Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2606.16893

Symbolic Informalization: Fluent, Productive, Multilingual

Aarne Ranta
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Symbolic informalization enables a reliable conversion of formal mathematics to natural language. It has the potential to make machine-checked content human-readable without loss of precision. In a traditional proof system usage, symbolic informalization generalizes the limited mechanisms of syntactic sugar into the ordinary language of mathematics. In a setting where proofs are constructed by artificial intelligence and autoformalization, symbolic informalization can explain what precisely has been constructed. This paper outlines the project Informath, which aims to show how symbolic informalization can produce fluent text with a reasonable development effort and address multiple formal and natural languages. Informath is based on an interlingual architecture, where Dedukti works as a hub between different proof systems (Agda, Lean, Rocq) and Grammatical Framework (GF) takes care of linguistic correctness and variation in different natural languages.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.CLcs.LO

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Aarne Ranta. 2026-09-08. Symbolic Informalization: Fluent, Productive, Multilingual. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.16893

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subjectcs.CL subjectcs.LO subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MathAdv: What Theorem Provers Know, Reason, Formalize, and Generalize

Formal theorem proving enables machine-verifiable evaluation of mathematical reasoning, yet existing benchmarks often emphasize aggregate proof accuracy, concentrate on a narrow range of mathematics, and provide limited evidence of robustness to equivalent reformulations. We introduce MathAdv, a diagnostic benchmark spanning 13 domains across undergraduate- and graduate-level mathematics. Alongside Lean 4 theorem proving, MathAdv provides up to three auxiliary tasks: multiple-choice questions that probe mathematical knowledge, fill-in-the-blank problems that isolate informal reasoning, and expert-crafted transformations that test robustness to problem presentation. Our evaluation of contemporary theorem provers yields four findings: formalization remains a major bottleneck; performance varies substantially across mathematical domains; natural-language guidance helps general-purpose LLMs but can hinder proof-specialized models; and mathematically equivalent reformulations expose substantial robustness limitations. Together, these results show how component-wise evaluation can reveal model capabilities and failure modes that aggregate theorem-proving accuracy obscures. The dataset and evaluation scripts are available at https://github.com/margotyjx/MathAdv.git.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Accountable AI with Grounded, Faithful, Consistent, Actionable Rationales: A Case Study in Clinical Trial Matching with VERDICT

Accountability means a decision can be examined, justified, and contested. LLMs make this hard: fluent output may be ungrounded, incomplete, or unfaithful to the decision process. Achieving accountability requires verified rationales (how was the decision reached), assumptions (what was assumed rather than known), policy consistency (the same treatment for the same facts), and pivotal conditions (what would change the outcome). We introduce self-faithfulness as an automatic test of accountability: changing the pivotal conditions should change the decision. We examine accountable AI through clinical trial matching, a high-stakes task central to evidence-based medicine. Although LLM-based matchers match patients to trials reasonably accurately, they apply decision policies inconsistently and produce rationales that are unfaithful to their own decisions. We introduce VERDICT, an LLM-based agent that translates a decision task, its constraints, and its policy into Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), then derives the decision with SMT and MaxSMT solvers -- so policies are applied consistently and decisions are accountable by construction. Across a SIGIR 2016-derived dataset and TREC 2021, VERDICT achieves the strongest decision accuracy among LLM-only and neurosymbolic baselines, applies policies with perfect consistency, and produces clinician-preferred rationales grounded in explicit assumptions and pivotal conditions, with improved counterfactual self-faithfulness.

cs.CL↗
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↗