Theoria: Rewrite-Acceptability Verification over Informal Reasoning States

Reliably knowing when a language model is correct is almost as important as being correct. We introduce prover-verifier deliberation (PVD), an inference-time protocol grounded in interactive proof theory, as a mechanism for selective prediction: the protocol produces both an answer and a structured confidence verdict, allowing a system to report high-confidence answers while abstaining on uncertain cases. In each dialogue, a prover defends a candidate answer through checkable sub-claims while a verifier issues targeted challenges and returns \textsc{Accept}, \textsc{Challenge}, or \textsc{Reject}. Because frozen language models are imperfect provers and verifiers operating over a noisy channel, formal soundness and completeness guarantees do not transfer; instead, we characterize the protocol empirically through its coverage-precision behavior. Our main experiment uses Claude Sonnet 4.6 as prover and Claude Haiku 4.5 as verifier on GPQA Diamond. Questions accepted with no answer revision, which we call Accept + No Change (ANC), are reported as the high-confidence subset; we evaluate this subset by its precision and coverage. ANC separates reliable from unreliable answers, yielding a $\sim$30pp HC-Prec gap over the non-ANC complement. Robustness experiments with GPT and Gemini pairings show that high HC-Prec can transfer across model families, while verifier strictness and domain competence largely determine the size of the selection gap. On Humanity's Last Exam, weaker prover-verifier pairings can collapse or invert the ANC signal, illustrating a practical failure mode when the verifier operates outside its effective region. Comparisons with self-consistency, universal self-consistency, multi-agent debate, and Reflexion suggest that prover-verifier deliberation supplies a distinct argument-defensibility signal for selective prediction.

Reliable verification of proofs remains a bottleneck for training and evaluating AI systems on hard mathematical reasoning. Fully formal proofs, in languages like Lean, are easy to verify because they are unambiguous and modular. Most proofs, particularly those written by AI systems, have neither property, and translating them into formal languages remains challenging in many frontier math settings. We propose Pseudo-Formalization (PF), a proof format that captures the modularity and precision of formal proofs while retaining the flexibility of natural language. A Pseudo-Formal proof is decomposed into self-contained modules, each stating its premises, conclusion, and proof in natural language. To verify the correctness of a regular natural language proof, an LLM translates it to Pseudo-Formal and then verifies each module independently, an algorithm we call Block Verification (BV). We evaluate PF+BV on two benchmarks spanning olympiad and research-level mathematics, where it pareto-dominates LLM-as-judge baselines on error-finding precision and recall. To support future work, we release our research-level proof verification benchmark ArxivMathGradingBench.

Frontier gains in language-model reasoning come from reinforcement learning on reasoning traces and are concentrated in domains with a cheap, sound verifier. We argue the field's binding constraint is the verification gap: no scalable, incorruptible reward for reasoning outside formal domains. We make four contributions. (1) Theory: in a joint-Gaussian model of best-of-N selection, verifier-gold correlation rho is the exact exchange rate between test-time compute and capability, and an unsound verifier pays a polynomial penalty N^(1/rho^2); a margin-free copula form predicts realized soundness of real LLM judges to 4% median error. (2) Demonstration: in program-synthesis testbeds with executable ground truth, including a pre-registered scaled replication, unsound verifiers lose Soundness-under-Pressure as optimization grows (0.94 to 0.32 at N=4096) while a sound verifier improves monotonically; reality-anchored settlement beats a frozen verifier under i.i.d. and adversarial pressure, driving the hacking gap from ~0.27 to ~0; soundness scales log-linearly with settled labels, with on-policy settlement ~10x more label-efficient than random labeling. With real LLM judges and unit-test execution as gold, a weak judge loses soundness under best-of-N (p<0.001), a stronger judge is more robust, and selection alone manufactures +0.53 hacking gaps from honest samples. Under real GRPO training, a frozen reward model traces the full overoptimization curve (executed reward collapses 90%) while the same model refit on a 10% settlement stream preserves 6x the executed reward. (3) Paradigm: proof-carrying cognition, where reasoning steps are typed probabilistic claims priced by a self-built world model trained only on held-out reality and settled by proper scoring rules. (4) Benchmark: we specify Soundness-under-Pressure as the headline metric for a reality-settled reasoning benchmark.