ProofGap is a fine-grained benchmark for step-level formal reasoning constructed through a natural-language proof-processing pipeline that decomposes each reasoning step into one or more aligned proof gaps, enabling more precise localization of model failures.
Abstract
Existing formal mathematics benchmarks, such as miniF2F, ProofNet, and PutnamBench, primarily evaluate models on constructing complete formal proofs for challenging problems. Because success is measured at the theorem level, these benchmarks offer limited insight into models'step-level formal reasoning. Evaluating this capability separately enables finer-grained diagnosis of model limitations than theorem-level evaluation alone. To fill this evaluation gap, we introduce ProofGap, a fine-grained benchmark for step-level formal reasoning. ProofGap is constructed through a natural-language proof-processing pipeline that decomposes each reasoning step into one or more aligned proof gaps. Applying this pipeline to natural-language solutions to 3,015 exercises in B. P. Demidovich's Problems in Mathematical Analysis yields 26,116 gaps. The benchmark focuses on mathematical analysis, a domain that remains challenging for current models. By supplying the local context and target explicitly, gap completion isolates local formal proof construction from end-to-end proof composition, enabling more precise localization of model failures. Natural-language solutions serve as the provenance of these obligations, while the benchmark task itself starts from an already formalized local context and goal. Beyond benchmarking, the same pipeline may support future proof-verification systems, provided that semantic translation and sequential proof composition are handled reliably.
FaithSieve is introduced, a Lean-assisted framework for fine-grained evaluation of natural-language mathematical proofs that demonstrates that decomposing proofs into fine-grained units and grounding them with faithful formal evidence significantly improves reliable evaluation of natural-language reasoning.
Ziyu Wang, Qiyu Dai, Yi-Shan Wu et al.· 0 citations
Large language models perform strongly on competition mathematics, but their research-level reasoning remains difficult to evaluate systematically. Theoretical computer science (TCS) connects algorithm design to explicit guarantees and fundamental limits, providing a setting for evaluating whether models can justify co...
Chu-Tong Yang, Xi-Yuan Zhang, Yu Huang et al.· 0 citations
An automated TCS research framework that generates, formalizes, filters, and proves new claims, and further develops an automated TCS research framework that generates, formalizes, filters, and proves new claims.
Dingzirui Wang, Xuan-Liang Zhang, Keyan Xu et al.· 2 citations
Proof-Sketch-Guided Formal Model Synthesis (ProGS), an autoformalization method centered on model-based proof sketches, which improves over state-of-the-art agentic formal modeling approaches in syntactic validity, deductive verifiability, and behavioral correctness.
Hong-Shu Wang, Xin-Yue Zuo, Yu-Fan Cai et al.· 0 citations
This work introduces MathAdv, a diagnostic benchmark spanning 13 domains across undergraduate- and graduate-level mathematics, and shows how component-wise evaluation can reveal model capabilities and failure modes that aggregate theorem-proving accuracy obscures.
Jiajie Yuan, C. Lockhart, Xiao-Yun Liu et al.· 0 citations
ClosureBench is introduced, a constructive benchmark for compositional graph-relational reasoning with programmatically verified ground truth with programmatically verified ground truth: each task's reference answer is computed by executing a program in the Ein tensor-logic language, ensuring machine-verified correctne...
S. Goria· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.