Theory-Level Autoformalization: From Isolated Statements to Unified Formal Knowledge Bases
Autoformalization translates informal natural language into formal, machine-verifiable languages. While most work focuses on individual statements, real formalization efforts are inherently theory-level: they require an entire web of axioms, definitions, and lemmas before target theorems can even be stated. In this position paper, we argue for theory-level autoformalization: formalizing complete theories, including all their inter-dependencies, as structured libraries. We examine the significance of this shift, address alternative views, identify open challenges, and propose three promising paths forward. Our survey of autoformalization is available at https: //github.com/marcusm117/Awesom e-Autoformalization.
Introduction. We define Theory-Level Autoformalization as the task of automatically formalizing the entire theoretical context within a given scope, including axioms, definitions, notations, examples, lemmas, theorems, proofs, tactics, and all their inter-dependencies, as a coherent formal library. As depicted in the “Theory-Level Autoformalization Tower” (Figure 2), formalizing even a single target theorem like the Pythagorean theorem requires first constructing multiple layers of axiomatic primitives, derivative definitions, and proof infrastructure. This contrasts with statement-level autoformalization, which translates individual theorems in isolation and implicitly relies on formal theoretical contexts like Lean Mathlib (Mathlib Community, 2020). For do- The need for this shift is evident from real-world formalization efforts (Table 1). The Kepler conjecture is a single statement, yet its formalization required 11 years of constructing an entire web of definitions and supporting lemmas (Hales et al., 2015).
Discussion / Conclusion. We have argued that autoformalization must move beyond isolated statements to formalize entire theories as holistic formal knowledge bases. We identified open challenges and proposed paths forward, aiming to turn autoformalization from a per-statement demonstration into a scalable tool for real-world verification and theoretical discovery.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Why does verification consistently lag behind AI generation?- What makes line-by-line proof checking a good fit for AI verification?
- Should validation responsibility move away from the primary user?
- Can we verify fabricated text without redesigning the generation process?
- Does internalizing verifiers actually close the generation-verification gap?
- Does Promptbreeder actually escape the generation-verification gap constraints?
- Does the verification gap widen exactly where judgment replaces checkability?
- Can automated tools close the gap between AI generation and verification?
- How does generation-verification asymmetry create the need for verifiable reporting?
- What breaks when a mis-synthesized verifier runs with high confidence?
- Why can generative verifiers scale verification compute more effectively than fixed-output discriminative models?
- Can verification tools keep pace with AI artifact generation speed?
- Can verifier output replace ground-truth answers as the asymmetric information source?
- Why does formalizing the Kepler conjecture cost eleven years of work?
- Can partial formal verification work without full formalization of language semantics?
- Why does moving verifier synthesis to the LLM extend verification beyond math and code domains?