ReForm: Reflective Autoformalization with Prospective Bounded Sequence Optimization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24592v2
• Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 11:15:27 GMT
• Title: ReForm: Reflective Autoformalization with Prospective Bounded Sequence Optimization
• Authors: Guoxin Chen, Jing Wu, Xinjie Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Ruihua Song, Chengxi Li, Kai Fan, Dayiheng Liu, Minpeng Liao,
• Abstract summary: We propose a Reflective Autoformalization method that integrates semantic consistency evaluation into the autoformalization process.<n>This enables the model to iteratively generate formal statements, assess its semantic fidelity, and self-correct identified errors.<n>Experiments show that ReForm achieves an average improvement of 22.6 percentage points over the strongest baselines.
• Score: 73.0780809974414
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Autoformalization, which translates natural language mathematics into machine-verifiable formal statements, is critical for using formal mathematical reasoning to solve math problems stated in natural language. While Large Language Models can generate syntactically correct formal statements, they often fail to preserve the original problem's semantic intent. This limitation arises from the LLM approaches' treating autoformalization as a simplistic translation task which lacks mechanisms for self-reflection and iterative refinement that human experts naturally employ. To address these issues, we propose ReForm, a Reflective Autoformalization method that tightly integrates semantic consistency evaluation into the autoformalization process. This enables the model to iteratively generate formal statements, assess its semantic fidelity, and self-correct identified errors through progressive refinement. To effectively train this reflective model, we introduce Prospective Bounded Sequence Optimization (PBSO), which employs different rewards at different sequence positions to ensure that the model develops both accurate autoformalization and correct semantic validations, preventing superficial critiques that would undermine the purpose of reflection. Extensive experiments across four autoformalization benchmarks demonstrate that ReForm achieves an average improvement of 22.6 percentage points over the strongest baselines. To further ensure evaluation reliability, we introduce ConsistencyCheck, a benchmark of 859 expert-annotated items that not only validates LLMs as judges but also reveals that autoformalization is inherently difficult: even human experts produce semantic errors in up to 38.5% of cases.

Related papers

• Recursive Think-Answer Process for LLMs and VLMs [54.52289112197118]
  We propose an efficient Recursive Think-Answer Process (R-TAP)<n>R-TAP enables models to engage in iterative reasoning cycles and generate more accurate answers.<n>We show that R-TAP-enhanced models consistently outperform conventional single-pass methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T17:20:10Z)
• ReLoop: Structured Modeling and Behavioral Verification for Reliable LLM-Based Optimization [6.572539312871392]
  Large language models (LLMs) can translate natural language into optimization code, but silent failures pose a critical risk.<n>We introduce ReLoop, addressing silent failures from two complementary directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-17T20:20:33Z)
• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• Monotonic Reference-Free Refinement for Autoformalization [38.81622317169746]
  We introduce a reference-free iterative monotonic process for full-theorem autoformalization.<n>We optimize a masked composite objective over Formal Validity, Logical Preservation, Mathematical Consistency, and Formal Quality.<n> Empirical experiments demonstrate the proposed process enables simultaneous improvement across multiple dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T16:48:33Z)
• Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification [49.506412445511934]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable capabilities, yet their next-token prediction creates logical inconsistencies and reward hacking.<n>We introduce a formal logic verification-guided framework that dynamically interleaves formal symbolic verification with the natural language generation process.<n>We operationalize this framework via a novel two-stage training pipeline that synergizes formal logic verification-guided supervised fine-tuning and policy optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T07:01:25Z)
• Conjecturing: An Overlooked Step in Formal Mathematical Reasoning [10.398167568549924]
  Many mathematical problems cannot be formalised directly without first conjecturing a conclusion.<n>We develop ConjectureBench to measure the conjecturing capabilities of Large Language Models.<n>We show that our method achieves the first successful end-to-end autoformalisation of 13 PutnamBench problems with GPT-4.1 and 7 with DeepSeek-V3.1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:29:49Z)
• Autoformalizer with Tool Feedback [52.334957386319864]
  Autoformalization addresses the scarcity of data for Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) by translating mathematical problems from natural language into formal statements.<n>Existing formalizer still struggles to consistently generate valid statements that meet syntactic validity and semantic consistency.<n>We propose the Autoformalizer with Tool Feedback (ATF), a novel approach that incorporates syntactic and consistency information as tools into the formalization process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T10:25:12Z)
• Beyond Gold Standards: Epistemic Ensemble of LLM Judges for Formal Mathematical Reasoning [8.135142928659546]
  We introduce a systematic, automatic method to evaluate autoformalization tasks.<n>The proposed method is based on an ensemble of judges, defined on criteria encompassing logical preservation (LP), mathematical consistency (MC), formal validity (FV), and formal quality (FQ)<n>Overall, our experiments demonstrate that the EFG ensemble of LLM judges is a suitable emerging proxy for evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T17:09:51Z)
• Latent Veracity Inference for Identifying Errors in Stepwise Reasoning [78.29317733206643]
  We introduce Veracity Search (VS), a discrete search algorithm over veracity assignments.<n>It performs otherwise intractable inference in the posterior distribution over latent veracity values.<n>It generalizes VS, enabling accurate zero-shot veracity inference in novel contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T04:16:36Z)
• FormalMATH: Benchmarking Formal Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models [17.919212265668783]
  We present FormalMATH, a large-scale Lean4 benchmark comprising 5,560 formally verified problems spanning from high-school Olympiad challenges to undergraduate-level theorems.<n>We introduce a novel human-in-the-loop autoformalization pipeline that integrates statement autoformalization, semantic verification, and negation-based disproof filtering strategies.<n>Our evaluation of state-of-the-art LLM-based theorem provers reveals significant limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-05T15:37:00Z)
• ReVISE: Learning to Refine at Test-Time via Intrinsic Self-Verification [53.80183105328448]
  Refine via Intrinsic Self-Verification (ReVISE) is an efficient framework that enables LLMs to self-correct their outputs through self-verification.<n>Our experiments on various reasoning tasks demonstrate that ReVISE achieves efficient self-correction and significantly improves reasoning performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T13:50:02Z)
• Autoformulation of Mathematical Optimization Models Using LLMs [50.030647274271516]
  This paper approaches the problem of $textitautoformulation$: the automated creation of solver-ready optimization models from natural language problem descriptions.<n>We identify three core challenges of autoformulation: $textit(1)$ the vast, problem-dependent hypothesis space, and $textit(2)$ efficient and diverse exploration of this space under uncertainty.<n>We present a novel method leveraging $textitLarge Language Models$ with $textitMonte-Carlo Tree Search$, exploiting the hierarchical nature of optimization modeling to generate and systematically explore possible formulations
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T20:41:38Z)
• Autoformalize Mathematical Statements by Symbolic Equivalence and Semantic Consistency [22.86318578119266]
  We introduce a novel framework that scores and selects the best result from k autoformalization candidates based on symbolic equivalence and semantic consistency.<n>Our experiments on the MATH and miniF2F datasets demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances autoformalization accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T11:37:39Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.