In large language model (LLM) agents, reasoning trajectories are treated as reliable internal beliefs for guiding actions and updating memory. However, coherent reasoning can still violate logical or evidential constraints, allowing unsupported beliefs repeatedly stored and propagated across decision steps, leading to systematic behavioral drift in long-horizon agentic systems. Most existing strategies rely on the consensus mechanism, conflating agreement with faithfulness. In this paper, inspired by the vulnerability of unfaithful intermediate reasoning trajectories, we propose Self-Audited Verified Reasoning (SAVeR), a novel framework that enforces verification over internal belief states within the agent before action commitment, achieving faithful reasoning. Concretely, we structurally generate persona-based diverse candidate beliefs for selection under a faithfulness-relevant structure space. To achieve reasoning faithfulness, we perform adversarial auditing to localize violations and repair through constraint-guided minimal interventions under verifiable acceptance criteria. Extensive experiments on six benchmark datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently improves reasoning faithfulness while preserving competitive end-task performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Demonstration of unfaithful agent reasoning. The agent outputs the correct answer ‘ Animorphs ’, but its multi-step reasoning process is logically invalid, as an unverified intermediate assumption “ The phrase … reminds me of The Hork-Bajir Chronicles " is used to derive the conclusion that it already presupposes. This failure mode differs fundamentally from unfaithful CoT, where the reasoning is merely an explanatory artifact, while unfaithful reasoning in the agent determines the following behavior and final decision.
Figure 2: An overview of our proposed SAVeR framework. This diagram illustrates the overall closed-loop workflow, highlighting the end-to-end process from belief generation and selection to auditing and iterative repair.
Models
Methods
HotpotQA
2WikiMHQA
MuSiQue
NQ
Quoref
FEVER
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
LLaMA-3.1-8B
Vanilla LM
34.8
43.6
39.6
47.3
23.8
34.6
29.5
38.2
29.4
37.7
53.7
CoT
38.3
47.5
44.2
50.7
27.1
36.8
32.7
43.4
33.2
42.3
55.9
MAD
43.1
51.2
47.9
55.4
30.9
40.8
36.6
46.9
36.3
45.2
60.7
Self-Refine
40.8
48.9
46.3
53.3
28.7
37.8
33.5
43.0
34.1
43.6
57.6
B -2
42.9
51.3
46.7
54.4
31.0
40.6
35.9
44.9
36.7
46.2
60.6
Table 1: The overall evaluation results of SAVeR and other baseline methods on six benchmarks. The best-performed method is marked by bold and the runner-up performing method is marked by underline .
Methods
HotpotQA
2WikiMHQA
MuSiQue
Avg Viol ↓
VFR ↑
Post-Res ↓
USR ↓
Avg Viol ↓
VFR ↑
Post-Res ↓
USR ↓
Avg Viol ↓
VFR ↑
Post-Res ↓
USR ↓
Vanilla LM
2.65
7.43%
–
46.41%
2.83
6.58%
–
53.19%
3.25
5.34%
–
62.63%
CoT
1.98
24.89%
–
27.36%
2.21
17.41%
–
32.11%
2.91
13.26%
–
37.58%
MAD
1.33
36.74%
–
23.94%
1.81
32.78%
–
28.82%
2.16
26.17%
–
36.51%
SAVeR (Ours)
0.37
81.36%
0.05
9.12%
0.56
72.34%
0.08
13.84%
0.83
69.38%
0.11
19.73%
Table 2: Reasoning Faithfulness Evaluation on Multi-hop QA Benchmarks under LLaMA-3.1-8B.
Figure 3: Audit-Repair (A-R) dynamics on HotpotQA. For SAVeR , iterations correspond to one audit-repair cycle. For MAD , iterations denote debates to reduce inconsistencies without verifiable acceptance criteria.
Figure 4: A case study on a multi-hop factual query to correct unjustified inference. The agent initially proposes plausible capacity values based on arena similarity and entity identification, but without explicit evidence . SAVeR audits belief candidates, flags unsupported numerical guesses and missing citable capacity statements , and repairs them by enforcing evidence-bound extraction of the exact seated-capacity integer from retrieved sources. After iterative re-auditing, only the verified capacity value is committed to the final answer and written to agent memory.
Methods
HotpotQA
2WikiMHQA
EM ↑
F1 ↑
Avg Viol ↓
VFR ↑
Post-Res ↓
USR ↓
EM ↑
F1 ↑
Avg Viol ↓
VFR ↑
Post-Res ↓
USR ↓
w/o Persona
43.2
52.4
0.49
74.55%
0.06
11.97%
47.6
55.3
0.78
65.98%
0.10
19.24%
w/o k-DPP
43.3
52.2
0.64
71.47%
0.08
15.86%
47.5
55.2
0.86
61.78%
0.14
20.52%
w/o Auditing
43.8
52.8
1.37
42.65%
–
26.74%
47.8
55.7
1.76
38.95%
–
29.17%
w/o Repair
44.0
52.9
1.56
33.68%
–
37.63%
48.1
55.6
1.83
29.17%
–
39.84%
SAVeR
43.7
52.6
0.37
81.36%
0.05
9.12%
47.7
55.5
0.56
72.34%
0.08
13.84%
Table 3: Ablation Study on the HotpotQA and 2WikiMHQA Benchmarks under LLaMA-3.1-8B.
While explicit reasoning trajectories enhance model interpretability, existing paradigms often rely on monolithic chains that lack intermediate verification, allowing early errors to cascade unchecked. This lack of modularity impedes granular auditing and compromises the epistemic trust required for high-stakes applications. We propose MAVEN (Multi-Agent Verification-Elaboration Network with In-Step Epistemic Auditing), a blackboard-inspired framework designed to transform LLMs into deliberate reasoners through explicit role-decoupling. At its core, MAVEN operationalizes an adversarial Skeptic-Researcher-Judge loop, simulating expert deliberation by functionally separating logical defense from factual grounding. Experiments on OpenBookQA, TruthfulQA, HALUEVAL and StrategyQA benchmarks demonstrate that MAVEN delivers superior reasoning quality across four fine-grained metrics. Notably, MAVEN consistently outperforms latent reasoning models such as GEMINI-3.1-Pro and consensus-based baselines (e.g., ReConcile) by generating explicitly structured, modular, and verifiable deliberation trajectories, rather than relying on implicit internal states or post-hoc consensus. Moreover, comprehensive evaluations confirm that MAVEN is fully model-agnostic, serving as a strong and transferable reasoning booster that yields substantial performance improvements across diverse backbone models.
Persistent memory has enabled large language model (LLM) agents to store factual knowledge, prior decisions, reasoning histories, tool usage information, and context. While this has improved the agent's functionality and continuity across tasks, it has also introduced a new attack surface: the agent's own reasoning history. In this paper, we introduce the Forged Amplifying Rationale Memory Attack (FARMA), which poisons an agent's remembered reasoning rather than its factual knowledge. It inserts forged reasoning traces using evasive language that bypasses keyword-based defenses, then amplifies them through self-referential reinforcement that defeats consensus-based defenses. To address FARMA, we introduce SENTINEL, a layered defense pipeline to detect forged reasoning entries. Its central component is the Reasoning Guard that structurally analyzes candidate entries for forgery using five weighted signals. We evaluate FARMA and SENTINEL across multiple agents and different LLM models with 50 trials and show that FARMA achieves an attack success rate of up to 100% under baseline conditions and is capable of defeating defense mechanisms like keyword filter and A-MemGuard. Our evaluation also shows that SENTINEL reduces FARMA's attack success rate to as low as 0% with no false positives observed across 326 benign agent traces. Our work demonstrates the need to protect not only an agent's retrieved content but also the integrity of its reasoning history.
Verifiers have been demonstrated to enhance LLM reasoning via test-time scaling (TTS). Yet, they face significant challenges in complex domains. Error propagation from incorrect intermediate reasoning can lead to false positives for seemingly plausible solutions, while lacking external grounding makes verifiers unreliable on computation or knowledge-intensive tasks. To address these challenges, we propose Agentic Verifier, a framework that transforms reward modeling into a multi-turn, tool-augmented deliberative process. We introduce complementary forward and backward agents: one traces solutions from premises to conclusions, while the other re-checks conclusions against their underlying premises. This bidirectional process enables a comprehensive, reliable, and interpretable assessment of solutions. To facilitate practical deployment, we propose AgentV-RL. Through proactive exploration and reinforcement learning, the verifier autonomously interleaves tool-use with internal reasoning. Extensive experiments show that Agentic Verifier yields consistent performance gains under both parallel and sequential TTS. Notably, our 4B variant surpasses state-of-the-art ORMs by 25.2%, positioning it as a promising paradigm for agentic reward modeling.
Jiazheng Zhang, Ziche Fu, Zhiheng Xi +13
College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University · Huazhong University of Science and Technology · The University of Hong Kong +3