aiqbench analysis
ITPEval introduces a critical new dataset for assessing how large language models handle the translation of formal proofs across incompatible interactive theorem provers. The results reveal that library mismatches and API differences are far more significant bottlenecks than foundational logical distinctions, with current frontier LLMs achieving less than 30% success rates in statement translation. This benchmark is essential for researchers aiming to build scalable training data pipelines by bridging the fragmented ecosystem of formal verification tools.
ITPEval: Benchmarking Formal Translation Across Interactive Theorem Provers
arXiv:2607.19407v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Formal theorem proving has emerged as a frontier challenge for machine learning, yet the ecosystem is fragmented: proofs remain siloed across incompatible systems, limiting both training data for learning-based provers and the portability of verified results. We present ITPEval, the first benchmark for evaluating automated formal proof translation across four major ITPs (Lean 4, Rocq, Isabelle, and HOL Light), spanning two distinct logical foundations. Our benchmark comprises 1,560 source files and 6,848 theorems organized into a controlled tier of axiomatized files that isolates foundational translation difficulty, and an ecosystem tier drawn from real libraries that exposes API and proof-style mismatches. We release itpeval, a unified multi-ITP verification infrastructure with state-isolated warm backends that preserve per-artifact native checking semantics. We evaluate both statement and proof translation across five frontier and open-weight LLMs on 12 directed translation pairs: statement translation peaks at 29.1% pass@1 and proof translation at 10.5%; controlled theorems reach 29.7% proof pass@1 versus 5.2% for ecosystem-level translations, confirming that library mismatch is the dominant bottleneck. In addition to pass@k evaluation, a deterministic Lean 4 BEq check establishes equivalence for 54.0% of verified source-to-Lean 4 miniF2F statement translations, showing that native type-checking alone can substantially overestimate semantic fidelity; in an autoformalization/auto-informalization round-trip study, Rocq and HOL Light are easier formalization targets than Lean 4 and Isabelle, while multi-ITP context improves pooled Lean 4 success from 4.8% to 10.6%. Our benchmark, verification infrastructure, and evaluation pipelines are publicly released.
Abstract:Formal theorem proving has emerged as a frontier challenge for machine learning, yet the ecosystem is fragmented: proofs remain siloed across incompatible systems, limiting both training data for learning-based provers and the portability of verified results. We present ITPEval, the first benchmark for evaluating automated formal proof translation across four major ITPs (Lean 4, Rocq, Isabelle, and HOL Light), spanning two distinct logical foundations. Our benchmark comprises 1,560 source files and 6,848 theorems organized into a controlled tier of axiomatized files that isolates foundational translation difficulty, and an ecosystem tier drawn from real libraries that exposes API and proof-style mismatches. We release itpeval, a unified multi-ITP verification infrastructure with state-isolated warm backends that preserve per-artifact native checking semantics. We evaluate both statement and proof translation across five frontier and open-weight LLMs on 12 directed translation pairs: statement translation peaks at 29.1% pass@1 and proof translation at 10.5%; controlled theorems reach 29.7% proof pass@1 versus 5.2% for ecosystem-level translations, confirming that library mismatch is the dominant bottleneck. In addition to pass@k evaluation, a deterministic Lean 4 BEq check establishes equivalence for 54.0% of verified source-to-Lean 4 miniF2F statement translations, showing that native type-checking alone can substantially overestimate semantic fidelity; in an autoformalization/auto-informalization round-trip study, Rocq and HOL Light are easier formalization targets than Lean 4 and Isabelle, while multi-ITP context improves pooled Lean 4 success from 4.8% to 10.6%. Our benchmark, verification infrastructure, and evaluation pipelines are publicly released.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO)
I.2.3; F.3.2; D.2.4
arXiv:2607.19407 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.19407v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.19407 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 340 words
Related coverage

[AINews] OpenAI reports Navier-Stokes singularity find in 88 hours using Astra-next, roughly 10,000 agents and 130B tokens (>$40M), a contender for second ever Millennium Prize awarded
Latent Space · Sep 9, 2026
Lean Graph Search for Formal Theorem Proving
arXiv · Oct 16, 2026

Leanstral 1.5: Proof Abundance for All
Mistral AI · Jul 2, 2026
Will it be a golden age or a dark age for mathematics (and science)?
terrytao.wordpress.com · Oct 18, 2026