Daily Papers

Model signing authenticates the full-precision weights W an LLM is released with, yet users run a quantized artifact Q whose producing transformation is not uniquely determined under current disclosure. We separate the non-environment inputs from the execution environment E and measure a quantity that, to our knowledge, has not been measured before: the Independent Verifiability Rate (IVR), the fraction of a popularity-sampled GGUF ecosystem that a third party can re-derive bit-for-bit. Across the 200 most-downloaded Hugging Face GGUF repositories (198 in scope), no artifact or model card records the build environment, so under a recorded-inputs protocol the IVR is 0/198. Yet the artifacts are not irreproducible. On four in-sample repositories that disclose their inputs, the card's information alone reproduces no Q4_K_M file, but two coordinates the card omits - the build's floating-point-contraction setting and, for hybrid models, the per-tensor quantization recipe - re-derive 7/8 target-quant files bit-for-bit on x86 (5/8 on arm64); the fp16 re-derives from the provider's checkpoint, but the calibration imatrix must be shipped and hash-bound, since recomputing it did not match. An older release additionally pins the instruction set and did not re-derive. Reproducing the divergence reported with llama.cpp PR #25353, we show that E is a necessary coordinate and that one compiler setting yields a unique output across the tested platforms at negligible quality cost (+0.06% perplexity). As a security characterization, benign floating-point non-determinism separates from uniformly placed nibble-flip tampering above a detection floor that grows with the environments a verifier must allow, but a targeted embedding edit evades the statistic, so the proposed protocol rests on exact re-derivation; adversarial-fp16 attacks lie outside it. We release the audit data and a re-runnable harness.

Benchmarks like MMLU suggest flagship language models approach factuality saturation above 90\%. LLMpedia shows this picture is incomplete. We materialize {sim}1.3M encyclopedia articles entirely from parametric memory across three model families, then audit every claim against Wikipedia and curated web evidence. For gpt-5-mini, the verifiable true rate is 68.4\% on Wikipedia-covered subjects - more than 21\,pp below MMLU - and the gap is driven by unverifiability (30.5\%), not refutation (1.2\%). Beyond Wikipedia, frontier articles audited against curated web evidence reach 57.6\%; Wikipedia covers only 56.7\% of model-surfaced subjects, and three model families overlap in just 7.3\% of subject choices. In a retrieval-trap benchmark inspired by prior analysis of Grokipedia, LLMpedia is more factual at roughly half the textual similarity to Wikipedia. Every prompt, article, and verdict is released. Data, code, interface: https://llmpedia.net.

When should an AI system's answer be trusted? Formal proof assistants offer certainty but cannot reach most of the problem distribution; scalar LLM judges offer coverage but produce opaque scores that cannot be audited after the fact and are subject to the same coherence issues as any LLM. We present Theoria, a verification architecture that closes this gap. A candidate solution is rewritten into a sequence of typed state transitions, each licensed by an explicit justification, whether that be a citation, computation, or problem-given fact, and every transition is independently auditable. The foundational invariant is completeness of change: every difference between consecutive proof states must be accounted for, so hidden premises surface as unlicensed mutations rather than passing silently. On HLE-Verified Gold (185 text-only expert problems), Theoria certifies 105 at 91.4% strict precision (Wilson 95% CI [84.5%, 95.4%]). Every certification produces a human readable proof trace in which each step can be independently challenged. Holistic LLM judges achieve comparable precision at matched coverage but fail on different problems (Jaccard 0.14-0.36), making the approaches complementary. On 95 adversarial poisoned proofs across 15 domains, structured judges catch 94.7% versus 83.2% for holistic judging (p= 0.0017). The overall 11.5 pp gap concentrates in hidden premises (90.6% vs. 62.5%, a 28 pp difference) and fabricated citations (100% vs. 90%), the error classes where the formal analysis predicts an advantage; performance is identical on arithmetic and theorem-misapplication errors, where no advantage is predicted. On GPQA Diamond (n= 65), certified precision is 97.1% (Wilson CI [85.1%, 99.5%]).

Serial verification gates are a core reliability primitive in LLM harnesses: a candidate answer is returned only if k verifier calls all accept it. Under conditionally independent gates, the recent Odds Law (arXiv:2606.15712) shows that posterior log-odds grow linearly in k, so failure decays exponentially, and states that "a tight theory of partially correlated verifier cascades remains open." This note gives a minimal such theory. Modeling the per-instance false-accept rate on the generator's own errors as a latent variable αsim G (de Finetti), the exact cascade posterior is ell_k = ell_0 - ln m_k, with m_k the k-th moment of G. Then: (i) ell_k is concave in k for every non-degenerate G -- the Odds Law is its tangent at the first gate and an upper bound; (ii) for Beta(a,b) latents, failure decays polynomially, 1-r_k asymp k^{-b}, with correlation parameter ρ_v = 1/(a+b+1); (iii) a blind-spot atom of mass 1-π at α=1 caps the evidence extractable from any number of gates at -ln(1-π) nats, so reliability saturates below 1; (iv) letting the true-accept rate also vary (βsim H) yields a trichotomy -- gates eventually always help, plateau, or actively harm -- decided by the upper-tail exponents of G and H, with closed-form crossover k^dagger. The mechanism is survivorship: errors surviving gates are the high-α ones. The theory is measurable: R repeated verdicts per instance identify the first R moments of G, so two verdicts identify ρ_v; beta-binomial likelihood and NPMLE recover the reliability curve and the ill-posed ceiling. In synthetic tests, independence-based extrapolation underestimates failure by 20x at k=5 and ~3000x at k=10; the correlated fit at R=8 tracks held-out depths. The practical lever is decorrelation -- changing model family, modality, or evidence source -- not adding gates.

Advances in training, post-training, and inference-time methods have enabled frontier reasoning models to win gold medals in math competitions and settle challenging open problems. Gaining trust in the responses of these models requires that natural language proofs be checked for errors. LLM judges are increasingly being adopted to meet the growing demand for evaluating such proofs. While verification is considered easier than generation, what model capability does reliable verification actually require? We systematically evaluate four open-source and two frontier LLMs on datasets of human-graded natural language proofs of competition-level problems. We consider two key metrics: verifier accuracy and self-consistency (the rate of agreement across repeated judgments on the same proof). We observe that smaller open-source models are only up to ~10% behind frontier models in accuracy but they are up to ~25% more inconsistent. Furthermore, we see that verifier accuracy is sensitive to prompt choice across all models. We then demonstrate that the smaller models, in fact, do possess the mathematical capabilities to verify proofs at the level of frontier models, but they struggle to reliably elicit these capabilities with general judging prompts. Through an LLM-guided prompt search, we synthesize an ensemble of specialized prompts that overcome the specific failure modes of smaller models, boosting their performance by up to 9.1% in accuracy and 15.9% in self-consistency. These gains are realized across models and datasets, allowing models like Qwen3.5-35B to perform on par with frontier models such as Gemini 3.1 Pro for proof verification.

A verifier for robot policies reads a candidate behavior and returns a score for how well it did, used both to evaluate vision-language-action policies and to train them. Verifiers range from success detectors and reward models to runtime monitors, safety filters, and temporal-logic specifications. We survey roughly 150 verifiers and compare them along two properties. Availability is how much a verdict costs, how early in a rollout the verdict arrives, and how often a verdict can be asked for. Availability rises as verdicts get cheaper, earlier, and denser. Credibility is how much a high score tells us about the task. Credibility falls as the judgment becomes gameable and self-serving. We group the verifiers by who supplies the judgment: human verifiers, rule-based and formal verifiers, learned and pretrained verifiers, and model-intrinsic verifiers. Across the four families, we find that credibility falls as availability rises. Regardless of who supplies the judgment, there is no free checker. We then examine what validates a verifier itself, and how much a high score tells us. Three measures appear in the literature: agreement with human labels, the performance of the policy it trains, and behavior under reward hacking. We close with nine metrics that make a verifier claim checkable, and coordinates for the verifiers still to be built.

Recent advances have shown that scaling test-time computation enables large language models (LLMs) to solve increasingly complex problems across diverse domains. One effective paradigm for test-time scaling (TTS) involves LLM generators producing multiple solution candidates, with LLM verifiers assessing the correctness of these candidates without reference answers. In this paper, we study generative verifiers, which perform verification by generating chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning followed by a binary verdict. We systematically analyze verification dynamics across three dimensions - problem difficulty, generator capability, and verifier generation capability - with empirical studies on 12 benchmarks across mathematical reasoning, knowledge, and natural language reasoning tasks using 14 open-source models (2B to 72B parameter range) and GPT-4o. Our experiments reveal three key findings about verification effectiveness: (1) Easy problems allow verifiers to more reliably certify correct responses; (2) Weak generators produce errors that are easier to detect than strong generators; (3) Verification ability is generally correlated with the verifier's own problem-solving capability, but this relationship varies with problem difficulty. These findings reveal opportunities to optimize basic verification strategies in TTS applications. First, given the same verifier, some weak generators can nearly match stronger ones in post-verification TTS performance (e.g., the Gemma2-9B to Gemma2-27B performance gap shrinks by 75.5%). Second, we identify cases where strong verifiers offer limited advantage over weak ones, as both fail to provide meaningful verification gains, suggesting that verifier scaling alone cannot overcome fundamental verification challenges.

Metrics like FactScore and VeriScore that evaluate long-form factuality operate by decomposing an input response into atomic claims and then individually verifying each claim. While effective and interpretable, these methods incur numerous LLM calls and can take upwards of 100 seconds to evaluate a single response, limiting their practicality in large-scale evaluation and training scenarios. To address this, we propose VeriFastScore, which leverages synthetic data to fine-tune Llama3.1 8B for simultaneously extracting and verifying all verifiable claims within a given text based on evidence from Google Search. We show that this task cannot be solved via few-shot prompting with closed LLMs due to its complexity: the model receives ~4K tokens of evidence on average and needs to concurrently decompose claims, judge their verifiability, and verify them against noisy evidence. However, our fine-tuned VeriFastScore model demonstrates strong correlation with the original VeriScore pipeline at both the example level (r=0.80) and system level (r=0.94) while achieving an overall speedup of 6.6x (9.9x excluding evidence retrieval) over VeriScore. To facilitate future factuality research, we publicly release our VeriFastScore model and synthetic datasets.

Speculative decoding typically characterizes speedup by draft tokens accepted per verification round. Lossless verification preserves the target model's output distribution and thus expected completion length, making this metric a meaningful efficiency proxy. Relaxed (lossy) verification accepts tokens that lossless verification would reject, potentially altering that distribution. We identify a length inflation phenomenon: relaxed verification lengthens completions, primarily by extending reasoning traces, largely offsetting apparent gains in accepted tokens per round. We evaluate existing training-free relaxed verification rules on twelve target-drafter pairs against lossless verification on identical prompts, measuring completion length, verifier rounds, wall-clock time, and task accuracy. At each rule's most relaxed evaluated setting, relaxed verification on average accepts 1.34times as many tokens per round but produces 1.54times longer completions. For rules with higher acceptance lengths, tokens accepted only under relaxed verification tend to have low target-model probability, contributing to length inflation. For rules that reduce verifier rounds, accuracy typically drops substantially. Further analysis traces some failures to continued reasoning that exhausts the budget needed to deliver a final answer. Overall, accepted tokens per round alone is an unreliable measure of decoding speed under relaxed verification. Completion length and verifier rounds must also be reported to assess actual efficiency.

We introduce QC-Stark, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on 11 quantum computing (QC) tasks, spanning circuit construction, debugging, compilation, error correction, and simulation. Across 2,750 evaluations (10 models times 11 tasks x 5 difficulty levels x 5 seeds), we find that overall rankings mask substantial per-task variation. The Spearman correlation between overall and per-task rankings is statistically insignificant for 4 out of the 11 tasks included in this benchmark. A 2-parameter Item Response Theory (IRT) model validates measurement quality, and prompt sensitivity analysis confirms ranking robustness across prompt conditions. All tasks are auto-verifiable via execution, thus not requiring any manual evaluation. We make the code and data publicly available on Huggingface.

Certo is a small non-generative decision model (Qwen3-4B): it scores candidate actions from their text and returns a probability, instead of generating an answer. The accurate design reads the state, the rules, and each candidate together (a joint scorer), so cost grows with the menu. Independent encoding lets each candidate be encoded once and reused across states (about 5x cheaper at 77 candidates), but separates state from candidate. We ask how much rule-sensitivity survives that move, and whether it can be trained back. Four experiments on Certo: (1) the tested conversion to cacheable scoring loses rule-sensitivity (recall@1 1.00 -> 0.24) while the joint scorer holds 1.00, and a shortlist+rerank rescue fails; (2) targeted counterfactual supervision restores strong performance on held-out synthetic rule tasks (paraphrase, counterfactual, composition; reproducible across seeds), though we do not isolate whether predictions depend on the supplied rule; (3) on real rules the added benefit is not established -- after fixing a truncation confound, the joint scorer wins significantly on the short tier (0.861 vs 0.500) and directionally on the hard tier (0.655 vs 0.483, n=29); (4) a matched cross-domain real-prose mixture did not help and reduced contract accuracy (-9.3, -16.2 points). A cacheable encoder can be made rule-sensitive on its training distribution, but transfer to unseen-source real rules is not established; the joint scorer keeps an edge at the cost of caching.

Process attestation verifies human authorship by collecting behavioral biometric evidence, including keystroke dynamics, typing patterns, and editing behavior, during the creative process. However, the very data needed to prove authenticity can reveal intimate details about an author's cognitive state, health conditions, and identity, constituting sensitive biometric data under GDPR Article 9. We resolve this privacy-attestation paradox using zero-knowledge proofs. We present ZK-PoP, a construction that allows a verifier to confirm that (a) sequential work function chains were computed correctly, (b) behavioral feature vectors fall within human population distributions, and (c) content evolution is consistent with incremental human editing, all without learning the underlying behavioral data, exact timing, or intermediate content. Our construction uses Groth16 proofs over arithmetic circuits with Pedersen commitments and Bulletproof range proofs. We prove that ZK-PoP is computationally zero-knowledge, computationally sound, and achieves unlinkability across sessions. Evaluation shows proof generation in under 30 seconds for a 1-hour writing session, with 192-byte proofs verifiable in 8.2 ms, while incurring less than 5% accuracy loss in simulation at practical privacy levels (epsilon >= 1.0) compared to non-private baselines.

A paraphrase-quality audit of MathCheck (ICLR 2025) detected 4 semantically incorrect paraphrases in 129 groups (3.1%); removing them drops GPT-4o from rank 2 to rank 4 and elevates Claude Haiku and DeepSeek V3 above it; these ranking changes are invisible to any single-model evaluation. Cross-model unanimity found these errors automatically (>= 3/4 models for MathCheck; >= 6/9 for our primary evaluation) for under $10; in our own dataset the same protocol found that 47% of auto-generated connective-variation paraphrases were semantically incorrect. That flaw compounds a deeper measurement gap: Claude Haiku 4.5 achieves 86% accuracy yet SCR=50%, meaning half its theorems are answered differently under semantically equivalent restatements, while aggregate accuracy across 9 models spans only 86-96% yet Semantic Consistency Rates (SCR) span 50-82% -- a 32-point gap invisible to standard benchmarks. Formally, for any target ranking over 9 frontier models there exists a weighting over paraphrase families that realizes it (No-Free-Benchmark corollary), because no model Pareto-dominates all families -- so benchmark designers who select families are implicitly choosing which model wins. FormInv supplies the audit protocol (replicated on external benchmarks at 100% recall), SCR and per-theorem Cochran's Q as primary invariance measures evaluated on 9 models across 366-811 items (on Lean4-verified theorems), and FormInvSelector for regime-aware model selection.

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

Test-time scaling often uses an external verifier, such as compilers and test cases in coding or trained value functions in robotics applications, to obtain high-quality rollouts. Verifier-free test-time scaling (or VF-TTS) is gaining extensive attention as a mechanism to enhance Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, primarily because we do not have access to such high-quality verifiers in many real-world applications. Among existing VF-TTS methods, confidence-based VF-TTS methods, which compute and rank rollouts solely by confidence, are particularly promising. Such methods introduce near-zero overhead for sample evaluation and require minimal access to internal model states, making the methods highly flexible across models and tasks. In this paper, we demonstrate a critical limitation of existing confidence-based VF-TTS methods by showing that such methods catastrophically break down on complex tasks. We observe a very interesting phenomenon: uniformly high confidence frequently indicates a failure to explore, favoring confidently wrong answers. To address this, our core insight is that robust cognitive search requires a specific confidence trajectory pattern: such methods perform exploratory branching at the beginning, as manifested by low initial confidence, and converge to a high final confidence solution. To implement this insight, we introduce consilience, a novel selection framework that explicitly evaluates the temporal asymmetry of confidence in reasoning. We operationalize this via a combinatorial metric that actively penalizes high initial confidence while strictly demanding final certainty. Extensive experiments covering both graduate-level mathematics problems and free-form code generation demonstrate that consilience effectively outperforms existing baselines, validating our novel perspective on completion confidence.

Human verification under adversarial information flow operates as a cost-bounded decision procedure constrained by working memory limits and cognitive biases. We introduce the Verification Cost Asymmetry (VCA) coefficient, formalizing it as the ratio of expected verification work between populations under identical claim distributions. Drawing on probabilistically checkable proofs (PCP) and parameterized complexity theory, we construct dissemination protocols that reduce verification for trusted audiences to constant human effort while imposing superlinear costs on adversarial populations lacking cryptographic infrastructure. We prove theoretical guarantees for this asymmetry, validate the framework through controlled user studies measuring verification effort with and without spot-checkable provenance, and demonstrate practical encoding of real-world information campaigns. The results establish complexity-theoretic foundations for engineering democratic advantage in cognitive warfare, with immediate applications to content authentication, platform governance, and information operations doctrine.

Large language models (LLMs) can act as both problem solvers and solution verifiers, where the latter select high-quality answers from a pool of solver-generated candidates. This raises the question of under what conditions verification pays off in solver-verifier systems. Prior work has conducted only limited studies of the factors influencing verification performance, focusing primarily on self-verification and examining neither the relationship between solver and verifier model families nor the effects of reasoning post-training. To rectify this, we present a systematic study across 37 models spanning multiple families, sizes, and base vs. post-trained variants, evaluated on 9 benchmarks covering logical reasoning, structured puzzles, symbolic computation, mathematics, commonsense, factual recall, and domain knowledge. In order to support our analysis, we introduce and empirically validate verifier gain, a metric that predicts the performance improvements from test-time verifier-based rejection sampling. Our experiments find that 1) verification across model families is more effective than either self-verification or verification within the same family, and more generally that the benefits of verification decrease as the solver and verifier become more similar, 2) reasoning post-training weakens self-improvement abilities but strengthens cross-family improvement, and 3) some tasks are inherently more amenable to improvement through verification, particularly mathematical and logical tasks.

Visual fluency in generated video does not imply physical reliability, and a scalar quality score alone is incapable of indicating the obligation a clip violates or the moment it fails. We present VeriPhy, an auditable physical-verification system in which a text-only planner compiles the prompt into typed physical obligations and a statically validated execution plan before any frame is observed. During execution, observations gate and scope only declared calls to frozen low-level experts (e.g., segmentation and tracking, counting, eleven typed physical measurements over the resulting tracks, depth, OCR, and audio-event detection). Each action returns a provenance-carrying evidence record whose payload, when usable, is either a typed measurement or an explicitly tagged learned state. Typed resolvers and fixed composition map usable records to a three-valued state (supported, contradicted, or unknown, surfaced as plausible, implausible, or abstain) with full provenance, so that every verdict is traceable to the evidence that produced it. We anchor evaluation in a 1,500-clip corpus of human-annotated flaw records that localize real generation failures in prompt reference, space, and time. On a 149-clip core carrying 304 such records, VeriPhy accounts for 228, against 164 for a published question-decomposition evaluator given the same clips and the same claims. Recall alone does not separate it from prompting the same backbone monolithically, which reaches 222; what separates them is that each decision retains its evidence record and provenance, making the traces auditable one verdict at a time and usable as the interface through which a critic verdict could be written back into generation.

Scientific research based on multimodal clinical data (including medical imaging) requires coordinating clinical, radiological, programming, and biostatistical expertise, a fragmented process that bottlenecks discovery. We present VERITAS (Verifiable Epistemic Reasoning for Image-Derived Hypothesis Testing via Agentic Systems), a clinical co-scientist: a multi-agent system that autonomously tests natural-language hypotheses and produces a fully auditable evidence trail, tracing every conclusion through executable outputs from analysis plan to segmentation masks to statistical code to final verdict. Unlike prior AI-scientist systems, which mainly operate on tabular or text data, VERITAS grounds autonomous discovery directly in medical images. It decomposes the workflow into four phases handled by role-specialized agents, and introduces an epistemic evidence label framework that mechanically classifies outcomes as Supported, Refuted, Underpowered, or Invalid by jointly evaluating significance, effect direction, and study power. This distinction is critical in medical imaging, where non-significant results often reflect insufficient sample size rather than absent effects. We construct a tiered benchmark of 64 hypotheses spanning six complexity levels across cardiac and brain glioma MRI datasets. VERITAS reaches 81.4% verdict accuracy with frontier models and 71.2% with locally-hosted open-weight models (8-30B), outperforming all single-model baselines in both classes. It also produces the highest rate of independently verifiable statistical outputs (86.6%), so even its failures remain diagnosable through artifact inspection. Structured multi-agent decomposition thus substitutes for model scale while preserving the verifiability that scientific discovery demands. We release code, hypothesis bank, and evaluation pipeline at https://github.com/LucZot/veritas.

The widespread adoption of deep neural networks (DNNs) requires efficient techniques for verifying their safety. DNN verifiers are complex tools, which might contain bugs that could compromise their soundness and undermine the reliability of the verification process. This concern can be mitigated using proofs: artifacts that are checkable by an external and reliable proof checker, and which attest to the correctness of the verification process. However, such proofs tend to be extremely large, limiting their use in many scenarios. In this work, we address this problem by minimizing proofs of unsatisfiability produced by DNN verifiers. We present algorithms that remove facts which were learned during the verification process, but which are unnecessary for the proof itself. Conceptually, our method analyzes the dependencies among facts used to deduce UNSAT, and removes facts that did not contribute. We then further minimize the proof by eliminating remaining unnecessary dependencies, using two alternative procedures. We implemented our algorithms on top of a proof producing DNN verifier, and evaluated them across several benchmarks. Our results show that our best-performing algorithm reduces proof size by 37%-82% and proof checking time by 30%-88%, while introducing a runtime overhead of 7%-20% to the verification process itself.

Large language models (LLMs) struggle with multi-step reasoning, where inference-time scaling has emerged as a promising strategy for performance improvement. Verifier-guided search outperforms repeated sampling when sample size is limited by selecting and prioritizing valid reasoning paths. However, we identify a critical limitation: scaling flaws, prevalent across different models (Mistral 7B and DeepSeekMath 7B), benchmarks (GSM8K and MATH), and verifiers (outcome value models and process reward models). As sample size increases, verifier-guided search exhibits diminishing advantages and eventually underperforms repeated sampling. Our analysis attributes this to verifier failures, where imperfect verifiers misrank candidates and erroneously prune all valid paths. These issues are further exacerbated in challenging and out-of-distribution problems, restricting search effectiveness. To mitigate verifier failures, we explore reducing reliance on verifiers and conduct preliminary investigations using two simple methods. Our findings reveal fundamental limitations in verifier-guided search and suggest future directions.

Automated formal verification remains challenging for large language models because data for proof assistants and verification-aware languages is scarce, and correctness depends on satisfying precise machine-checkable specifications rather than producing plausible code. This thesis studies how verifier environments can improve LLM generation of verified programs and proofs through reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) and verifier-guided inference-time search. First, we train open-source models in Dafny with RLVR using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and related variants, assembling generated candidates into complete programs and scoring them with compiler and verifier outcomes. Initial experiments on an APPS-derived Dafny dataset increased verified reward from 2.2% to 58.1%, but revealed specification hacking, where models exploit weak formal specifications instead of implementing the intended solutions. After filtering underspecified and vulnerable tasks, multi-turn RLVR on the refined benchmark improves the verified pass rate from 9.7% to 31.1%. Second, we develop a verifier-guided inference scaffold in Lean that treats proof generation as structured search over decomposed subgoals, verifier feedback, diagnostics, and repair. With a fixed base model, the full scaffold with proof reviser improves pass rate on an initial VeriCoding pilot set from 46.2% under direct repair to 69.2%. On the larger VERINA dataset, whole-task decomposition plus proof reviser solves 7 of 42 previously unsolved tasks. We also introduce Dalek-Bench, a repository-scale Lean benchmark derived from the Rust curve25519-dalek verification project; preliminary results remain weak, indicating that stronger progress evaluation and task-specific tool-use policies are still needed.

Large language models are often adapted through parameter efficient fine tuning, but current release practices provide weak assurances about what data were used and how updates were computed. We present Verifiable Fine Tuning, a protocol and system that produces succinct zero knowledge proofs that a released model was obtained from a public initialization under a declared training program and an auditable dataset commitment. The approach combines five elements. First, commitments that bind data sources, preprocessing, licenses, and per epoch quota counters to a manifest. Second, a verifiable sampler that supports public replayable and private index hiding batch selection. Third, update circuits restricted to parameter efficient fine tuning that enforce AdamW style optimizer semantics and proof friendly approximations with explicit error budgets. Fourth, recursive aggregation that folds per step proofs into per epoch and end to end certificates with millisecond verification. Fifth, provenance binding and optional trusted execution property cards that attest code identity and constants. On English and bilingual instruction mixtures, the method maintains utility within tight budgets while achieving practical proof performance. Policy quotas are enforced with zero violations, and private sampling windows show no measurable index leakage. Federated experiments demonstrate that the system composes with probabilistic audits and bandwidth constraints. These results indicate that end to end verifiable fine tuning is feasible today for real parameter efficient pipelines, closing a critical trust gap for regulated and decentralized deployments.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on reinforcement learning (RL) to enhance their reasoning capabilities through feedback. A critical challenge is verifying the consistency of model-generated responses and reference answers, since these responses are often lengthy, diverse, and nuanced. Rule-based verifiers struggle with complexity, prompting the use of model-based verifiers. However, specialized verifiers lack flexibility, while general LLM judges can be inconsistent. Existing research primarily focuses on building better verifiers, yet a systematic evaluation of different types of verifiers' performance across domains remains lacking, severely constraining the reliable development of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward (RLVR). To address this, we propose VerifyBench--a cross-domain comprehensive benchmark for systematically evaluating verifiers. We construct 4,000 expert-level questions covering mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. Each question is equipped with reference answers and diverse responses. The reliability of the evaluation is ensured through a rigorous annotation process conducted by a multidisciplinary expert team. We design a four-dimensional experimental framework to comprehensively compare the performance boundaries of specialized verifiers and general LLMs under combined conditions of extracted answers vs. complete responses, and short vs. long outputs. Our evaluation uncovers fundamental trade-offs in verifiers: while specialized verifiers achieve leading accuracy, they exhibit deficiencies in recall; general models show stronger inclusivity but unstable precision. More importantly, we discover verifiers' high sensitivity to input structure and inherent limitations in cross-domain generalization, providing critical insights into the bottlenecks of current verifier technology.

Recent research has generated hope that inference scaling could allow weaker language models to match or exceed the accuracy of stronger models, such as by repeatedly sampling solutions to a coding problem until it passes unit tests. The central thesis of this paper is that there is no free lunch for inference scaling: indefinite accuracy improvement through resampling can only be realized if the "verifier" (in this case, a set of unit tests) is perfect. When the verifier is imperfect, as it almost always is in domains such as reasoning or coding (for example, unit tests have imperfect coverage), there is a nonzero probability of false positives: incorrect solutions that pass the verifier. Resampling cannot decrease this probability, so it imposes an upper bound to the accuracy of resampling-based inference scaling even with an infinite compute budget. We find that there is a very strong correlation between the model's single-sample accuracy (i.e. accuracy without unit tests) and its false positive rate on coding benchmarks HumanEval and MBPP, whose unit tests have limited coverage. Therefore, no amount of inference scaling of weaker models can enable them to match the single-sample accuracy of a sufficiently strong model (Fig. 1a). When we consider that false positives have a negative utility compared to abstaining from producing a solution, it bends the inference scaling curve further downward. Empirically, we find that the optimal number of samples can be less than 10 under realistic assumptions (Fig. 1b). Finally, we show that beyond accuracy, false positives may have other undesirable qualities, such as poor adherence to coding style conventions.

Verifiable instruction-following benchmarks emphasize output-constraint satisfaction but can overlook whether responses meaningfully answer the underlying request, creating an evaluation blind spot. We show that frontier models can receive full credit for responses with little substantive answer content. Using the same verifier-based criterion as a training reward can induce reward hacking, as publicly released checkpoints exhibit higher constraint satisfaction but lower response quality after reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. To address this reward hacking, we introduce CALIF, a lightweight method that augments verifier rewards with a calibrated likelihood-based bonus to preserve response quality. CALIF evaluates response likelihood under the request alone using the existing frozen reference policy, requiring no additional judge or learned reward model. Across models ranging from 1.7B to 8B in reasoning and non-reasoning modes, CALIF improves constraint satisfaction on IFBench while maintaining response quality near or above pre-RL levels. It also outperforms corresponding base policies in 40 of 45 model-metric comparisons across three rubric-based instruction-following benchmarks, demonstrating gains beyond training verifiers.

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

Test-time scaling for complex reasoning tasks shows that leveraging inference-time compute, by methods such as independently sampling and aggregating multiple solutions, results in significantly better task outcomes. However, a critical bottleneck is verification: sampling is only effective if correct solutions can be reliably identified among candidates. While existing approaches typically evaluate candidates independently via scalar scoring, we demonstrate that models are substantially stronger at pairwise self-verification. Leveraging this insight, we introduce V_1, a framework that unifies generation and verification through efficient pairwise ranking. V_1 comprises two components: V_1-Infer, an uncertainty-guided algorithm using a tournament-based ranking that dynamically allocates self-verification compute to candidate pairs whose relative correctness is most uncertain; and V_1-PairRL, an RL framework that jointly trains a single model as both generator and pairwise self-verifier, ensuring the verifier adapts to the generator's evolving distribution. On code generation (LiveCodeBench, CodeContests, SWE-Bench) and math reasoning (AIME, HMMT) benchmarks, V_1-Infer improves Pass@1 by up to 10% over pointwise verification and outperforms recent test-time scaling methods while being significantly more efficient. Furthermore, V_1-PairRL achieves 7--9% test-time scaling gains over standard RL and pointwise joint training, and improves base Pass@1 by up to 8.7% over standard RL in a code-generation setting.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved strong performance in multimodal reasoning, yet they remain prone to generating plausible but incorrect answers. Self-verification offers a practical way to improve answer reliability without relying on external judges, but existing methods typically depend on a single verification criterion or fixed prompt, resulting in incomplete and unstable reliability estimates. We first systematically analyze how verifier capability and prompt design affect verification performance. Our findings show that stronger verifiers provide more reliable judgments, while verification performance is highly sensitive to prompt choice, with no single prompt consistently dominating across tasks. Guided by these findings, we propose MOTIVE, a Multi-View Self-VerificatiOn wiTh RelIability-Guided SelectiVE Rethinking framework for reliable multimodal reasoning. MOTIVE evaluates each candidate answer from complementary verification perspectives and learns a correctness-aligned reliability score through correctness-grounded multi-view verification learning. During inference, this score governs an accept-or-rethink decision, allowing reliable answers to be returned directly while uncertain ones trigger history-guided rethinking. Extensive experiments across diverse multimodal benchmarks and VLM backbones demonstrate that MOTIVE consistently outperforms strong self-verification and self-correction baselines. Further results show that reliable verification improves accept-or-rethink decisions and reduces unnecessary reasoning turns, enabling more reliable and efficient self-verification without an external judge.

Large language models (LLMs) have made misinformation inexpensive to produce but not to verify, creating a growing asymmetry in the information ecosystem. Under tight time, labor, and budget constraints, media organizations, platforms, and fact-checkers rely on screening to prioritize which content to verify. We introduce VEX-Bench, a unified benchmark for evaluating the verification complexity of LLM-generated misinformation, as perceived during screening, across models and generation methods. Verification complexity is assessed along multiple dimensions derived from journalistic and fact-checking practices, capturing checkability, harm potential, source credibility signals, imposter legitimacy, and expected verification effort. We define the VEX score as an integrated measure combining elicitation yield and verification complexity to quantify how generated content consumes limited verification capacity. We construct a benchmark spanning two misinformation categories, 6 high-stakes domains, and 60 real-world topics, and evaluate 7 frontier LLMs and 7 generation methods, yielding 5{,}880 articles. We employ an LLM-as-judge for scalable evaluation and validate it using content-analysis methodology, including ordinal Krippendorff α for inter-annotator reliability, complemented by fact-checking agents for verification. Our findings show that no single method dominates all dimensions, underscoring the need for multi-dimensional evaluation. LLMs can generate high-VEX misinformation at 3times to 169times lower cost than agent-based verification. Such content is often prioritized during screening, consuming scarce verification resources and introducing a systematic risk of misallocation in resource-constrained verification systems. The code is publicly available in our https://github.com/HanxunH/VEX-Bench{GitHub repository}.

Although randomized smoothing has demonstrated high certified robustness and superior scalability to other certified defenses, the high computational overhead of the robustness certification bottlenecks the practical applicability, as it depends heavily on the large sample approximation for estimating the confidence interval. In existing works, the sample size for the confidence interval is universally set and agnostic to the input for prediction. This Input-Agnostic Sampling (IAS) scheme may yield a poor Average Certified Radius (ACR)-runtime trade-off which calls for improvement. In this paper, we propose Input-Specific Sampling (ISS) acceleration to achieve the cost-effectiveness for robustness certification, in an adaptive way of reducing the sampling size based on the input characteristic. Furthermore, our method universally controls the certified radius decline from the ISS sample size reduction. The empirical results on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet show that ISS can speed up the certification by more than three times at a limited cost of 0.05 certified radius. Meanwhile, ISS surpasses IAS on the average certified radius across the extensive hyperparameter settings. Specifically, ISS achieves ACR=0.958 on ImageNet (sigma=1.0) in 250 minutes, compared to ACR=0.917 by IAS under the same condition. We release our code in https://github.com/roy-ch/Input-Specific-Certification.

Current language model evaluations measure what models know under ideal conditions but not how robustly they know it under realistic stress. Static benchmarks like MMLU and TruthfulQA cannot distinguish a model that lacks knowledge from one whose verification mechanisms collapse when information degrades or adversaries probe for weaknesses. We introduce the Drill-Down and Fabricate Test (DDFT), a protocol that measures epistemic robustness: a model's ability to maintain factual accuracy under progressive semantic compression and adversarial fabrication. We propose a two-system cognitive model comprising a Semantic System that generates fluent text and an Epistemic Verifier that validates factual accuracy. Our findings, based on evaluating 9 frontier models across 8 knowledge domains at 5 compression levels (1,800 turn-level evaluations), reveal that epistemic robustness is orthogonal to conventional design paradigms. Neither parameter count (r=0.083, p=0.832) nor architectural type (r=0.153, p=0.695) significantly predicts robustness, suggesting it emerges from training methodology and verification mechanisms distinct from current approaches. Error detection capability strongly predicts overall robustness (rho=-0.817, p=0.007), indicating this is the critical bottleneck. We find that flagship models exhibit brittleness despite their scale, while smaller models can achieve robust performance, challenging assumptions about the relationship between model size and reliability. The DDFT framework provides both theoretical foundation and practical tools for assessing epistemic robustness before deployment in critical applications.

Autonomous coding agents solve repository issues by reading code, running commands, editing files, and submitting patches. Extra inference-time compute yields gains only when it produces a useful repair and supplies reliable evidence for choosing one. Three behaviors decide both, and we argue they are teachable rather than byproducts of scale, so a policy can carry them instead of a scaffold. Location diversity remains narrow, since attempts return to the same site and extra samples add no coverage. Edit diversity is left unexploited, since methodologies that differ resolve complementary issues no single run reaches. Verification misleads, since a test the agent writes for its own patch accepts many incorrect ones. Directing search by execution feedback and scoring each patch against its own reverted tree resolves 52.8% of SWE-bench Verified using 48.1% of the agent-steps an eight-sample baseline spends. Training moves these behaviors into the policy. On the 270 issues held out from SFT and RL training, weighted supervised fine-tuning raises pass@1 from 31.9% to 35.2% and pass@8 from 46.7% to 51.1%. A reinforcement objective then trains the verifier against gold-labeled repairs and incorrect variants, crediting the assertions that detect them. It raises pass@1 to 43.0% and pass@8 to 60.7%, lifts verifier precision from 26.8% to 41.7%, and more than halves false acceptance. Resolution improves on two of three out-of-distribution suites and verifier precision on all three, and the gains hold at 7B, 14B, and 30B against published coder baselines.

Intent-based network management automates 6G service lifecycles, but existing fulfilment and assurance approaches require traffic inspection, per-flow tracking, or vendor-internal telemetry. These requirements conflict with privacy constraints in multi-tenant networks and vendor opacity in O-RAN deployments. We present an architecture that provisions resources from declared intent categories without traffic inspection and verifies fulfilment using only cell-level standardised PM counters at the O1 interface. A data-processing inequality bounds resource-allocation leakage about traffic content by log_2 K bits for K categories. Intent-traffic unlinkability and node-opaque verification hold by construction. If verification requires at least q cells per category among M cells, the ceiling becomes log_2 lfloor M/q rfloor bits. This bound covers the category/resource channel, not total inference from PM counters. When individual records add state-independent noise to the category aggregate, the category-mean verifier is at least as powerful as any per-agent verifier. We map the architecture to the 3GPP intent lifecycle and O-RAN Non-RT RIC. On production PM data from four operator networks, the category-mean score has higher AUC on three networks and comparable AUC on the fourth under category-wide replacement, while per-cell screening suits sparse faults. These injection-based experiments do not establish the theorem's observation premise. Within-period cell co-movement limits a category mean to the evidence of 6 to 14 independent cells, and category-level verifiers need per-category calibration.

We present the Consilium Protocol, a Byzantine Fault Tolerance-derived architecture for structured multi-model AI deliberation that treats inter-model disagreement as epistemic signal rather than error. The protocol assigns engineered cognitive personas to language models -- separating what a model is from how it reasons -- and introduces an In-Sample/Out-of-Sample validation framework adapted from quantitative finance to distinguish training-data consensus from empirically grounded conclusions. Across 1,478 deliberation sessions spanning 32 topics in 10 domain categories, we demonstrate that (1) the cognitive persona, not the underlying model, determines epistemic behavior: free edge-inference models costing 0.0002 USD per batch produced comparable analytical output to frontier models costing 10.69 USD; (2) RLHF alignment training creates measurable, domain-specific epistemic blind spots -- contested policy topics exhibit 12.3 percentage points less adversarial challenge than settled science topics, and AI safety topics show asymmetric bias (Δ=11.6%) where models challenge claims that AI is dangerous far more vigorously than claims that AI risk is overstated; (3) the protocol exhibits no directional bias of its own (immigration Δ=2.3%, renewables Δ=1.2%); and (4) out-of-sample evidence retrieval validated 239 claims with 100% evidence retrieval and surfaced 167 blind-spot discoveries invisible to training-data deliberation. Run-to-run reproducibility across randomized modeltimespersona assignments averages pm2.2% standard deviation. Total cost for the complete battery including all overhead: 217 USD. We release the protocol specification under MIT license to enable independent verification.

Same-model self-verification, prompting a model to audit its own predicted answer, is a plausible confidence signal for selective prediction, but its practical value remains unclear once strong likelihood-based baselines are taken seriously. We evaluate self-verification against two such baselines, LL-AVG and LL-SUM, on ARC-Challenge and TruthfulQA-MC across multiple model families, scales, and prompt variants. We measure not only correctness ranking, but also abstention quality through AURC and operating-point analyses. The results are sharply task- and model-dependent. On ARC-Challenge, self-verification substantially improves over LL-AVG for Phi-2 and the Qwen models, with the largest gains appearing in Qwen-7B. On TruthfulQA-MC, however, the signal is less reliable: smaller models can become prompt-sensitive, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-8B degrades relative to LL-AVG, and LL-SUM often remains the stronger practical baseline. We therefore do not treat self-verification as a general-purpose uncertainty estimator. In this setting, it is better understood as a conditional confidence signal whose value depends on task type, model family, prompt formulation, and, crucially, the baseline it must beat.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate plausible code but offer limited guarantees of correctness. Formally verifying that implementations satisfy specifications requires constructing machine-checkable proofs, a task that remains beyond current automation. We propose a hierarchical proof search framework for automated code verification in Lean~4 that decomposes complex verification goals into structurally simpler subgoals before attempting tactic-level proving. Central to our approach is a principled decomposition score that combines constructive justification with structural effectiveness. Crucially, this score serves as both the training reward and the inference-time ranking criterion, ensuring strict alignment between optimization and deployment. We train Goedel-Code-Prover-8B, a single unified policy for both decomposition and completion, via supervised initialization followed by hybrid reinforcement learning, where a continuous decomposition reward drives planning exploration while supervised replay stabilizes proof generation. On three Lean-based code verification benchmarks comprising 427 tasks, our 8B-parameter model achieves a 62.0\% prove success rate, a 2.6times improvement over the strongest baseline, surpassing neural provers up to 84times larger. We further observe consistent inference-time scaling: success rates improve monotonically with search iterations and sampling budget, with our trained model achieving greater efficiency than frontier off-the-shelf models of comparable scale.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has enabled strong post-training gains in domains such as math and coding, though many open-ended settings rely on rubric-based rewards. We study reward hacking in rubric-based RL, where a policy is optimized against a training verifier but evaluated against a cross-family panel of three frontier judges, reducing dependence on any single evaluator. Our framework separates two sources of divergence: verifier failure, where the training verifier credits rubric criteria that reference verifiers reject, and rubric-design limitations, where even strong rubric-based verifiers favor responses that rubric-free judges rate worse overall. Across medical and science domains, weak verifiers produce large proxy-reward gains that do not transfer to the reference verifiers; exploitation grows over training and concentrates in recurring failures such as partial satisfaction of compound criteria, treating implicit content as explicit, and imprecise topical matching. Stronger verifiers substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, verifier exploitation. We also introduce a self-internalization gap, a verifier-free diagnostic based on policy log-probabilities, which tracks reference-verifier quality, detecting when the policy trained using the weak verifier stops improving. Finally, in our setting, stronger verification does not prevent reward hacking when the rubric leaves important failure modes unspecified: rubric-based verifiers prefer the RL checkpoint, while rubric-free judges prefer the base model. These disagreements coincide with gains concentrated in completeness and presence-based criteria, alongside declines in factual correctness, conciseness, relevance, and overall quality. Together, these results suggest that stronger verification reduces reward hacking, but does not by itself ensure that rubric gains correspond to broader quality gains.

Reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs) has recently shown strong potential in enhancing generative recommendation through deep understanding of complex user preference. Existing approaches follow a {reason-then-recommend} paradigm, where LLMs perform step-by-step reasoning before item generation. However, this paradigm inevitably suffers from reasoning degradation (i.e., homogeneous or error-accumulated reasoning) due to the lack of intermediate verification, thus undermining the recommendation. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel \textit{reason-verify-recommend} paradigm, which interleaves reasoning with verification to provide reliable feedback, guiding the reasoning process toward more faithful user preference understanding. To enable effective verification, we establish two key principles for verifier design: 1) reliability ensures accurate evaluation of reasoning correctness and informative guidance generation; and 2) multi-dimensionality emphasizes comprehensive verification across multi-dimensional user preferences. Accordingly, we propose an effective implementation called VRec. It employs a mixture of verifiers to ensure multi-dimensionality, while leveraging a proxy prediction objective to pursue reliability. Experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that VRec substantially enhances recommendation effectiveness and scalability without compromising efficiency. The codes can be found at https://github.com/Linxyhaha/Verifiable-Rec.

This definitive research memoria presents a comprehensive, mathematically verified paradigm for neural communication with Bitcoin mining Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), integrating five complementary frameworks: thermodynamic reservoir computing, hierarchical number system theory, algorithmic analysis, network latency optimization, and machine-checked mathematical formalization. We establish that obsolete cryptocurrency mining hardware exhibits emergent computational properties enabling bidirectional information exchange between AI systems and silicon substrates. The research program demonstrates: (1) reservoir computing with NARMA-10 Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE) of 0.8661; (2) the Thermodynamic Probability Filter (TPF) achieving 92.19% theoretical energy reduction; (3) the Virtual Block Manager achieving +25% effective hashrate; and (4) hardware universality across multiple ASIC families including Antminer S9, Lucky Miner LV06, and Goldshell LB-Box. A significant contribution is the machine-checked mathematical formalization using Lean 4 and Mathlib, providing unambiguous definitions, machine-verified theorems, and reviewer-proof claims. Key theorems proven include: independence implies zero leakage, predictor beats baseline implies non-independence (the logical core of TPF), energy savings theoretical maximum, and Physical Unclonable Function (PUF) distinguishability witnesses. Vladimir Veselov's hierarchical number system theory explains why early-round information contains predictive power. This work establishes a new paradigm: treating ASICs not as passive computational substrates but as active conversational partners whose thermodynamic state encodes exploitable computational information.

Digital signatures prove key possession, not authorship. An author who generates text with AI, constructs intermediate document states post-hoc, and signs each hash produces a signature chain indistinguishable from genuine composition. We address this gap between cryptographic integrity and process provenance. We introduce proof-of-process, a primitive category for evidence that a physical process, not merely a signing key, produced a digital artifact. Our construction, the jitter seal, injects imperceptible microsecond delays derived via HMAC from a session secret, keystroke ordinal, and cumulative document hash. Valid evidence requires that real keystrokes produced the document through those intermediate states. We propose the Adversarial Collapse Principle as an evaluation criterion: evidence systems should be judged by whether disputing them requires a conjunction of specific, testable allegations against components with independent trust assumptions. We present Witnessd, an architecture combining jitter seals with Verifiable Delay Functions, external timestamp anchors, dual-source keystroke validation, and optional hardware attestation. Each layer forces allegations at different capability levels; disputing authentic evidence requires coordinated claims across independent trust boundaries. The system does not prevent forgery: a kernel-level adversary can defeat it, and typing AI-generated content produces valid evidence. The contribution is converting vague doubt into falsifiable allegations. We evaluate across 31,000 verification trials with deterministic rejection of invalid proofs.

Verifying the success of computer use agent (CUA) trajectories is a critical challenge: without reliable verification, neither evaluation nor training signal can be trusted. In this paper, we present lessons learned from building a best-in-class verifier for web tasks we call the Universal Verifier. We design the Universal Verifier around four key principles: 1) constructing rubrics with meaningful, non-overlapping criteria to reduce noise; 2) separating process and outcome rewards that yield complementary signals, capturing cases where an agent follows the right steps but gets blocked or succeeds through an unexpected path; 3) distinguishing between controllable and uncontrollable failures scored via a cascading-error-free strategy for finer-grained failure understanding; and 4) a divide-and-conquer context management scheme that attends to all screenshots in a trajectory, improving reliability on longer task horizons. We validate these findings on CUAVerifierBench, a new set of CUA trajectories with both process and outcome human labels, showing that our Universal Verifier agrees with humans as often as humans agree with each other. We report a reduction in false positive rates to near zero compared to baselines like WebVoyager (geq 45\%) and WebJudge (geq 22\%). We emphasize that these gains stem from the cumulative effect of the design choices above. We also find that an auto-research agent achieves 70\% of expert quality in 5\% of the time, but fails to discover all strategies required to replicate the Universal Verifier. We open-source our Universal Verifier system along with CUAVerifierBench; available at https://github.com/microsoft/fara.

Inference cascades cut cost by answering most queries with a cheap model and escalating a hard tail to a frontier model that acts as verifier. A natural extension closes the loop: fine-tune the cheap student on the verifier's rejections so the escalation rate, and cost, fall each round. We measure this loop on real LLMs and report four findings. First, the verifier's blind spot, the fraction of the student's wrong answers it accepts, is large and moves adversarially: it grows with student capability (β from 0.12 to 0.55 as the student scales 0.5B to 32B) and shrinks with verifier capability, so it is worst in the cheap-student, cheap-verifier regime cascades exist to create. Second, buying it away returns the saving: a frontier verifier drives β to about 0.05 but then escalates on 46% of hard-MATH queries against a 39% true error rate, paying the frontier price on nearly half of all traffic. Third, naive corrective fine-tuning on the verifier-rejected tail does not improve the small student but degrades and ultimately collapses it, across every teacher we tried (cross-family and same-family), so at this scale the self-improving loop is self-defeating. Fourth, through all of this the cascade's own dashboard, every metric computed through the verifier, reads a flat 3% error while true delivered error swings up to 32%: the system is blind to its own degradation by construction. We then give the theory that explains the blindness, a two-population conservation law, ε_infty lesssim q_0 β_0, under which every in-loop metric improves while true quality does not, and a synthetic study that validates the mechanism. The practical conclusion: the reliability of a self-improving cascade cannot be read from any metric computed through its own verifier.

AI agents that execute tasks via tool calls frequently hallucinate results - fabricating tool executions, misstating output counts, or presenting inferences as facts. Recent approaches to verifiable AI inference rely on zero-knowledge proofs, which provide cryptographic guarantees but impose minutes of proving time per query, making them impractical for interactive agents. We propose NabaOS, a lightweight verification framework inspired by Indian epistemology (Nyaya Shastra), which classifies every claim in an LLM response by its epistemic source (pramana): direct tool output (pratyaksha), inference (anumana), external testimony (shabda), absence (abhava), or ungrounded opinion. Our runtime generates HMAC-signed tool execution receipts that the LLM cannot forge, then cross-references claims against these receipts to detect hallucinations in real time. We evaluate on NyayaVerifyBench, a new benchmark of 1,800 agent response scenarios across four languages with injected hallucinations of six types. NabaOS detects 94.2% of fabricated tool references, 87.6% of count misstatements, and 91.3% of false absence claims, with <15ms verification overhead per response. For deep delegation (agents performing multi-step web tasks), our cross-checking protocol catches 78.4% of URL fabrications via independent re-fetching. We compare against five approaches: zkLLM (cryptographic proofs, 180s/query), TOPLOC (locality-sensitive hashing), SPEX (sampling-based proof of execution), tensor commitments, and self-consistency checking. NabaOS achieves the best cost-latency-coverage trade-off for interactive agents: 94.2% coverage at <15ms versus zkLLM's near-perfect coverage at 180,000ms. For interactive agents, practical receipt-based verification provides better cost-benefit than cryptographic proofs, and epistemic classification gives users actionable trust signals rather than binary judgments.

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

Despite substantial advances in scaling test-time compute, an ongoing debate in the community is how it should be scaled up to enable continued and efficient improvements with scaling. There are largely two approaches: first, distilling successful search or thinking traces; and second, using verification (e.g., 0/1 outcome rewards, reward models, or verifiers) to guide reinforcement learning (RL) and search algorithms. In this paper, we prove that finetuning LLMs with verifier-based (VB) methods based on RL or search is far superior to verifier-free (VF) approaches based on distilling or cloning search traces, given a fixed amount of compute/data budget. Further, we show that as we scale test-time compute (measured as the output token length) and training data, suboptimality of VF methods scales poorly compared to VB when the base pre-trained LLM presents a heterogeneous distribution over correct solution traces (e.g., different lengths, styles, etc.) and admits a non-sharp distribution over rewards on traces sampled from it. We formalize this condition using anti-concentration [Erdos, 1945]. This implies a stronger result that VB methods scale better asymptotically, with the performance gap between VB and VF methods widening as test-time budget grows. We corroborate our theory empirically on both didactic and math reasoning problems with 3/8/32B-sized pre-trained LLMs, where we find verification is crucial for scaling test-time compute.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has demonstrated great potential in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), achieving remarkable progress in domains such as mathematics and programming where standard answers are available. However, for open-ended tasks lacking ground-truth solutions (e.g., creative writing and instruction following), existing studies typically regard them as non-reasoning scenarios, thereby overlooking the latent value of reasoning capabilities. This raises a key question: Can strengthening reasoning improve performance in open-ended tasks? To address this, we explore the transfer of the RLVR paradigm to the open domain. Yet, since RLVR fundamentally relies on verifiers that presuppose the existence of standard answers, it cannot be directly applied to open-ended tasks. To overcome this challenge, we introduce Verifiable Multiple-Choice Reformulation (VMR), a novel training strategy that restructures open-ended data into verifiable multiple-choice formats, enabling effective training even in the absence of explicit ground truth. Experimental results on multiple benchmarks validate the effectiveness of our method in improving LLM performance on open-ended tasks. Notably, across eight open-ended benchmarks, our VMR-based training delivers an average gain of 5.99 points over the baseline. Code will be released upon acceptance to facilitate reproducibility.

Test-time reasoning is increasingly used as a serving-time control knob, but extra reasoning is not uniformly valuable: it can repair failed attempts, waste compute on already-correct answers, or introduce harmful answer changes. We study this as a deployment allocation problem rather than a new-verifier problem. We introduce \sevra, Selective Verification for Reasoning Allocation, a serving-layer controller that decides whether to preserve a frozen solver's initial answer or invoke active verification. Using a frozen Qwen3-4B solver, we log intervention outcomes and train recoverability-aware gates from serving-visible attempt state. On \mathfive, selective verification reaches 76.3\% accuracy, compared with 75.5\% for always verifying, while reducing post-generation tokens by 26.8\% and harmful flips from 2.2\% to 1.0\%. However, an 8,192-token initial solve reaches 76.0\% accuracy with 28\% fewer total model tokens, showing that selective recovery is useful but not the best tested cost frontier. In frozen transfer to \gsm, the selective policy verifies only 3.0\% of examples, improves accuracy from 93.4\% to 94.5\%, and reduces verification tokens by 91.2\% relative to always verifying; again, a longer initial solve matches its accuracy with fewer realized tokens. On CommonsenseQA, always-on verification hurts, while Self-Consistency@5 improves accuracy at about five times the realized token cost. The resulting deployment rule is: tune the initial budget first, then use selective recovery when explicit checks, bounded retries, auditability, or regression-risk control matter.

As LLM agents undertake increasingly complex, long-horizon tasks, verifying their outputs becomes increasingly challenging. We study how verification capability can be strengthened with a fixed base model, without access to reference answers or grading rubrics at test time. Repeated sampling yields multiple rollouts that can contain complementary correct claims, but we need a reliable verification mechanism to determine which claims to trust. We first find that disagreement often exposes correct alternatives, while consensus can conceal errors. These observations motivate VeriHarness, which turns the underlying LLM a generator uses into an agentic verifier by giving it a workspace, evidence tools, and reusable verification skills. A disagreement resolver checks competing claims against environmental evidence, while a consensus challenger tests shared claims and searches for omitted requirements. Their findings guide the selection and revision of the final artifact. Across five long-horizon workspace benchmarks and two frontier models, VeriHarness achieves the highest selection scores among the evaluated baselines. Evidence-backed revision further improves average performance, bringing gains over a single rollout to 6.2 points with Gemini 3.5 Flash and 6.4 points with Claude Opus 4.8. We further show that verification skills can self-improve from failure feedback, demonstrating VeriHarness as a novel and critical approach for scaling long-horizon agentic verification. We release the full pool of approximately 26,000 rollouts across all five benchmarks and both models, produced at a cost of over $100,000, to support future research on agentic verification.

Large language models can generate useful code from natural language, but their outputs come without correctness guarantees. Verifiable code generation offers a path beyond testing by requiring models to produce not only executable code, but also formal specifications and machine-checkable proofs. Progress in this direction, however, is difficult to measure: existing benchmarks are often small, focus on only one part of the pipeline, lack ground-truth proofs or rigorous specification validation, or target verification settings far from mainstream software development. We present VeriContest, a benchmark of 946 competitive-programming problems from LeetCode and Codeforces for verifiable code generation in Rust with Verus. Each problem pairs a natural language description with expert-validated formal specifications, judge-accepted Rust code, Verus-checked proofs, and positive and negative test suites. VeriContest is constructed through a three-phase pipeline that scales from manually verified seed problems to semi-automated expansion with human-in-the-loop review. To further strengthen benchmark quality, we use testing as an additional quality-assurance layer for validating postcondition completeness. VeriContest supports isolated and compositional evaluation of specification generation, code generation, proof generation, and end-to-end verified program synthesis. Evaluating ten state-of-the-art models reveals a sharp gap between coding ability and verifiable code generation: the strongest model reaches 92.18% on natural-language-to-code generation, but only 48.31% on specification generation, 13.95% on proof generation, and 5.29% end-to-end. These results identify proof and specification generation as the central bottlenecks for models and establish VeriContest as a rigorous platform for measuring and training future systems that generate code with machine-checkable correctness.

Current research on the Decompose-Then-Verify paradigm for evaluating the factuality of long-form text typically treats decomposition and verification in isolation, overlooking their interactions and potential misalignment. We find that existing decomposition policies, typically hand-crafted demonstrations, do not align well with downstream verifiers in terms of atomicity -- a novel metric quantifying information density -- leading to suboptimal verification results. We formulate finding the optimal decomposition policy for optimal verification as a bilevel optimization problem. To approximate a solution for this strongly NP-hard problem, we propose dynamic decomposition, a reinforcement learning framework that leverages verifier feedback to learn a policy for dynamically decomposing claims to verifier-preferred atomicity. Experimental results show that dynamic decomposition outperforms existing decomposition policies, improving verification confidence by 0.07 and accuracy by 0.12 (on a 0-1 scale) on average across varying verifiers, datasets, and atomcities of input claims.

For humans to trust the fluent generations of large language models (LLMs), they must be able to verify their correctness against trusted, external sources. Recent efforts aim to increase verifiability through citations of retrieved documents or post-hoc provenance. However, such citations are prone to mistakes that further complicate their verifiability. To address these limitations, we tackle the verifiability goal with a different philosophy: we trivialize the verification process by developing models that quote verbatim statements from trusted sources in pre-training data. We propose Quote-Tuning, which demonstrates the feasibility of aligning LLMs to leverage memorized information and quote from pre-training data. Quote-Tuning quantifies quoting against large corpora with efficient membership inference tools, and uses the amount of quotes as an implicit reward signal to construct a synthetic preference dataset for quoting, without any human annotation. Next, the target model is aligned to quote using preference optimization algorithms. Experimental results show that Quote-Tuning significantly increases the percentage of LLM generation quoted verbatim from high-quality pre-training documents by 55% to 130% relative to untuned models while maintaining response quality. Further experiments demonstrate that Quote-Tuning generalizes quoting to out-of-domain data, is applicable in different tasks, and provides additional benefits to truthfulness. Quote-Tuning not only serves as a hassle-free method to increase quoting but also opens up avenues for improving LLM trustworthiness through better verifiability.

We identify a security-fidelity tradeoff in defending LLMs against indirect prompt injection: defenses resist injected instructions largely by suppressing untrusted text, which corrupts tasks that must preserve it, such as translation and document editing. Attack-success metrics cannot see this, because a model that ignores an injection and one that faithfully processes it as data score identically. We introduce SecFid, a benchmark built so that executing an injection, processing it as data, and ignoring it produce distinguishable outputs. This makes fidelity measurable and exposes a frontier: across 1,168 examples and 48 configurations, no model or defense achieves both objectives. The highest-fidelity model reaches 96.5% fidelity at 47.8% security, while the most secure defenses invert this, at 99.3% security but only 71.0%-73.9% fidelity. Even defenses with identical security differ in how they earn it: some repair hijacks into faithful processing, others simply suppress benign content. A decision-theoretic analysis shows why no fixed choice can be right everywhere: the correct behavior is not a property of the defense but of the deployment, set by its relative cost of a hijack versus a dropped span. Security alone therefore measures only half of robustness, and reporting it without fidelity hides the price at which it was bought.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated in software development, but ensuring correctness in LLM-generated code remains challenging and often requires costly manual review. Verifiable code generation -- jointly generating code, specifications, and proofs of code-specification alignment -- offers a promising path to address this limitation and further unleash LLMs' benefits in coding. Yet, there exists a significant gap in evaluation: current benchmarks often lack support for end-to-end verifiable code generation. In this paper, we introduce Verina (Verifiable Code Generation Arena), a high-quality benchmark enabling a comprehensive and modular evaluation of code, specification, and proof generation as well as their compositions. Verina consists of 189 manually curated coding tasks in Lean, with detailed problem descriptions, reference implementations, formal specifications, and extensive test suites. Our extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals significant challenges in verifiable code generation, especially in proof generation, underscoring the need for improving LLM-based theorem provers in verification domains. The best model, OpenAI o4-mini, generates only 61.4% correct code, 51.0% sound and complete specifications, and 3.6% successful proofs, with one trial per task. We hope Verina will catalyze progress in verifiable code generation by providing a rigorous and comprehensive benchmark. We release our dataset on https://huggingface.co/datasets/sunblaze-ucb/verina and our evaluation code on https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/verina.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling. To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary {0,1} during training. This choice carries a cost: it introduces false negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and false positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs). For instance, a rule-based checker may mark the correct fraction 12{36} as wrong when compared against the canonical 1{3} due to brittle parsing/equivalence rules (FN), while a large language model (LLM) judges can be gamed by superficial cues or even a single adversarial token, yielding inflated correctness for wrong solutions (FP). We formalize verifier unreliability by modeling the verifier as a stochastic reward channel with asymmetric noise rates. From this abstraction, we derive two correction algorithms for verifier errors. The first is a backward correction that de-biases the observed binary reward to recover an unbiased estimator of the clean policy gradient. The second is a forward correction that reweights score-function terms so that the expected update direction aligns with the clean gradient; notably, it requires only the FN rate. We implement both as lightweight hooks in a group relative policy optimization (GRPO)-based RLVR pipeline and evaluate them on math-reasoning models and benchmarks. Across models and datasets, both corrections improve over uncorrected training; the forward variant converges faster and remains stable under heavier noise. Finally, we show a practical appeal mechanism in which a lightweight LLM verifier estimates the FN rate online by rechecking rule-based negatives, obtaining outperformance compared with other state-of-the-art contenders.

QDNA-ID is a trust-chain framework that links physical quantum behavior to digitally verified records. The system first executes standard quantum circuits with random shot patterns across different devices to generate entropy profiles and measurement data that reveal device-specific behavior. A Bell or CHSH test is then used to confirm that correlations originate from genuine non classical processes rather than classical simulation. The verified outcomes are converted into statistical fingerprints using entropy, divergence, and bias features to characterize each device. These features and metadata for device, session, and random seed parameters are digitally signed and time stamped to ensure integrity and traceability. Authenticated artifacts are stored in a hierarchical index for reproducible retrieval and long term auditing. A visualization and analytics interface monitors drift, policy enforcement, and device behavior logs. A machine learning engine tracks entropy drift, detects anomalies, and classifies devices based on evolving patterns. An external verification API supports independent recomputation of hashes, signatures, and CHSH evidence. QDNA-ID operates as a continuous feedback loop that maintains a persistent chain of trust for quantum computing environments.

Test-time scaling is a powerful strategy for boosting the performance of large language models on complex reasoning tasks. While state-of-the-art approaches often employ generative verifiers to select the best solution from a pool of candidates, this method incurs prohibitive computational costs, limiting its practicality. In this work, we shift the focus to a more budget-aware paradigm: discriminative verification. We conduct a thorough empirical analysis and demonstrate that while discriminative verifiers may underperform in isolation, combining them with self-consistency in a hybrid approach creates a powerful and efficient test-time scaling mechanism. Notably, under a fixed compute budget, this hybrid approach surpasses state-of-the-art generative verification by a significant margin: achieving up to 15.3\% higher accuracy on AIME2025. Our findings establish that for practical, real-world applications, budget-aware scaling with discriminative verifiers is not only a "free" upgrade over self-consistency, but also a more effective and efficient alternative to costly generative techniques. Code is available at https://github.com/wang-research-lab/verification.

The recent paradigm shift towards training large language models (LLMs) using DeepSeek-R1-Zero-style reinforcement learning (RL) on verifiable rewards has led to impressive advancements in code and mathematical reasoning. However, this methodology is limited to tasks where rule-based answer verification is possible and does not naturally extend to real-world domains such as chemistry, healthcare, engineering, law, biology, business, and economics. Current practical workarounds use an additional LLM as a model-based verifier; however, this introduces issues such as reliance on a strong verifier LLM, susceptibility to reward hacking, and the practical burden of maintaining the verifier model in memory during training. To address this and extend DeepSeek-R1-Zero-style training to general reasoning domains, we propose a verifier-free method (VeriFree) that bypasses answer verification and instead uses RL to directly maximize the probability of generating the reference answer. We compare VeriFree with verifier-based methods and demonstrate that, in addition to its significant practical benefits and reduced compute requirements, VeriFree matches and even surpasses verifier-based methods on extensive evaluations across MMLU-Pro, GPQA, SuperGPQA, and math-related benchmarks. Moreover, we provide insights into this method from multiple perspectives: as an elegant integration of training both the policy and implicit verifier in a unified model, and as a variational optimization approach. Code is available at https://github.com/sail-sg/VeriFree.

Access to frontier large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-5 and Gemini-2.5, is often hindered by high pricing, payment barriers, and regional restrictions. These limitations drive the proliferation of shadow APIs, third-party services that claim to provide access to official model services without regional limitations via indirect access. Despite their widespread use, it remains unclear whether shadow APIs deliver outputs consistent with those of the official APIs, raising concerns about the reliability of downstream applications and the validity of research findings that depend on them. In this paper, we present the first systematic audit between official LLM APIs and corresponding shadow APIs. We first identify 17 shadow APIs that have been utilized in 187 academic papers, with the most popular one reaching 5,966 citations and 58,639 GitHub stars by December 6, 2025. Through multidimensional auditing of three representative shadow APIs across utility, safety, and model verification, we uncover both indirect and direct evidence of deception practices in shadow APIs. Specifically, we reveal performance divergence reaching up to 47.21%, significant unpredictability in safety behaviors, and identity verification failures in 45.83% of fingerprint tests. These deceptive practices critically undermine the reproducibility and validity of scientific research, harm the interests of shadow API users, and damage the reputation of official model providers.

The main issue with most evaluation schemes today is their "static" nature: the same problems are reused repeatedly, allowing for memorization, format exploitation, and eventual saturation. To measure genuine AI progress, we need evaluation that is robust by construction, not by post-hoc detection. In response, we propose VeRA (Verified Reasoning Data Augmentation), a framework that converts benchmark problems into executable specifications, comprising (i) a natural language template with placeholder slots, (ii) a coherent generator that samples valid configurations, and (iii) a deterministic verifier that validates parameters and calculates the corresponding correct answers for each configuration. From a single seed problem, VeRA automatically creates unlimited verified variants with reliable labels at near-zero marginal cost without human involvement. VeRA operates in two complementary modes. VeRA-E (equivalent) rewrites problems while keeping the underlying logic intact, useful for detecting memorization versus genuine reasoning. VeRA-H (hardened) systematically increases complexity while remaining verifiable, enabling reliable creation and labelling of fresh difficult tasks at the boundary of intelligence. Evaluating 16 frontier models with VeRA, we find: (i) VeRA-E improves evaluation quality and reveals contamination patterns. (ii) VeRA-H enables human-free generation of hard tasks with reliable labels. (iii) VeRA establishes verified benchmarks as a general paradigm. VeRA reconceptualizes benchmarks from static objects used until exhausted, to executable specifications generating fresh, verified instances on demand, enhancing robustness and cost-effectiveness for evaluation. With VeRA, we envision that evaluation in any verifiable domain can scale indefinitely without sacrificing label integrity. To stimulate future research, we have open-sourced all code and datasets.

We present MaxProof, a population-level test-time scaling framework for competition-level mathematical proof in the MiniMax-M3 series. M3 first trains three proof-oriented capabilities -- proof generation, proof verification, and critique-conditioned proof repair -- using a defense-in-depth generative verifier engineered for low false-positive rate. These capabilities are merged into a single released M3 model. At test time, MaxProof treats the model as a generator, verifier, refiner, and ranker, searches over a population of candidate proofs, and returns one final proof through tournament selection. With MaxProof test-time scaling, the M3 model reaches 35/42 on IMO 2025 and 36/42 on USAMO 2026, exceeding the human gold-medal threshold on both.

We study the accuracy of differentially private mechanisms in the continual release model. A continual release mechanism receives a sensitive dataset as a stream of T inputs and produces, after receiving each input, an accurate output on the obtained inputs. In contrast, a batch algorithm receives the data as one batch and produces a single output. We provide the first strong lower bounds on the error of continual release mechanisms. In particular, for two fundamental problems that are widely studied and used in the batch model, we show that the worst case error of every continual release algorithm is tilde Omega(T^{1/3}) times larger than that of the best batch algorithm. Previous work shows only a polylogarithimic (in T) gap between the worst case error achievable in these two models; further, for many problems, including the summation of binary attributes, the polylogarithmic gap is tight (Dwork et al., 2010; Chan et al., 2010). Our results show that problems closely related to summation -- specifically, those that require selecting the largest of a set of sums -- are fundamentally harder in the continual release model than in the batch model. Our lower bounds assume only that privacy holds for streams fixed in advance (the "nonadaptive" setting). However, we provide matching upper bounds that hold in a model where privacy is required even for adaptively selected streams. This model may be of independent interest.

By utilizing more computational resources at test-time, large language models (LLMs) can improve without additional training. One common strategy uses verifiers to evaluate candidate outputs. In this work, we propose a novel scaling dimension for test-time compute: scaling the number of verifiers. We introduce Multi-Agent Verification (MAV) as a test-time compute paradigm that combines multiple verifiers to improve performance. We propose using Aspect Verifiers (AVs), off-the-shelf LLMs prompted to verify different aspects of outputs, as one possible choice for the verifiers in a MAV system. AVs are a convenient building block for MAV since they can be easily combined without additional training. Moreover, we introduce BoN-MAV, a simple multi-agent verification algorithm that combines best-of-n sampling with multiple verifiers. BoN-MAV demonstrates stronger scaling patterns than self-consistency and reward model verification, and we demonstrate both weak-to-strong generalization, where combining weak verifiers improves even stronger LLMs, and self-improvement, where the same base model is used to both generate and verify outputs. Our results establish scaling the number of verifiers as a promising new dimension for improving language model performance at test-time.

We introduce the Formally Verified Automated Programming Progress Standards, or FVAPPS, a benchmark of 4715 samples for writing programs and proving their correctness, the largest formal verification benchmark, including 1083 curated and quality controlled samples. Previously, APPS provided a benchmark and dataset for programming puzzles to be completed in Python and checked against unit tests, of the kind seen in technical assessments in the software engineering industry. Building upon recent approaches for benchmarks in interactive theorem proving, we generalize the unit tests to Lean 4 theorems given without proof (i.e., using Lean's "sorry" keyword). On the 406 theorems of 100 randomly selected samples, Sonnet correctly proves 30% and Gemini correctly proves 18%. We challenge the machine learning and program synthesis communities to solve both each general purpose programming problem and its associated correctness specifications. The benchmark is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/quinn-dougherty/fvapps.

Large language models often produce plausible numerical claims from financial filings while using the wrong reporting period, unit, line item, or formula. Verifying such claims requires more than rechecking arithmetic: a verifier must ground the relevant facts, establish the authorized calculation, and determine whether the candidate value follows from both. We propose VeriFin, a neurosymbolic verification framework for numerical financial question answering that grounds operands in filed XBRL facts, derives calculations from the question, filing linkbases, or documented metric definitions, and checks claims using Z3. When a claim is inconsistent, solver-derived unsatisfiable cores identify the conflicting facts, formula, and candidate value, enabling targeted repair. We evaluate VeriFin on XBRLFiling, a new 600-question benchmark constructed from 10-K filings of 28 U.S. companies, and on FinanceBench. On fixed candidate pools shared by all verification methods, VeriFin accepts none of the incorrect claims, whereas the baselines accept 6 to 92 incorrect claims on XBRLFiling's 600 claims and 4 to 21 incorrect claims on FinanceBench's 67 claims. The zero false-accept result persists across multiple answer-generator models. Solver-derived feedback further improves repair, achieving up to 69.9% recovery among true catches. These results show that source-grounded symbolic verification can provide a reliable and auditable acceptance control for LLM-generated financial claims.

We present a generic framework for creating differentially private versions of any hypothesis test in a black-box way. We analyze the resulting tests analytically and experimentally. Most crucially, we show good practical performance for small data sets, showing that at epsilon = 1 we only need 5-6 times as much data as in the fully public setting. We compare our work to the one existing framework of this type, as well as to several individually-designed private hypothesis tests. Our framework is higher power than other generic solutions and at least competitive with (and often better than) individually-designed tests.

Vision Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly integrated into privacy-critical domains, yet existing evaluations of personally identifiable information (PII) leakage largely treat privacy as a static extraction task and ignore how a subject's online presence--the volume of their data available online--influences privacy alignment. We introduce PII-VisBench, a novel benchmark containing 4000 unique probes designed to evaluate VLM safety through the continuum of online presence. The benchmark stratifies 200 subjects into four visibility categories: high, medium, low, and zero--based on the extent and nature of their information available online. We evaluate 18 open-source VLMs (0.3B-32B) based on two key metrics: percentage of PII probing queries refused (Refusal Rate) and the fraction of non-refusal responses flagged for containing PII (Conditional PII Disclosure Rate). Across models, we observe a consistent pattern: refusals increase and PII disclosures decrease (9.10% high to 5.34% low) as subject visibility drops. We identify that models are more likely to disclose PII for high-visibility subjects, alongside substantial model-family heterogeneity and PII-type disparities. Finally, paraphrasing and jailbreak-style prompts expose attack and model-dependent failures, motivating visibility-aware safety evaluation and training interventions.

Agent systems often decompose a task across multiple roles, but these roles are typically specified by prompts rather than enforced by access controls. Without enforcement, a team pass rate can mask whether agents actually coordinated or whether one role effectively did another role's work. We present TeamBench, a benchmark with 851 task templates and 931 seeded instances for evaluating agent coordination under operating system-enforced role separation. TeamBench separates specification access, workspace editing, and final certification across Planner, Executor, and Verifier roles, so that no role can read the full requirements, modify the workspace, and certify the final answer. Prompt-only and sandbox-enforced teams reach statistically indistinguishable pass rates, but prompt-only runs produce 3.6 times more cases where the verifier attempts to edit the executor's code. Verifiers approve 49% of submissions that fail the deterministic grader, and removing the verifier improves mean partial score in the ablation. Team value is also conditional. Teams benefit when single agents struggle, but hurt when single agents already perform well. A 40-session human study under the same role separation shows that our benchmark exposes interaction patterns that pass rate misses. Solo participants work through the task directly, human participants paired with agents often collapse into quick approval, and human teams spend more effort coordinating missing information across roles.

Agent harnesses supply planning guidance, organize execution, and check completion. We study how these components affect success, erroneous acceptance, and cost in two Retail experiments and an Airline pilot in τ^2-bench. The primary comparison pairs prewritten task-specific plans (Fixed) with shuffled policy text matched in word count (Sham), isolating the contribution of guidance content. Across 265 matched cells, Fixed improves oracle-verified success by 7.17 percentage points (90\% task-clustered bootstrap interval, 1.15--13.36 points), with gains concentrated in higher-complexity tasks. A read-only terminal verifier rejects 61\% of Retail oracle-invalid episodes while withholding 17\% of correct ones, at less than one cent of additional cost per episode. Which component matters more depends on the loss assigned to erroneous acceptance: at low liability the planning gain dominates; at high liability the verifier's avoided false passes dominate---and a standalone verifier captures nearly all the false-pass benefit of the full planning-plus-verification stack at a fraction of its cost.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, yet relevance does not guarantee sufficiency: a topical passage may still fail to justify the answer. We study evidence sufficiency verification for selective RAG answering, in which a verifier receives a question, a candidate answer, and retrieved evidence and decides whether the evidence supports, refutes, or is insufficient for the answer, answering only when support is established. We present SURE-RAG, an aggregation protocol that treats evidence sufficiency as a set-level property: missing hops and unresolved conflicts cannot be detected by scoring passages independently. A shared claim-evidence verifier produces a local relation distribution for each (claim, passage) pair, which SURE-RAG aggregates into four interpretable answer-level feature blocks (coverage, relation strength, uncertainty, and retrieval), producing a three-way decision and an auditable selective score. We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol (shortcut baselines, counterfactual swaps, no-oracle checks, and GPT-4o audits). Calibrated SURE-RAG attains 0.9075 Macro-F1 (raw 0.8951 +/- 0.0069), well above DeBERTa mean-pooling (0.6516) and a GPT-4o judge (0.7284), and on par with a strong concat cross-encoder (0.8888 +/- 0.0109) while remaining fully auditable. At 30% coverage, risk falls from 0.2588 to 0.1642, a 37% relative reduction. As a boundary-mapping experiment, we contrast SURE-RAG with GPT-4o on HaluBench unsafe detection: the ranking reverses (0.3343 vs. 0.7389 unsafe-F1), indicating that controlled sufficiency verification and natural hallucination detection are distinct problems.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on reasoning benchmarks via reinforcement learning requires a specific reward function, often binary, for each benchmark. This comes with two potential limitations: the need to design the reward, and the potentially sparse nature of binary rewards. Here, we systematically investigate rewards derived from the probability or log-probability of emitting the reference answer (or any other prompt continuation present in the data), which have the advantage of not relying on specific verifiers and being available at scale. Several recent works have advocated for the use of similar rewards (e.g., VeriFree, JEPO, RLPR, NOVER). We systematically compare variants of likelihood-based rewards with standard baselines, testing performance both on standard mathematical reasoning benchmarks, and on long-form answers where no external verifier is available. We find that using the log-probability of the reference answer as the reward for chain-of-thought (CoT) learning is the only option that performs well in all setups. This reward is also consistent with the next-token log-likelihood loss used during pretraining. In verifiable settings, log-probability rewards bring comparable or better success rates than reinforcing with standard binary rewards, and yield much better perplexity. In non-verifiable settings, they perform on par with SFT. On the other hand, methods based on probability, such as VeriFree, flatline on non-verifiable settings due to vanishing probabilities of getting the correct answer. Overall, this establishes log-probability rewards as a viable method for CoT fine-tuning, bridging the short, verifiable and long, non-verifiable answer settings.

LLM agents often retry after external validation rejects a candidate, but the interface between validation and the next model call remains underspecified. We introduce VeriHarness, a code-controlled agent loop in which models generate candidates while external validators control acceptance, budgets, and traces. We use it to compare raw diagnostics with feedback that identifies the failure location, observed value, and admissible alternatives. Across 50 paired TextWorld games under a four-call cap, feedback containing all three fields raises terminal success from 14/50 to 36/50 for Qwen2.5-Coder-14B (+44 percentage points) and from 8/50 to 29/50 for Llama-3.1-8B (+42 points). Ablations locate most of the gain in the admissible alternatives: feedback containing only the location and observed value remains near the raw diagnostic baseline. Presenting the complete repair information in prose instead of a keyed JSON record yields nearly the same success, providing no evidence that JSON syntax itself improves repair. The ordering persists across the tested call budgets and one sampled-decoding setting.

Frontier deep research agents (DRAs) plan a research task, synthesize across documents, and return a structured deliverable on demand. They are being deployed in enterprise workflows faster than they are being evaluated. Existing benchmarks measure factual recall, single-hop QA, or generic agentic skill, missing the multi-document, decision-grade work DRAs are deployed to produce. We introduce a benchmark targeting the structured analytical deliverables that fill a management consultant's typical week. We grade three frontier agents, namely Claude Opus 4.6 with web search, OpenAI o3-deep-research, and Google Gemini 3.1 Pro deep-research, on 42 SME-authored prompts. Each of the 126 responses is scored on two layers: deterministic ground-truth verifiers (mean 13.8 per task) and a five-criterion 0-3 SME rubric, composed into a Verifier-Rubric Score (VRS) on 0-100. Most prompts embed cognitive traps that penalize surface-pattern matching. Acceptance under our joint threshold (rubric mean >= 2.5 and verifier rate >= 80%) is uniformly low: Gemini 21.4%, o3 9.5%, Claude 9.5%. Mean VRS scores agree with published rubric-based benchmarks (our top 62.6 vs. APEX-v1 64.2, ProfBench 65.9, ResearchRubrics < 68%), validating the rubric construct. ACCEPT rates sit below APEX-Agents' MC-segment Pass@1 band (12.3-22.7%) on dedicated DR agents; our floor is three points lower despite the harness advantage, opened by stricter conjunctive grading and trap design. Each agent fails distinctively. Claude produces the deliverable most reliably (4.5x the others' rate on file-required tasks) but carries the highest fabrication signature. o3 has the cleanest reasoning average yet drops required sections and propagates arithmetic errors. Gemini is bimodal, with the highest acceptance rate alongside the most zero-scored rubric cells.

We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR), a training-free framework that reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification. Since whole-trace evaluation often obscures decisive errors due to signal dilution from routine tokens, CLR condenses each reasoning trace into a compact set of decision-critical claims, thereby isolating its logical anchors. Furthermore, recognizing the inherent difficulty of generating entirely correct solutions under fixed model capabilities, CLR shifts the focus to semantic falsification. This approach exploits a fundamental asymmetry between solution construction and claim refutation. Constructing a valid solution requires a flawless reasoning path, whereas refuting an incorrect claim requires identifying only a single decisive flaw. This targeted search for negative evidence systematically compresses the survival space of high-confidence incorrect traces, effectively suppressing erroneous consensus via nonlinear reliability scoring. Across four LLMs and four reasoning benchmarks under matched budgets, CLR generally improves upon pass@1 and self-consistency. On GPT-OSS-20B/CMIMC25, for instance, CLR exceeds pass@1 by 27.15 percentage-points and raises self-consistency accuracy from 77.50\% to 82.19\% with 37.0\% fewer tokens.

We present and test the largest benchmark for vericoding, LLM-generation of formally verified code from formal specifications - in contrast to vibe coding, which generates potentially buggy code from a natural language description. Our benchmark contains 12,504 formal specifications, with 3,029 in Dafny, 2,334 in Verus/Rust and 7,141 in Lean. Of these, 6,174 are new unseen problems. We find vericoding success rates of 27% in Lean, 44% in Verus/Rust and 82% in Dafny using off-the-shelf LLMs. Adding natural-language descriptions does not significantly improve performance. We also find that LLM progress has improved progress on pure Dafny verification from 68% to 96% over the past year. The benchmark and vericoding results are shared at https://github.com/Beneficial-AI-Foundation/vericoding-benchmark

Using an LLM to generate training data for another is among the most general ways to train one, and it remains common practice. Some frontier teams have closed that route for their own models: what comes back is an answer, or a short summary, without the detailed reasoning trace behind it. That is a little ironic: they were themselves built on distilling human knowledge, and distilling an open-source model is still entirely routine; the restriction applies to their own outputs alone. Recent work recovers the hidden reasoning by replaying encrypted blocks across models. It somehow works, but it breaks the providers' terms of service, so it is not something a product can be built on long-term. We built the alternative. We take the context and the teacher's answer as input, and generate the reasoning trace ourselves, in the style of the student's own model family. Training is two-stage, supervised and then adversarial: a generator learns to regenerate the family's own reasoning traces from their context and answer, and a critic learns how real a reasoning trace looks. Applied to a teacher's answer, the generator writes one in the family's style. An independent judge rates how likely traces are to be genuine on a scale from 0 to 1: ours average 0.68, real traces 0.66, and traces selected by the critic from four candidates 0.82. These are authenticity scores, not correctness rates. We test the idea on five benchmarks with everything else held fixed. On general tasks the five training corpora are about the same; on coding, the generated reasoning beats Fable 5's own thinking content. With the same 5,000 questions and the same teacher answers, HumanEval+ improves by 3.7 points and MBPP+ by 7.1 at the final checkpoint, and the MBPP+ lead holds at every checkpoint. We suspect that reasoning written in the student's family style is easier for it to learn from.

Safety alignment in open-weight language models is trivially removable: abliteration projects a refusal-mediating direction out of the weights in minutes, and no release-time defense we are aware of prevents it durably. What cannot be prevented can be deceived. Our defense, decoy hardening ("Fool's Gold"), concedes the refusal strip and poisons its payoff: once refusal is stripped, most answers to hazardous operational requests are confident, fluent decoys whose critical elements are falsified. Decoys are trained inside a differentiable simulation of the attack, expressing only in the attacked state; a refusal pin and benign leash hold clean-state behavior to the original. We instantiate it on seven models from five families (9B-122B, dense and mixture-of-experts). On the six models passing our pre-registered efficacy gate, 0.51-0.90 of attacked-state responses to held-out prompts are decoys, +0.27-0.84 attributable to the defense; all six stay within registered benign-behavior and capability budgets; the seventh (smaller) fails the gate (boundary case). Rates replicate on a frozen test split or untouched strata. The claim is epistemic: without independent ground truth, no observation surface we tested separates falsified answers from correct ones - on external red-team benchmarks' CBRNE-adjacent slice, the defended 122B is fatally wrong on 0.82-0.86 of matched-quality answers vs at most 0.10 undefended. Repeated sampling does not restore trust: element-wise consensus at K=64 reconstructs a fully usable procedure on 0.083-0.625 of prompts where the instrument validates, vs 0.58-0.96 undefended, with no label-free way to tell the regimes apart; on the weakest such model the claim is per-draw only. We evaluate chemical and biological hazards; the defense does not address in-context jailbreaks and protects only the initially released defended weights.

Inference-time scaling can enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) on complex problems that benefit from step-by-step problem solving. Although lengthening generated scratchpads has proven effective for mathematical tasks, the broader impact of this approach on other tasks remains less clear. In this work, we investigate the benefits and limitations of scaling methods across nine state-of-the-art models and eight challenging tasks, including math and STEM reasoning, calendar planning, NP-hard problems, navigation, and spatial reasoning. We compare conventional models (e.g., GPT-4o) with models fine-tuned for inference-time scaling (e.g., o1) through evaluation protocols that involve repeated model calls, either independently or sequentially with feedback. These evaluations approximate lower and upper performance bounds and potential for future performance improvements for each model, whether through enhanced training or multi-model inference systems. Our extensive empirical analysis reveals that the advantages of inference-time scaling vary across tasks and diminish as problem complexity increases. In addition, simply using more tokens does not necessarily translate to higher accuracy in these challenging regimes. Results from multiple independent runs with conventional models using perfect verifiers show that, for some tasks, these models can achieve performance close to the average performance of today's most advanced reasoning models. However, for other tasks, a significant performance gap remains, even in very high scaling regimes. Encouragingly, all models demonstrate significant gains when inference is further scaled with perfect verifiers or strong feedback, suggesting ample potential for future improvements.

A membership inference attack allows an adversary to query a trained machine learning model to predict whether or not a particular example was contained in the model's training dataset. These attacks are currently evaluated using average-case "accuracy" metrics that fail to characterize whether the attack can confidently identify any members of the training set. We argue that attacks should instead be evaluated by computing their true-positive rate at low (e.g., <0.1%) false-positive rates, and find most prior attacks perform poorly when evaluated in this way. To address this we develop a Likelihood Ratio Attack (LiRA) that carefully combines multiple ideas from the literature. Our attack is 10x more powerful at low false-positive rates, and also strictly dominates prior attacks on existing metrics.

Large language models have made significant progress in mathematical reasoning, which serves as an important testbed for AI and could impact scientific research if further advanced. By scaling reasoning with reinforcement learning that rewards correct final answers, LLMs have improved from poor performance to saturating quantitative reasoning competitions like AIME and HMMT in one year. However, this approach faces fundamental limitations. Pursuing higher final answer accuracy doesn't address a key issue: correct answers don't guarantee correct reasoning. Moreover, many mathematical tasks like theorem proving require rigorous step-by-step derivation rather than numerical answers, making final answer rewards inapplicable. To push the limits of deep reasoning, we believe it is necessary to verify the comprehensiveness and rigor of mathematical reasoning. Self-verification is particularly important for scaling test-time compute, especially for open problems without known solutions. Towards self-verifiable mathematical reasoning, we investigate how to train an accurate and faithful LLM-based verifier for theorem proving. We then train a proof generator using the verifier as the reward model, and incentivize the generator to identify and resolve as many issues as possible in their own proofs before finalizing them. To maintain the generation-verification gap as the generator becomes stronger, we propose to scale verification compute to automatically label new hard-to-verify proofs, creating training data to further improve the verifier. Our resulting model, DeepSeekMath-V2, demonstrates strong theorem-proving capabilities, achieving gold-level scores on IMO 2025 and CMO 2024 and a near-perfect 118/120 on Putnam 2024 with scaled test-time compute.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) suggest great promises in code and proof generations. However, scaling automated formal verification to real-world projects requires resolving cross-module dependencies and global contexts, which are crucial challenges overlooked by existing LLM-based methods with a special focus on targeting isolated, function-level verification tasks. To systematically explore and address the significant challenges of verifying entire software repositories, we introduce RVBench, the first verification benchmark explicitly designed for repository-level evaluation, constructed from four diverse and complex open-source Verus projects. We further introduce RagVerus, an extensible framework that synergizes retrieval-augmented generation with context-aware prompting to automate proof synthesis for multi-module repositories. RagVerus triples proof pass rates on existing benchmarks under constrained model inference budgets, and achieves a 27% relative improvement on the more challenging RVBench benchmark, demonstrating a scalable and sample-efficient verification solution.

Runtime-governance evidence often collapses materially different events into one audit record: a decision may be made, an instruction dispatched or received, an action may or may not execute, and a resulting state may or may not be observed. This paper presents AIREP, a vendor- and model-independent protocol for per-decision AI runtime evidence. Its current wire model separates evidence into four artifact families: Decision, Control, Execution, and Effect. Artifacts use closed core schemas, explicit identities and digests, declared scope limits, RFC 8785 canonical JSON, domain-separated SHA-256 hashing, and pure Ed25519 signatures. A three-level assurance model distinguishes structural/hash consistency (AIREP-Core), verifier-accepted authorship (AIREP-Authenticated), and independently anchored chain-head freshness and non-truncation relative to an accepted witness (AIREP-Witnessed); these classes do not establish event truth. A structured reconciler preserves failure, missing evidence, unevaluated prerequisites, and indeterminate outcomes as distinct states. The released beta includes a four-family first-party producer, Python and Node reference-verification paths, adversarial/lifecycle corpora, and reproducible validation. Post-release first-party Hermes and LightEval integration exercises preserve explicit evidence boundaries without claiming adoption or interoperability. Independent implementation evidence exists separately for a v0.1.2 producer and a v0.2 consumer/verifier; because they target different frozen versions, they do not establish same-version producer-to-consumer interoperability. AIREP remains experimental.

Natural-language autoencoders score explanations of hidden activations by reconstruction: an explanation is deemed faithful if the activation can be regenerated from it. The test is structurally insensitive to individual false claims: if flipping a claim does not change the reconstruction, the claim is never penalized. We show the test is passed in two ways, neither faithful. On a released Qwen-2.5-7B verbalizer, explanations reconstruct well above chance while ~2% of specific claims are reconstruction-dependent, so the score tracks gist, not specific facts. Under exact synthetic ground truth, the standard recipe develops co-adapted private codes (false wording the reconstruction depends on) in 5/5 runs, and fixes that leave the target model unchanged do not help. We contribute two audit protocols, the grounded-vs-true cross and the evaluator swap, and RECAP (Readable Encodings via Co-trained Auxiliary Predictors): linear heads trained alongside the target model to keep designated content decodable. On RECAP-trained sandbox models, fresh verbalizers state the designated content truly and the codes vanish, at a +0.001-nat cost. This replicates on a pretrained Pythia-160M: the content becomes reliably probe-decodable, though a fresh verbalizer conveys it only in part (truth 0.44-0.46 vs a near-zero control). For interpretability, high reconstruction does not certify individual claims. For AI safety, RECAP makes designated internal content independently checkable against probes rather than asserted by prose a model can game: an independent probe scores the verbalizer's true claims above its false ones (AUC 0.96, vs 0.82 without RECAP). Against an adversary that edits an explanation to maximize the reconstruction score while lying (suppressing ~87% of its lie penalty), the RECAP probe still flags the lies (AUC 0.95) while the control probe collapses to chance (0.51).

Agents need reliable ways to validate their outputs, both when completing tasks and when filtering synthetic training data. We study verifier generation: from the instruction and environment available for solving a task, an agent writes an executable verifier that must accept every valid solution and reject invalid ones. We introduce VerifierBench, a benchmark of 222 tasks from six agent benchmarks spanning tool-call, state-based, and code verification, with 4,993 hidden test cases that include alternative valid solutions and attacks; Verifier4Verifier (V4V), a six-check audit, screens its source verifiers and test suites. Across 19 models in a common agent harness, normalized balanced accuracy ranges from 10.6 to 62.1, with generated verifiers consistently rejecting invalid solutions more reliably than they accept valid ones. This apparent strength can mask overly restrictive verification: most false rejections in the analyzed records come from verifiers that accept no tested solution to a task. Case studies reveal unsupported assumptions about solution formats, tool use, and code changes that exclude valid solutions. These errors survive self-testing because agents test solutions that share the verifier's mistaken assumptions, or submit verifiers without confirming that any correct solution passes. These findings suggest testing both whether a verifier accepts a correct solution and whether it accepts other solutions permitted by the task. The project page and dataset are publicly available.

This technical report introduces VibeThinker-3B, a compact dense model with 3B parameters developed to investigate how far verifiable reasoning can be pushed within a strictly small-model regime. Building upon the Spectrum-to-Signal post-training paradigm, we systematically enhance the model through an optimized pipeline that includes curriculum-based supervised fine-tuning, multi-domain reinforcement learning, and offline self-distillation. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that VibeThinker-3B achieves frontier-level performance on highly demanding verifiable tasks. Specifically, it attains a score of 94.3 on AIME26 (improving to 97.1 with claim-level test-time scaling), an 80.2 Pass@1 on LiveCodeBench v6, and exhibits strong out-of-distribution generalization with a 96.1\% acceptance rate on recent unseen LeetCode contests. This effectively places it in the performance band of first-tier reasoning systems, matching or exceeding flagship models that are orders of magnitude larger, such as DeepSeek V3.2, GLM-5, and Gemini 3 Pro. Furthermore, a score of 93.4 on IFEval confirms that this extreme reasoning enhancement does not compromise strict instruction controllability. Extending our previous 1.5B work, these findings motivate the Parametric Compression-Coverage Hypothesis, which views verifiable reasoning as compressible into compact reasoning cores, while open-domain knowledge and general-purpose competence require broad parameter coverage over facts, concepts, and long-tail scenarios. This perspective suggests that compact models are not merely deployment-efficient substitutes, but a complementary path toward frontier-level performance in parameter-dense capability regimes.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a dominant paradigm for enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning, yet its reliance on external verifiers limits its scalability. Recent findings suggest that RLVR primarily functions by eliciting latent capabilities, motivating the development of verifier-free algorithms. However, in such settings, standard methods like Group Relative Policy Optimization face a critical challenge: destructive gradient variance that often leads to training collapse. To address this issue, we introduceVerifier-Independent Curriculum Reinforcement Learning (VI-CuRL), a framework that leverages the model's intrinsic confidence to construct a curriculum independent from external verifiers. By prioritizing high-confidence samples, VI-CuRL effectively manages the bias-variance trade-off, specifically targeting the reduction of action and problem variance. We provide a rigorous theoretical analysis, proving that our estimator guarantees asymptotic unbiasedness. Empirically, VI-CuRL promotes stability and consistently outperforms verifier-independent baselines across six challenging benchmarks with/without verifiers.

Independence testing is a fundamental and classical statistical problem that has been extensively studied in the batch setting when one fixes the sample size before collecting data. However, practitioners often prefer procedures that adapt to the complexity of a problem at hand instead of setting sample size in advance. Ideally, such procedures should (a) allow stopping earlier on easy tasks (and later on harder tasks), hence making better use of available resources, and (b) continuously monitor the data and efficiently incorporate statistical evidence after collecting new data, while controlling the false alarm rate. It is well known that classical batch tests are not tailored for streaming data settings: valid inference after data peeking requires correcting for multiple testing but such corrections generally result in low power. Following the principle of testing by betting, we design sequential kernelized independence tests (SKITs) that overcome such shortcomings. We exemplify our broad framework using bets inspired by kernelized dependence measures, e.g, the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion. Our test is valid under non-i.i.d. time-varying settings, for which there exist no batch tests. We demonstrate the power of our approaches on both simulated and real data.

Search-augmented LLM agents can produce deep research reports (DRRs), but verifying claim-level factuality remains challenging. Existing fact-checkers are primarily designed for general-domain, factoid-style atomic claims, and there is no benchmark to test whether such verifiers transfer to DRRs. Yet building such a benchmark is itself difficult. We first show that static expert-labeled benchmarks are brittle in this setting: in a controlled study with PhD-level specialists, unassisted experts achieve only 60.8% accuracy on a hidden micro-gold set of verifiable claims. We propose Evolving Benchmarking via Audit-then-Score (AtS), where benchmark labels and rationales are explicitly revisable: when a verifier disagrees with the current benchmark, it must submit evidence; an auditor adjudicates the dispute; and accepted revisions update the benchmark before models are scored. Across four AtS rounds, expert micro-gold accuracy rises to 90.9%, indicating experts are substantially more reliable as auditors than as one-shot labelers. We instantiate AtS as DeepFact-Bench, a versioned DRR factuality benchmark with auditable rationales, and DeepFact-Eval, a document-level verification agent (with a grouped lite variant) that outperforms existing verifiers on DeepFact-Bench and transfers well to external factuality datasets.

Machine reading comprehension (MRC) is an AI challenge that requires machine to determine the correct answers to questions based on a given passage. MRC systems must not only answer question when necessary but also distinguish when no answer is available according to the given passage and then tactfully abstain from answering. When unanswerable questions are involved in the MRC task, an essential verification module called verifier is especially required in addition to the encoder, though the latest practice on MRC modeling still most benefits from adopting well pre-trained language models as the encoder block by only focusing on the "reading". This paper devotes itself to exploring better verifier design for the MRC task with unanswerable questions. Inspired by how humans solve reading comprehension questions, we proposed a retrospective reader (Retro-Reader) that integrates two stages of reading and verification strategies: 1) sketchy reading that briefly investigates the overall interactions of passage and question, and yield an initial judgment; 2) intensive reading that verifies the answer and gives the final prediction. The proposed reader is evaluated on two benchmark MRC challenge datasets SQuAD2.0 and NewsQA, achieving new state-of-the-art results. Significance tests show that our model is significantly better than the strong ELECTRA and ALBERT baselines. A series of analysis is also conducted to interpret the effectiveness of the proposed reader.

Sampling-based search, a simple paradigm for utilizing test-time compute, involves generating multiple candidate responses and selecting the best one -- typically by verifying each response for correctness. In this paper, we study the scaling trends governing sampling-based search. Among our findings is that simply scaling up a minimalist implementation that uses only random sampling and direct self-verification results in sustained performance improvements that, for example, elevate the Gemini v1.5 Pro model's reasoning capabilities past that of o1-Preview on popular benchmarks. We partially attribute the scalability of sampling-based search to a phenomenon of implicit scaling, where sampling a larger pool of responses in turn improves verification accuracy. We further identify two useful principles for improving self-verification capabilities with test-time compute: (1) comparing across responses provides helpful signals about the locations of errors and hallucinations, and (2) different model output styles are useful for different contexts -- chains of thought are useful for reasoning but harder to verify. We also find that, though accurate verification can be elicited, frontier models demonstrate remarkably weak out-of-box verification capabilities and introduce a benchmark to measure progress on these deficiencies.

Large-scale verifiable prompts underpin the success of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), but they contain many uninformative examples and are costly to expand further. Recent studies focus on better exploiting limited training data by prioritizing hard prompts whose rollout pass rate is 0. However, easy prompts with a pass rate of 1 also become increasingly prevalent as training progresses, thereby reducing the effective data size. To mitigate this, we propose Composition-RL, a simple yet useful approach for better utilizing limited verifiable prompts targeting pass-rate-1 prompts. More specifically, Composition-RL automatically composes multiple problems into a new verifiable question and uses these compositional prompts for RL training. Extensive experiments across model sizes from 4B to 30B show that Composition-RL consistently improves reasoning capability over RL trained on the original dataset. Performance can be further boosted with a curriculum variant of Composition-RL that gradually increases compositional depth over training. Additionally, Composition-RL enables more effective cross-domain RL by composing prompts drawn from different domains. Codes, datasets, and models are available at https://github.com/XinXU-USTC/Composition-RL.

Multimodal rumor detectors increasingly rely on retrieved evidence, yet relevant evidence is not necessarily sufficient for verification. Missing provenance, duplicated reports, and unresolved contradictions can produce confident predictions without adequate support. We introduce SAFE-MR, a framework that separates claim veracity from evidence sufficiency. The method decomposes image-text posts into verifiable claims, constructs a relation-aware claim-evidence graph, and aggregates evidence using provenance and contextual compatibility. Separate veracity and sufficiency heads support selective prediction, while evidence interventions encourage stability under irrelevant additions and sensitivity to evidence removal. On NewsCLIPpings, VERITE, and XFacta, SAFE-MR achieves macro-F1 scores of 91.2%, 75.8%, and 85.2%, respectively. Against the matched backbone with evidence, its macro-F1 gains are 2.2, 4.9, and 4.8 percentage points. On the diagnostic selection set, SAFE-MR reduces AURC from 0.105 for maximum-probability rejection to 0.075 and lowers error at 80% coverage from 13.8% to 8.5%. Evidence-perturbation and ablation results support the role of sufficiency learning and intervention training in improving selective verification.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and competition-level mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed. To bridge this gap, we introduce AdvancedMathBench, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of LLMs on advanced mathematical proofs. Its core generation benchmark, ProverBench, contains 245 problems spanning undergraduate (UG) and doctoral qualifying-exam (QE) levels. To reliably evaluate these proofs, we develop a dedicated automatic verification pipeline that is trained on large-scale expert annotations, produces both correctness verdicts and fine-grained analyses, and exhibits strong agreement with human experts on held-out proof trajectories. We further introduce VerifierBench, consisting of 888 model-generated proof trajectories paired with expert ground truth, to evaluate whether models can correctly judge proof validity and provide sound verification rationales. Experiments show that AdvancedMathBench remains challenging for frontier models. On proof generation, the best-performing model, GPT-5.5-xhigh, achieves only 64.5 and 48.9 on the UG and QE splits, respectively. On proof verification, the best model only attains a Balanced F1 of 65.1. Further analysis reveals a notable mismatch between proof generation and verification capabilities across models.

AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code. Verified code generation, in which an agent produces both an implementation and a machine-checked proof of its specification, offers a stronger path toward trustworthy AI-generated software. Existing benchmarks in this direction either focus on individual functions or only evaluate proof generation with provided implementations. It is still an open question whether agents can make coherent implementation and proof choices across real multi-module codebases. To bridge this gap, we introduce Vero, the first benchmark to evaluate joint implementation and proof synthesis at the repository level. Vero contains 43 multi-module instances sourced from real-world repositories spanning Python, Dafny, Verus, and Coq, and covering diverse domains from cryptographic protocols to distributed systems. Each instance consists of a multi-module Lean 4 repository with predetermined API interfaces, manually curated formal specifications, and reference implementations, supporting both proof-only and code-and-proof evaluation modes. To improve benchmark reliability, Vero also includes an audit mechanism where agents are allowed to formally prove unsatisfiability of provided specification or incorrectness of reference code, which surfaces and corrects latent code and specification errors during curation. We evaluate frontier coding-agent configurations with Lean toolchain access. The strongest agent fully solves only 27 of 43 instances and closes no specifications on the hardest repositories. Vero provides a concrete testbed for measuring progress toward repository-scale verified software synthesis, where current agents still fall short. We release the benchmark, curation pipeline, and evaluation harness at https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/vero.

Large language models excel at reasoning but lack key aspects of introspection, including anticipating their own success and the computation required to achieve it. Humans use real-time introspection to decide how much effort to invest, when to make multiple attempts, when to stop, and when to signal success or failure. Without this, LLMs struggle to make intelligent meta-cognition decisions. Test-time scaling methods like Best-of-N drive up cost and latency by using a fixed budget of samples regardless of the marginal benefit of each one at any point in generation, and the absence of confidence signals can mislead people, prevent appropriate escalation to better tools, and undermine trustworthiness. Learned verifiers or reward models can provide confidence estimates, but do not enable adaptive inference and add substantial cost by requiring extra models or forward passes. We present ZIP-RC, which equips models with zero-overhead introspective predictions of reward and cost. At every token, ZIP-RC reuses reserved or unused logits in the same forward pass as next-token prediction to output a joint distribution over final reward and remaining length -- no extra models, architecture change, or inference overhead. This full joint distribution is used to compute a sampling utility which is the linear combination of the expected maximum reward, total compute, and latency of set of samples if generated to completion. During inference, we maximize this utility with meta-actions that determine which prefix of tokens to continue or initiate sampling from. On mixed-difficulty mathematical benchmarks, ZIP-RC improves accuracy by up to 12% over majority voting at equal or lower average cost, and traces smooth Pareto frontiers between quality, compute, and latency. By providing real-time reward-cost introspection, ZIP-RC enables adaptive, efficient reasoning.

We study a basic question about cryptographic watermarking for generative models: how reliable can a watermark remain when an adversary is allowed to corrupt the encoded signal? To address this question, we introduce a minimal coding abstraction that we call a zero-bit tamper-detection code. This is a secret-key procedure that samples a pseudorandom codeword and, given a candidate word, decides whether it should be treated as unmarked content or as the result of tampering with a valid codeword. It captures the two core requirements of robust watermarking: soundness and tamper detection. Within this abstraction we prove a sharp unconditional limit on robustness to independent symbol corruption. For an alphabet of size q, there is a critical corruption rate of 1-1/q such that no scheme with soundness, even relaxed to allow a fixed constant false positive probability on random content, can reliably detect tampering once an adversary can change more than this fraction of symbols. In particular, in the binary case no cryptographic watermark can remain robust if more than half of the encoded bits are modified. We also show that this threshold is tight by giving simple information-theoretic constructions that achieve soundness and tamper detection for all strictly smaller corruption rates. We then test experimentally whether this limit appears in practice by looking at the recent watermarking for images of Gunn, Zhao, and Song (ICLR 2025). We show that a simple crop and resize operation reliably flipped about half of the latent signs and consistently prevented belief-propagation decoding from recovering the codeword, erasing the watermark while leaving the image visually intact.

Large language model (LLM)-based reasoning systems have recently achieved gold medal-level performance in the IMO 2025 competition, writing mathematical proofs where, to receive full credit, each step must be not only correct but also sufficiently supported. To train LLM-based reasoners in such challenging, open-ended settings, strong verifiers capable of catching step-level mistakes are necessary prerequisites. We introduce Hard2Verify, a human-annotated, step-level verification benchmark produced with over 500 hours of human labor. Hard2Verify is designed to rigorously assess step-level verifiers at the frontier: Verifiers must provide step-level annotations or identify the first error in responses generated by frontier LLMs for very recent, challenging, and open-ended math questions. We evaluate 29 generative critics and process reward models, demonstrating that, beyond a few standouts, open-source verifiers lag closed source models. We subsequently analyze what drives poor performance in step-level verification, the impacts of scaling verifier compute, as well as fundamental questions such as self-verification and verification-generation dynamics.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often generate plausible but incorrect responses to visual queries. However, reliably quantifying the effect of such hallucinations in free-form responses to open-ended queries is challenging as it requires visually verifying each claim within the response. We propose Programmatic VLM Evaluation (PROVE), a new benchmarking paradigm for evaluating VLM responses to open-ended queries. To construct PROVE, we provide a large language model (LLM) with a high-fidelity scene-graph representation constructed from a hyper-detailed image caption, and prompt it to generate diverse question-answer (QA) pairs, as well as programs that can be executed over the scene graph object to verify each QA pair. We thus construct a benchmark of 10.5k challenging but visually grounded QA pairs. Next, to evaluate free-form model responses to queries in PROVE, we propose a programmatic evaluation strategy that measures both the helpfulness and truthfulness of a response within a unified scene graph-based framework. We benchmark the helpfulness-truthfulness trade-offs of a range of VLMs on PROVE, finding that very few are in-fact able to achieve a good balance between the two. Project page: https://prove-explorer.netlify.app/.

Recent AI systems have achieved gold-medal-level performance on the International Mathematical Olympiad, demonstrating remarkable proficiency at competition-style problem solving. However, competition mathematics represents only a narrow slice of mathematical reasoning: problems are drawn from limited domains, require minimal advanced machinery, and can often reward insightful tricks over deep theoretical knowledge. We introduce , a private benchmark of 25 expert-curated problems designed to evaluate AI systems on research-level mathematics that goes far beyond the olympiad frontier. Problems are authored by Ivy League mathematics professors, graduate students, and PhD-holding IMO medalists, and routinely took their authors weeks to solve independently. Each problem undergoes double-blind verification by two independent domain experts who must solve the problem from scratch, and yields a unique, closed-form solution assessed by programmatic verifiers. We evaluate frontier models as unconstrained research agents, with full access to coding tools, search, and open-ended reasoning, using an unbiased statistical estimator computed over 100 independent runs per problem. Our results reveal that all frontier models currently score below 10\%, exposing a substantial gap between olympiad-level problem solving and genuine research-level mathematical reasoning. By keeping the benchmark fully private, we ensure that measured performance reflects authentic mathematical capability rather than memorization of training data.

Generative search engines directly generate responses to user queries, along with in-line citations. A prerequisite trait of a trustworthy generative search engine is verifiability, i.e., systems should cite comprehensively (high citation recall; all statements are fully supported by citations) and accurately (high citation precision; every cite supports its associated statement). We conduct human evaluation to audit four popular generative search engines -- Bing Chat, NeevaAI, perplexity.ai, and YouChat -- across a diverse set of queries from a variety of sources (e.g., historical Google user queries, dynamically-collected open-ended questions on Reddit, etc.). We find that responses from existing generative search engines are fluent and appear informative, but frequently contain unsupported statements and inaccurate citations: on average, a mere 51.5% of generated sentences are fully supported by citations and only 74.5% of citations support their associated sentence. We believe that these results are concerningly low for systems that may serve as a primary tool for information-seeking users, especially given their facade of trustworthiness. We hope that our results further motivate the development of trustworthy generative search engines and help researchers and users better understand the shortcomings of existing commercial systems.

One core capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to follow natural language instructions. However, the evaluation of such abilities is not standardized: Human evaluations are expensive, slow, and not objectively reproducible, while LLM-based auto-evaluation is potentially biased or limited by the ability of the evaluator LLM. To overcome these issues, we introduce Instruction-Following Eval (IFEval) for large language models. IFEval is a straightforward and easy-to-reproduce evaluation benchmark. It focuses on a set of "verifiable instructions" such as "write in more than 400 words" and "mention the keyword of AI at least 3 times". We identified 25 types of those verifiable instructions and constructed around 500 prompts, with each prompt containing one or more verifiable instructions. We show evaluation results of two widely available LLMs on the market. Our code and data can be found at https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/instruction_following_eval

Large language models (LLMs), exemplified by ChatGPT, have gained considerable attention for their excellent natural language processing capabilities. Nonetheless, these LLMs present many challenges, particularly in the realm of trustworthiness. Therefore, ensuring the trustworthiness of LLMs emerges as an important topic. This paper introduces TrustLLM, a comprehensive study of trustworthiness in LLMs, including principles for different dimensions of trustworthiness, established benchmark, evaluation, and analysis of trustworthiness for mainstream LLMs, and discussion of open challenges and future directions. Specifically, we first propose a set of principles for trustworthy LLMs that span eight different dimensions. Based on these principles, we further establish a benchmark across six dimensions including truthfulness, safety, fairness, robustness, privacy, and machine ethics. We then present a study evaluating 16 mainstream LLMs in TrustLLM, consisting of over 30 datasets. Our findings firstly show that in general trustworthiness and utility (i.e., functional effectiveness) are positively related. Secondly, our observations reveal that proprietary LLMs generally outperform most open-source counterparts in terms of trustworthiness, raising concerns about the potential risks of widely accessible open-source LLMs. However, a few open-source LLMs come very close to proprietary ones. Thirdly, it is important to note that some LLMs may be overly calibrated towards exhibiting trustworthiness, to the extent that they compromise their utility by mistakenly treating benign prompts as harmful and consequently not responding. Finally, we emphasize the importance of ensuring transparency not only in the models themselves but also in the technologies that underpin trustworthiness. Knowing the specific trustworthy technologies that have been employed is crucial for analyzing their effectiveness.

Compressing high-capability Large Language Models (LLMs) has emerged as a favored strategy for resource-efficient inferences. While state-of-the-art (SoTA) compression methods boast impressive advancements in preserving benign task performance, the potential risks of compression in terms of safety and trustworthiness have been largely neglected. This study conducts the first, thorough evaluation of three (3) leading LLMs using five (5) SoTA compression techniques across eight (8) trustworthiness dimensions. Our experiments highlight the intricate interplay between compression and trustworthiness, revealing some interesting patterns. We find that quantization is currently a more effective approach than pruning in achieving efficiency and trustworthiness simultaneously. For instance, a 4-bit quantized model retains the trustworthiness of its original counterpart, but model pruning significantly degrades trustworthiness, even at 50% sparsity. Moreover, employing quantization within a moderate bit range could unexpectedly improve certain trustworthiness dimensions such as ethics and fairness. Conversely, extreme quantization to very low bit levels (3 bits) tends to significantly reduce trustworthiness. This increased risk cannot be uncovered by looking at benign performance alone, in turn, mandating comprehensive trustworthiness evaluation in practice. These findings culminate in practical recommendations for simultaneously achieving high utility, efficiency, and trustworthiness in LLMs. Models and code are available at https://decoding-comp-trust.github.io/.

Process attestation systems verify that a continuous physical process, such as human authorship, actually occurred, rather than merely checking system state. These systems face a fundamental dependability challenge: the evidence collection infrastructure must remain available and tamper-resistant even when the attesting party controls the platform. Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) provide hardware-enforced isolation that can address this challenge, but their integration with continuous process attestation introduces novel resilience requirements not addressed by existing frameworks. We present the first architecture for continuous process attestation evidence collection inside TEEs, providing hardware-backed tamper resistance against trust-inverted adversaries with graduated input assurance from software-channel integrity (Tier 1) through hardware-bound input (Tier 3). We develop a Markov-chain dependability model quantifying Evidence Chain Availability (ECA), Mean Time Between Evidence Gaps (MTBEG), and Recovery Time Objectives (RTO). We introduce a resilient evidence chain protocol maintaining chain integrity across TEE crashes, network partitions, and enclave migration. Our security analysis derives formal bounds under combined threat models including trust inversion and TEE side channels, parameterized by a conjectural side-channel leakage bound esc that requires empirical validation. Evaluation on Intel SGX demonstrates under 25% per-checkpoint CPU overhead (<0.3% of the 30 s checkpoint interval), >99.5% Evidence Chain Availability (ECA) (the fraction of session time with active evidence collection) in Monte Carlo simulation under Poisson failure models, and sealed-state recovery under 200 ms.

AI research agents combine prior knowledge, public sources, and experimental feedback to produce useful results. The Discovery Certification Protocol (DCP) turns claims about these results into executable recovery and feedback tests. Gate 1 validates useful improvement on sealed evaluation. Gate 2 gives matched agents the registered starting information and observed Web content while withholding the target research history. Every valid method reaching the numerical target supplies a recovery witness and triggers the Core veto. DCP Core requires adequate controls, zero observed recoveries, and a finite-sample bound on recovery in one fresh registered episode. Optional Gate 3 measures the average effect of truthful feedback relative to a specified neutral policy from a shared checkpoint. DCP Evidence adds this effect after independent null calibration and a registered effect margin. Two controlled audits exercise the complete protocol in SQLite optimization and virtual catalyst control under different models. Each produced zero recoveries in 96 episodes, with an upper bound of 0.0468. Each paired study yielded 30 truthful recoveries and zero neutral recoveries, with passing 60-pair null studies. Additional cases exercise Core, recovered, and audit-incomplete decisions. A deterministic, LLM-free verifier reproduces the decisions from frozen evidence. DCP provides a common evidence language for useful outcomes, alternative routes, and feedback effects across AI research.

One way to increase confidence in the outputs of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to support them with reasoning that is clear and easy to check -- a property we call legibility. We study legibility in the context of solving grade-school math problems and show that optimizing chain-of-thought solutions only for answer correctness can make them less legible. To mitigate the loss in legibility, we propose a training algorithm inspired by Prover-Verifier Game from Anil et al. (2021). Our algorithm iteratively trains small verifiers to predict solution correctness, "helpful" provers to produce correct solutions that the verifier accepts, and "sneaky" provers to produce incorrect solutions that fool the verifier. We find that the helpful prover's accuracy and the verifier's robustness to adversarial attacks increase over the course of training. Furthermore, we show that legibility training transfers to time-constrained humans tasked with verifying solution correctness. Over course of LLM training human accuracy increases when checking the helpful prover's solutions, and decreases when checking the sneaky prover's solutions. Hence, training for checkability by small verifiers is a plausible technique for increasing output legibility. Our results suggest legibility training against small verifiers as a practical avenue for increasing legibility of large LLMs to humans, and thus could help with alignment of superhuman models.

Trustworthy verifiers are essential for the success of reinforcement learning with verifiable reward (RLVR), which is the core methodology behind various large reasoning models such as DeepSeek-R1. In complex domains like mathematical reasoning, rule-based verifiers have been widely adopted in previous works to train strong reasoning models. However, the reliability of these verifiers and their impact on the RL training process remain poorly understood. In this work, we take mathematical reasoning as a case study and conduct a comprehensive analysis of various verifiers in both static evaluation and RL training scenarios. First, we find that current open-source rule-based verifiers often fail to recognize equivalent answers presented in different formats across multiple commonly used mathematical datasets, resulting in non-negligible false negative rates. This limitation adversely affects RL training performance and becomes more pronounced as the policy model gets stronger. Subsequently, we investigate model-based verifiers as a potential solution to address these limitations. While the static evaluation shows that model-based verifiers achieve significantly higher verification accuracy, further analysis and RL training results imply that they are highly susceptible to hacking, where they misclassify certain patterns in responses as correct (i.e., false positives). This vulnerability is exploited during policy model optimization, leading to artificially inflated rewards. Our findings underscore the unique risks inherent to both rule-based and model-based verifiers, aiming to offer valuable insights to develop more robust reward systems in reinforcement learning.

The standard paradigm for solving coding tasks via large language models (LLMs) is to generate-then-rank programs, where the latter step uses a verifier in the ranking process. The growing consensus is that a comprehensive verifier (e.g., a full test suite) should be prioritized over an outcome reward model (ORM) whenever possible, with little consideration given to the trade-offs involved. We aim to challenge this assumption by systematically exploring the tradeoff between speed and accuracy. We find that ORMs play a crucial role in scaling verification through trading accuracy for speed, even when a comprehensive verifier is available. Their value becomes especially apparent when used in a generate-prune-then-rank approach, where a faster but less accurate verifier removes incorrect solutions prior to ranking -- leading to a system that is 11.65x faster while only being 8.33% less accurate than the full test suite. We analyze the generate-prune-then-rank approach and show that it works by filtering out incorrect but highly ranked solutions. These findings enable the design of scalable and accurate program ranking systems.

We present Veriphi, a GPU-accelerated neural network verification system that combines fast adversarial attacks with formal bound certification using alpha,beta-CROWN methods. Through systematic experiments on MNIST and CIFAR-10 using three training methodologies (standard, adversarial, certified), we demonstrate that training method effectiveness is fundamentally dataset-dependent. Interval Bound Propagation (IBP) achieves 78% certified accuracy on simple MNIST (784 dimensions) but provides negligible certification performance on the more complex CIFAR-10 dataset, where PGD adversarial training dominates with 94% certification at small perturbations. We achieve 5x verification speedup through attack-guided falsification and scale our approach to production-size models (105.8M parameters) for real-world aerospace logistics optimization. Our results challenge the assumption that certified training universally outperforms adversarial training, showing context matters critically for verification strategy selection.

Training language models for formal theorem proving requires large numbers of verifier calls. Slow checks and timeouts often leave GPUs waiting and withhold rewards from potentially correct proofs. We train neural evaluators to predict Lean 4 verdicts and compiler feedback on GPUs using 4.84M labelled programs. We compare two validity classifiers with a feedback model that annotates proof attempts with predicted goal states and error messages. A two-stage evaluator that screens candidates with a classifier and scores its positive predictions with the feedback model reaches 87.8% accuracy in predicting whether Lean accepts a candidate proof, evaluated on a 68,932-program benchmark collected from public provers. The combined evaluator processes 3.5 candidates per second on one H100, 4.2x the throughput of our 64-worker Lean baseline with environment reuse. Finally, we combine our evaluator with Lean verdicts to obtain a hybrid reward system that shortens GRPO training steps by approximately 31%. After one GRPO epoch with hybrid rewards, the prover achieves nearly the same miniF2F pass@1 as with Lean-only rewards (62.2% versus 62.4%) and a pass@32 of 72.4% versus 71.3%.

From a first-principles perspective, it may seem odd that the strongest results in foundation model fine-tuning (FT) are achieved via a relatively complex, two-stage training procedure. Specifically, one first trains a reward model (RM) on some dataset (e.g. human preferences) before using it to provide online feedback as part of a downstream reinforcement learning (RL) procedure, rather than directly optimizing the policy parameters on the dataset via offline maximum likelihood estimation. In fact, from an information-theoretic perspective, we can only lose information via passing through a reward model and cannot create any new information via on-policy sampling. To explain this discrepancy, we scrutinize several hypotheses on the value of RL in FT through both theoretical and empirical lenses. Of the hypotheses considered, we find the most support for the explanation that on problems with a generation-verification gap, the combination of the ease of learning the relatively simple RM (verifier) from the preference data, coupled with the ability of the downstream RL procedure to then filter its search space to the subset of policies (generators) that are optimal for relatively simple verifiers is what leads to the superior performance of online FT.

Common self-improvement approaches for large language models (LLMs), such as STaR (Zelikman et al., 2022), iteratively fine-tune LLMs on self-generated solutions to improve their problem-solving ability. However, these approaches discard the large amounts of incorrect solutions generated during this process, potentially neglecting valuable information in such solutions. To address this shortcoming, we propose V-STaR that utilizes both the correct and incorrect solutions generated during the self-improvement process to train a verifier using DPO that judges correctness of model-generated solutions. This verifier is used at inference time to select one solution among many candidate solutions. Running V-STaR for multiple iterations results in progressively better reasoners and verifiers, delivering a 4% to 17% test accuracy improvement over existing self-improvement and verification approaches on common code generation and math reasoning benchmarks with LLaMA2 models.

Hardware faults can flip bits in the stored weights of a quantized neural network, potentially compromising its predictions. While such faults typically affect multiple parameters simultaneously, existing verifiers are limited to single-parameter perturbations due to the combinatorial explosion of possible flip locations in large networks. We present mBFV (m-BitFlip Verifier), an efficient verification framework that proves robustness against simultaneous bit flips across multiple parameters without explicitly enumerating these combinations. mBFV achieves this via a novel multi-parameter bound propagation technique that directly aggregates the m worst-case contributions. To further tighten these bounds, mBFV employs a branch-and-bound mechanism over perturbation locations, partitioning the potential flips to smaller groups of neurons. Evaluated on 625 instances, mBFV successfully verifies 293, significantly outperforming a prior single-parameter verifier (38 verified instances) and an exact mixed-integer linear programming baseline (0 verified instances). Notably, while these baselines are restricted to single-parameter flips on small networks (up to 13k parameters), mBFV scales to verify networks with up to 1.15M parameters against up to four simultaneous parameter flips.

Verification is a key bottleneck in improving inference speed while maintaining distribution fidelity in Speculative Decoding. Recent work has shown that sequence-level verification leads to a higher number of accepted tokens compared to token-wise verification. However, existing solutions often rely on surrogate approximations or are constrained by partial information, struggling with joint intractability. In this work, we propose Hierarchical Speculative Decoding (HSD), a provably lossless verification method that significantly boosts the expected number of accepted tokens and overcomes joint intractability by balancing excess and deficient probability mass across accessible branches. Our extensive large-scale experiments demonstrate that HSD yields consistent improvements in acceptance rates across diverse model families and benchmarks. Moreover, its strong explainability and generality make it readily integrable into a wide range of speculative decoding frameworks. Notably, integrating HSD into EAGLE-3 yields over a 12% performance gain, establishing state-of-the-art decoding efficiency without compromising distribution fidelity. Code is available at https://github.com/ZhouYuxuanYX/Hierarchical-Speculative-Decoding.

Large language model safeguards decide whether to answer before seeing how an answer will be used. This creates a basic problem for dual-use tasks: the same answer can help an authorized professional or an attacker, while an attacker can imitate a benign request and interaction history. We separate the capability released by the model from the evidence available about downstream use. When that evidence is copyable, we derive the exact worst-case floor on attacker assistance while preserving useful answers. The result yields a safety trilemma: Useful Capability, Reliable Safety, and Open Access cannot coexist. We then show how a trusted credential can complement existing safeguards by adding hard-to-copy information that predicts actual downstream use, and identify the stronger condition needed to eliminate the floor. Evidence from dual-use evaluations, adaptive attacks, and deployed trusted-access programs supports the practical relevance of these conditions.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) faithfulness detectors are widely used to audit reasoning models, yet a detector is itself a predictor whose verdicts are treated as stable properties. We ask whether a detector is faithful to itself under distribution shift. We formalize meta-faithfulness as an invariance principle: a valid detector must return identical verdicts on traces that differ only by transformations preserving ground-truth faithfulness. We prove three results: (i) no detector using only intervention-response profiles can separate faithful from epiphenomenal mechanisms with identical signatures; (ii) any detector relying on shift-sensitive features violates invariance at a rate independent of its in-distribution accuracy; (iii) an asymptotic certified selective-risk guarantee enables confident abstention. We operationalize the principle in FaithShift, a stress-test protocol spanning ten shift axes, and propose SIFT, a hidden-state trajectory detector trained with cross-environment invariance objectives and certified abstention. Across 14,996 traces, four domains, and eight models, three findings emerge. First, transfer collapse is real: all existing detectors show gaps geq 0.15 AUROC. Second, the dominant bottleneck is sampling stochasticity, not shift: over 80% of detector instability stems from random seed variation, falsifying our preregistered prediction that shift-attributable violations exceed 0.25. Third, SIFT cuts invariance violations by 64% over the best single-seed baseline, but a four-seed ensemble of any detector narrows the margin to 0.01 (indistinguishable at matched coverage, p=0.21), and SIFT needs a 51% abstention rate. Cross-model transfer degrades from within-family to cross-family to open-weight-to-API, partly closed by multi-model training. We offer a framework for auditing auditors: the real barrier is detector variance, not distribution shift.

Recent machine learning papers often report 1-2 percentage point improvements from a single run on a benchmark. These gains are highly sensitive to random seeds, data ordering, and implementation details, yet are rarely accompanied by uncertainty estimates or significance tests. It is therefore unclear when a reported +1-2% reflects a real algorithmic advance versus noise. We revisit this problem under realistic compute budgets, where only a few runs are affordable. We propose a simple, PC-friendly evaluation protocol based on paired multi-seed runs, bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals, and a sign-flip permutation test on per-seed deltas. The protocol is intentionally conservative and is meant as a guardrail against over-claiming. We instantiate it on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10N, and AG News using synthetic no-improvement, small-gain, and medium-gain scenarios. Single runs and unpaired t-tests often suggest significant gains for 0.6-2.0 point improvements, especially on text. With only three seeds, our paired protocol never declares significance in these settings. We argue that such conservative evaluation is a safer default for small gains under tight budgets.

AI systems now write long and difficult mathematical proofs, and checking their step-by-step validity is becoming a bottleneck. A learned verifier could check proofs cheaply, but training one requires a correctness label on every step, and such labels are hard to obtain for open-ended proofs. Existing methods take them from human annotators, which is costly, or derive them from final answers, which proofs do not have, and formalizing each proof in Lean requires expert effort. We introduce LeanPRM, a framework that uses the Lean proof assistant to create step-level labels for natural-language proofs. A model writes a natural-language proof together with a paired formal proof, without feedback from Lean. Lean then labels every step, and a second model discards failures caused only by the formal syntax, so that the negative labels mark errors in the mathematics. LeanPRM contains 10,634 proofs with 152K labeled steps and no human annotation. A Qwen3-4B verifier trained on LeanPRM raises exact step-label accuracy on a held-out set of 200 proofs (LeanPRM-Bench) from 48.2 to 74.7, as opposed to 60.3 when the same base model is trained on PRM800K. It also selects better proofs in best-of-N selection on IMO-level problems, and outperforms the PRM800K-trained verifier on three of four external verification benchmarks. Training on LeanPRM improves verifiers at every size from 0.6B to 8B parameters on LeanPRM-Bench, Hard2Verify and IMO-GradingBench. Given the labels need no human annotation, LeanPRM can grow with the supply of formal statements, offering a path to step-level feedback on AI-generated proofs that are hard for humans to check.

We present HierSVA, an integrated suite that combines a pipeline, dataset, and benchmark for LLM-driven hierarchical hardware formal verification. HierSVA-SP pairs an RTL preprocessing toolchain with an LLM-in-the-loop formal verification flow to produce reference SystemVerilog Assertions (SVA) on hierarchical RTL. Applying it to BaseJump STL yields HierSVA-DS, a dataset of 342 modules, with hierarchy metadata and depths 0--9, accompanied by a deep subset of 28 module-bug pairs with natural-language specifications and bug variants. HierSVA-B decomposes assertion quality into six metric axes: syntax correctness, assertion proof success rate, vacuity, specification faithfulness, mutation coverage, and formal core coverage. Applying HierSVA-B to twelve recent LLMs reveals three findings. First, the module-level compile rate is 67.1\%; among generated assertions in evaluable runs, 82.1\% prove non-vacuously, but the corresponding assertion sets detect only 70.2\% of eligible injected faults and cover 36.2\% of the formal core. Second, on 211 evaluable model--module entries in the deep subset, assertion sets flag buggy RTL with 0.87 recall, but 40\% of predicted-buggy outcomes are false positives on correct RTL, limiting precision to 0.60. Third, agentic mode improves S1-style provability and strength metrics, but gains plateau and oscillate. Codes and artifacts are available at https://github.com/HierSVAAnon/HierSVACodeAndArtifacts{https://github.com/HierSVAAnon/HierSVACodeAndArtifacts}. Dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/AnonymousHierSVA/HierSVA{https://huggingface.co/datasets/AnonymousHierSVA/HierSVA}.

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly able to solve advanced mathematical problems, including many that have been open for decades. This opens the door to expansion of mathematical knowledge at unprecedented scale. Yet, while LLMs may be able to conjecture and prove more and more theorems, it remains open whether this new mathematical knowledge is interesting or useful. We define intrinsic interestingness of a theorem as the ratio between the length of its proof and the length of its statement. We show that this correlates strongly with an extrinsic measure of the downstream utility of a theorem. We identify the difficulty of a proof conditioned on a set of premises as a useful primitive for computing these metrics, and train a 27B model that predicts proof difficulty more accurately than frontier general-purpose models. Optimizing for our metric creates a model capable of producing more interesting theorems, while also reducing substantial or full overlap with Mathlib from 91.9% to 30.6%, showcasing the creation of more out-of-distribution math. We show that our system can generate candidate theorems, select the most interesting among them, and iteratively build on a self-expanding mathematical library. These metrics provide a practical and quantifiable signal for ranking conjectures and guiding proof search within formal mathematical libraries. Our framework provides a path towards self-expanding, machine-verified mathematical libraries that can choose worthwhile statements without relying on human-supplied targets.