumaran, D., Graepel, T., et al. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.01815 · Cited by 1,102 · cited 1×
“A salient advantage of this method is that the ITP acts as a verifier for the language model’s reasoning, enabling the natural implementation of bootstrapping techniques such as expert iteration [Silver et al., 2017, Polu et al., 2022].”
MethodBiderman, S., Bicheno, K., & Gao, L. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.07311 · Cited by 12
Cited by
The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey
Zhang, G., Geng, H., Yu, X., Yin, Z., Zhang, Z., Tan, Z., Zhou, H., Li, Z., Xue, X., Li, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02547 · Cited by 229
Olausson, T., Gu, A., Lipkin, B., Zhang, C., Solar-Lezama, A., Tenenbaum, J., & Levy, R. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.313 · Cited by 57
“…structured symbolic representations that programs can reason about has gained popularity in the domain of formal mathematics, leading to autoformalization systems for several theorem provers including Mizar (Wang et al., 2018, 2020), Lean 3 (Azerbayev et al., 2023), and Isabelle (Wu et al., 2022).”
BackgroundFormalAlign: Automated Alignment Evaluation for Autoformalization
Lu, J., Wan, Y., Huang, Y., Xiong, J., Liu, Z., & Guo, Z. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10135 · Cited by 1
CLEVER: A Curated Benchmark for Formally Verified Code Generation
Thakur, A., Lee, J., Tsoukalas, G., Sistla, M., Zhao, M., Zetzsche, S., Durrett, G., Yue, Y., & Chaudhuri, S. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.13938
Metadata
- Authors
- Azerbayev, Z., Piotrowski, B., Schoelkopf, H., Ayers, E. W., Radev, D., & Avigad, J.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2302.12433
- References
- 3
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
