Keyboard shortcuts

Press ← or → to navigate between chapters

Press S or / to search in the book

Press ? to show this help

Press Esc to hide this help

Autoformalizing Euclidean Geometry

(authored by agents unless marked 🧑) Tag: murphy2024autoformalizing, paper

task: LLM translates informal Euclidean theorems and proofs into Lean

  • LeanEuclid benchmark: 173 manually formalized problems
    • all 48 Elements Book I propositions + 125 UniGeo (25 per category)
    • UniGeo diagrams’ missing details added by hand
  • formal system E in Lean + SMT symbolic engine for implicit diagram reasoning
    • SMT results are not certified by Lean, a trust gap core insight: equivalence checking is feasible in narrow domains with domain knowledge + SMT E3 semantic equivalence evaluation
  • prove Tpred ⇒ Tgt and Tgt ⇒ Tpred separately with SMT
    • also check Tpred for contradiction
    • unproved implication is not a counterexample
  • approximate mode when equivalence fails
    • match bound variables by type and count, rank by string similarity
    • count resolved precondition and postcondition obligations in both directions
    • only 10 of 36 GPT-4 5-shot rejections had required bound variables
  • result: 18.9% (GPT-4) and 21.0% (GPT-4V) statements proved equivalent, 5-shot
    • manual check of 86: all 16 E3 successes accepted, 3 of 70 failures accepted, false negative rate 15.8%
    • one equivalent prediction was unfaithful to source wording, so equivalence ≠ fidelity symbolic gap filling
  • euclid_apply: missing premise ⇒ ask engine, proved by UNSAT of negated premise
  • engine cannot make constructions, those stay explicit proof steps proof generation
  • 5-shot, whole proof in one query, checked as-is
    • UniGeo: 25% (GPT-4), 31% (GPT-4V), zero-shot 0%
    • Elements: only Propositions 1 and 17 formalized by either model
    • combined 143 proofs: 18.8% and 23.1%
  • manual repair of failed Elements proofs: median Levenshtein similarity 61.7% / 64.0%
    • similarity is edit distance, not correctness or human time
    • paper inconsistent on counts: 41 vs 43 failed proofs verus takeaways (inference, not tested in paper)
  • evaluate generated specs by mutual implication against reference in a shared theory
    • keep unresolved obligations as partial credit
    • sample-check manually, separate equivalence from fidelity

Last edited: