mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Conjecturing: An Overlooked Step in Formal Mathematical Reasoning

arXiv 2510.11986 ↗First posted 13 Oct 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

On the map: LLM reasoning → Mathematical reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Autoformalisation, the task of expressing informal mathematical statements in formal language, is often viewed as a direct translation process. This, however, disregards a critical preceding step: conjecturing. Many mathematical problems cannot be formalised directly without first conjecturing a conclusion such as an explicit answer, or a specific bound. Since Large Language Models (LLMs) already struggle with autoformalisation, and the evaluation of their conjecturing ability is limited and often entangled within autoformalisation or proof, it is particularly challenging to understand its effect. To address this gap, we augment existing datasets to create ConjectureBench, and redesign the evaluation framework and metric specifically to measure the conjecturing capabilities of LLMs both as a distinct task and within the autoformalisation pipeline. Our evaluation of foundational models, including GPT-4.1 and DeepSeek-V3.1, reveals that their autoformalisation performance is substantially overestimated when the conjecture is accounted for during evaluation. However, the conjecture should not be assumed to be provided. We design an inference-time method, Lean-FIRe to improve conjecturing and autoformalisation, which, to the best of our knowledge, achieves the first successful end-to-end autoformalisation of 13 PutnamBench problems with GPT-4.1 and 7 with DeepSeek-V3.1. We demonstrate that while LLMs possess the requisite knowledge to generate accurate conjectures, improving autoformalisation performance requires treating conjecturing as an independent task, and investigating further how to correctly integrate it within autoformalisation. Finally, we provide forward-looking guidance to steer future research toward improving conjecturing, an overlooked step of formal mathematical reasoning.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 12 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2025.

Builds on

12 of 31 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Seed-Prover: Deep and Broad Reasoning for Automated Theorem Proving31 Jul
  2. 2025Formally Solving Answer-Construction Problems in Lean24 May
  3. 2025CombiBench: Benchmarking LLM Capability for Combinatorial Mathematics6 May
  4. 2025Kimina-Prover Preview: Towards Large Formal Reasoning Models with Reinforcement Learning15 Apr
  5. 2024Process-Driven Autoformalization in Lean 44 Jun

Other references · 7

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  3. 2024DeepSeek-V3 Technical Reportcited by 724
  4. 2024InternLM2 Technical Reportcited by 391
  5. 2023ProofNet: Autoformalizing and Formally Proving Undergraduate-Level Mathematicscited by 180
  6. 2024Reliable Evaluation and Benchmarks for Statement Autoformalizationcited by 25
  7. 2025CriticLean: Critic-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Mathematical Formalizationcited by 15

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Autoformalization in the Era of Large Language Models: A Survey
  2. 2025StepFun-Formalizer: Unlocking the Autoformalization Potential of LLMs through Knowledge-Reasoning Fusion
  3. 2026FaithformBench: Benchmarking Faithfulness of Mathematical Chain-of-Thought Autoformalisation
  4. 2025Beyond Gold Standards: Epistemic Ensemble of LLM Judges for Formal Mathematical Reasoning
  5. 2025RealMath: A Continuous Benchmark for Evaluating Language Models on Research-Level Mathematics
  6. 2025Thinking Machines: Mathematical Reasoning in the Age of LLMs
  7. 2025Examining False Positives under Inference Scaling for Mathematical Reasoning
  8. 2024Autoformalize Mathematical Statements by Symbolic Equivalence and Semantic Consistency