Ke Zhang | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

Beyond Compilation: Evaluating Faithful Natural-Language-to-Lean Statement Formalization

Lean verifies that a generated declaration is well typed, but not that it expresses the statement a user intended. We study two questions for autoformalization without canonical Lean targets: whether LLM judges can provide a usable proxy for human semantic review, and how much compilation overstates faithfulness across systems. Our criterion combines Lean compilation with strict semantic consensus between GPT-5.2 and Gemini-2.5-Pro. On an independently audited random sample, it agrees with human majority on 89.7\% of cases (Wilson 95\% CI: 82.1--94.3\%). Across eight systems evaluated on 400 graduate-level statements, every system has a nonzero compile--faithfulness gap, whose observed magnitude ranges from 3.0 to 29.0 percentage points. The full GPT-5.2 tool-augmented agent shows the largest gap, compiling 89.5\% while satisfying the semantic criterion on 60.5\%. Human review, an independent third-family judge, and a BEq formal cross-check provide complementary evidence that the accepted core is reliable and that most audited outputs in the gap are genuine semantic mismatches. A secondary $2^3$ factorial analysis shows that elaboration feedback is the largest validity intervention, yet does not eliminate semantic drift. LLM judging is therefore useful as a human-calibrated, conservative aggregate measure, not as an equivalence oracle.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

ToolGate: An Executable Acceptance Pipeline for Tool-Dependent Scientific Benchmark Construction

Scientific benchmarks are commonly built by domain experts who write tasks and cross-check one another's work, or who adapt existing material from textbooks, published papers, and online resources. These routes can produce strong evaluations, but they require substantial per-item labor. Language models can reduce this repeated work by proposing candidates quickly. The remaining problem is acceptance. We target scientific questions whose answers require computations with specialist software rather than unaided reasoning alone. A candidate is invalid if its script fails or returns a different answer, or trivial if a model answers it without the software. We present ToolGate, which treats every generated item as a proposal and keeps it only if three gates pass. First, an executable solution script must reproduce the proposed answer when run with the scientific software. Second, randomized no-tool screening rejects candidates that models can already solve from the prompt alone. Third, a tool-using agent must solve each survivor within a fixed time limit. We instantiate ToolGate in FEniCSx with 500 generation attempts. The local-verification gate retains 478 candidates. For final reporting, we rescreen this pool after generation: two randomized no-tool screens exclude 222 from the reported pool, and direct GPT-5.5 API calls at medium reasoning (the API default) exclude another 121. Of the remaining 135, a GPT-5.5 Codex CLI agent with access to FEniCSx solves 130; exact deduplication leaves 128 unique protocol survivors. ToolGate turns repeated answer checking and difficulty screening into an auditable process while leaving domain design and final review to experts.

cs.AI↗