Benchmark Almanac

FormalMATH Lite

Not in model cards

Models prove statements in the FormalMATH Lite subset. The board reports proof success at the stated sampling budget.

The official source reports this result separately. It is not the parent benchmark aggregate.

Kind
Formal proofs
Level
Competition
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Written proof
Tasks
All public
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)
9
Entries on its own leaderboard, 1 model we track

DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B leads with 61.9%

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

  1. 1 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B sampling budget 3200 61.9%
  2. 2 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B sampling budget 3200 55.1%
  3. 3 STP-7B sampling budget 3200 53.2%
  4. 4 DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5-RL-7B sampling budget 3200 50.4%
  5. 5 Goedel-Prover-SFT-7B sampling budget 3200 49.4%
  6. 6 Kimina-Prover-7B sampling budget 32 48.9%
  7. 7 DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5-SFT-7B sampling budget 3200 46.8%
  8. 8 BFS-Prover-7B sampling budget 32×32×100 45.9%
  9. 9 InternLM-Prover-7B sampling budget 32×32×100 25.6%

Source: Official FormalMATH Lite leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 61.9% sampling budget 3200 Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
2 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B 55.1% sampling budget 3200 Official leaderboard
3 STP-7B 53.2% sampling budget 3200 Official leaderboard
4 DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5-RL-7B 50.4% sampling budget 3200 Official leaderboard
5 Goedel-Prover-SFT-7B 49.4% sampling budget 3200 Official leaderboard
6 Kimina-Prover-7B 48.9% sampling budget 32 Official leaderboard
7 DeepSeek-Prover-V1.5-SFT-7B 46.8% sampling budget 3200 Official leaderboard
8 BFS-Prover-7B 45.9% sampling budget 32×32×100 Official leaderboard
9 InternLM-Prover-7B 25.6% sampling budget 32×32×100 Official leaderboard

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
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

Source: Official FormalMATH Lite leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

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

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%