mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Risk-Controlled Lean-as-Judge for Natural-Language Mathematical Reasoning

arXiv 2605.28365 ↗First posted 27 May 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.LOcited by 3

On the map: LLM reasoning → Mathematical reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Lean is increasingly used to judge natural-language mathematical answers, but its signal is partial: many answers never formalize, and a failed proof may reflect an ill-typed statement or a missing library fact, not a wrong answer. On MATH-500 we show this signal is (i) sharply coverage-dependent, that is the proof-winning answer is correct 96% of the time at high proved coverage but 20% at low, and (ii) sparse and often unfaithful: a 7B autoformalizer proves a class for only 28% of problems, and a manual audit finds only approximately 43% of those proofs faithful. We propose COVCAL, a selector over Lean-trace diagnostics that certifies a finite-sample selective-risk bound on accepted answers or abstains, under two regimes (a conservative Bonferroni bound and a tighter dev-then-cal rule). Feasibility depends on autoformalization coverage: with the 7B formalizer the signal is too sparse and Bonferroni abstains on all 20 bootstrap partitions, whereas a prover-specialized formalizer reaches 79% coverage and flips it to feasible on 17 of 20, accepting approximately 48% of problems at 0.98 accepted accuracy. Since self-consistency alone is already 91% accurate, our contribution is a precise account of when, and with which formalizer, a partial formal signal can be trusted under risk control.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 9 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.

Builds on

9 of 23 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025FormalMATH: Benchmarking Formal Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models5 May

Other references · 8

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,203
  3. 2024Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvementcited by 1,090
  4. 2022Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedbackcited by 901
  5. 2021MiniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematicscited by 391
  6. 2023ProofNet: Autoformalizing and Formally Proving Undergraduate-Level Mathematicscited by 192
  7. 2025Goedel-Prover-V2: Scaling Formal Theorem Proving with Scaffolded Data Synthesis and Self-Correctioncited by 154
  8. 2026MathAtlas: A Benchmark for Autoformalization in the Wildcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Formalize Once, Edit the Rest: Efficient Lean-Based Answer Selection for Math Reasoning
  2. 2025LeanProgress: Guiding Search for Neural Theorem Proving via Proof Progress Prediction
  3. 2025FMC: Formalization of Natural Language Mathematical Competition Problems
  4. 2026LEAP: Supercharging LLMs for Formal Mathematics with Agentic Frameworks
  5. 2023LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Models
  6. 2025REAL-Prover: Retrieval Augmented Lean Prover for Mathematical Reasoning
  7. 2026Pythagoras-Prover: Advancing Efficient Formal Proving via Augmented Lean Formalisation
  8. 2025Safe: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models via Retrospective Step-aware Formal Verification