mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

ProofJudge: Tool-Grounded LLM Evaluation of Formal Proof Quality in Mathlib

arXiv 2608.20432 ↗First posted 20 Aug 2026cs.LO cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Formal proofs in Lean 4 that pass the kernel's type checker can nonetheless vary widely in quality. We introduce ProofJudge, an agentic LLM-as-judge system that scores formal proof quality along five dimensions beyond correctness: library leverage, automation fit, structural clarity, statement quality, and Mathlib conventions. We evaluate ProofJudge on a novel dataset of 218 declarations drawn from distinct Mathlib PRs. The judge agent is grounded by tool access to the commit the PR is applied to, enabling it to query the library state when scoring. A judge is considered aligned with human preferences when it rates the version of the PR Mathlib accepted above the initial version that was sent back for revision. All six judge models evaluated recover the reviewers' preference well above chance, from 80.8% to 63.5%, and two open-weight judges reach roughly 70% at a tenth of the best judge's cost. We release the judge harness, evaluation dataset, and evaluation traces as open-source artifacts to support further research.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 2 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Aug 2026.

Builds on

2 of 2 references.

References · 2

  1. 2024Lean Copilot: Large Language Models as Copilots for Theorem Proving in Leancited by 58
  2. 2025APE-Bench: Evaluating Automated Proof Engineering for Formal Math Librariescited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Reliable Fine-Grained Evaluation of Natural Language Math Proofs
  2. 2026Not All Proofs Are Equal: Evaluating LLM Proof Quality Beyond Correctness
  3. 2026TheoremBench: Evaluating LLMs on Theorem Proving in Formal Mathematics
  4. 2026AdvancedMathBench: A Benchmark Suite for Advanced Mathematical Proof Generation and Verification
  5. 2026MathlibPR: Pull Request Merge-Readiness Benchmark for Formal Mathematical Libraries
  6. 2026Proof-Refactor: Refactoring Generated Formal Proofs into Modular Artifacts
  7. 2026FormalProofBench: Can Models Write Graduate Level Math Proofs That Are Formally Verified?
  8. 2026TaoBench: Do Automated Theorem Prover LLMs Generalize Beyond MathLib?