Benchmark Almanac

FormalMATH

Only in system cards

Provers write Lean 4 proofs for 5,560 formal statements from high-school olympiad problems to undergraduate theorems. The Lean checker scores each proof.

FormalMATH-Lite is a 425-problem subset for test-time scaling runs. Its scores are not comparable with the full set.

Released
May 2025
Kind
Formal proofs
Level
Competition
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Written proof
Tasks
All public
Last in a system card
April 2025
Last model added
April 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Formal mathematical reasoning remains a critical challenge for artificial intelligence, hindered by limitations of existing benchmarks in scope and scale. To address this, we present FormalMATH, a large-scale Lean4 benchmark comprising 5,560 formally verified problems spanning from high-school Olympiad challenges to undergraduate-level theorems across diverse domains (e.g., algebra, applied mathematics, calculus, number theory, and discrete mathematics). To mitigate the inefficiency of manual formalization, we introduce a novel human-in-the-loop autoformalization pipeline that integrates: (1) specialized large language models (LLMs) for statement autoformalization, (2) multi-LLM semantic verification, and (3) negation-based disproof filtering strategies using off-the-shelf LLM-based provers. This approach reduces expert annotation costs by retaining 72.09% of statements before manual verification while ensuring fidelity to the original natural-language problems. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art LLM-based theorem provers reveals significant limitations: even the strongest models achieve only 16.46% success rate under practical sampling budgets, exhibiting pronounced domain bias (e.g., excelling in algebra but failing in calculus) and over-reliance on simplified automation tactics. Notably, we identify a counterintuitive inverse relationship between natural-language solution guidance and proof success in chain-of-thought reasoning scenarios, suggesting that human-written informal reasoning introduces noise rather than clarity in the formal reasoning settings. We believe that FormalMATH provides a robust benchmark for benchmarking formal mathematical reasoning.

Abstract of FormalMATH: Benchmarking Formal Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models (arXiv:2505.02735, CC0)
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B leads with 28.3%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 28.3%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 28.3% Apr 2025 Lab model card

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 9 entries, 1 of them models we track. We plot every source in the charts below.

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B

Sources: Official FormalMATH leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

One system card reports it

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Apr 30, 2025 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B technical report 28.3 FormalMATH-All Pass@32, CoT (Table 6). FormalMATH-Lite Pass@32 56.00, Pass@3200 61.88 Capabilities

One lab claim next to the leaderboard

Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. 1 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 28.3% FormalMATH-All Pass@32, CoT (Table 6). FormalMATH-Lite Pass@32 56.00, Pass@3200 61.88 28.3% Leaderboard, sampling budget 32 Same

More in Math

All 113 in Math
  • AIME 2026 In use Models solve the 30 integer-answer problems from the 2026 AIME I and II math competitions. Scored by exact answer match. GPT-5.5 100%
  • IMO-AnswerBench In use 400 olympiad problems with short verifiable answers, robustified against memorization. Scored by answer match. GLM-5.2 91%
  • HMMT 2026 In use Models solve the 33 final-answer problems from the February 2026 Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament. Scored by exact answer match. GPT-5.5 98.5%
  • PolyMath In use Models solve 9,000 parallel math problems in 18 languages across four difficulty levels, from school math to frontier math. Final answers are checked. Qwen3.7-Max 86.5%
  • MathArena (Apex, IMO, USAMO) In use Evaluates models on newly released math competitions after release. Final-answer or human/LLM-judged proof scores. Claude Opus 4.8 81.3%
  • MathArena Apex Shortlist In use Models solve 47 hard final-answer problems that MathArena selected from 2025 competitions, where the best models scored about 50% at selection. Scored by accuracy over repeated attempts. GPT-5.5 98.4%