math.STJul 15, 2026

Partially Correlated Verifier Cascades in LLM Harnesses: Concave Log-Odds, Polynomial Reliability, and Blind-Spot Ceilings

Authors: Jiangang Han

Organizations: Independent researcher

Abstract

Serial verification gates are a core reliability primitive in LLM harnesses: a candidate answer is returned only if kk verifier calls all accept it. Under conditionally independent gates, the recent Odds Law (arXiv:2606.15712) shows that posterior log-odds grow linearly in kk, 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 α∼Gα\sim G (de Finetti), the exact cascade posterior is ℓk=ℓ0−ln⁡mk\ell_k = \ell_0 - \ln m_k, with mkm_k the kk-th moment of GG. Then: (i) ℓk\ell_k is concave in kk for every non-degenerate GG -- the Odds Law is its tangent at the first gate and an upper bound; (ii) for Beta(a,b)(a,b) latents, failure decays polynomially, 1−rk≍k−b1-r_k \asymp k^{-b}, with correlation parameter ρv=1/(a+b+1)ρ_v = 1/(a+b+1); (iii) a blind-spot atom of mass 1−π1-π at α=1α=1 caps the evidence extractable from any number of gates at −ln⁡(1−π)-\ln(1-π) nats, so reliability saturates below 1; (iv) letting the true-accept rate also vary (β∼Hβ\sim H) yields a trichotomy -- gates eventually always help, plateau, or actively harm -- decided by the upper-tail exponents of GG and HH, with closed-form crossover k†k^\dagger. The mechanism is survivorship: errors surviving gates are the high-αα ones. The theory is measurable: RR repeated verdicts per instance identify the first RR moments of GG, so two verdicts identify ρvρ_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=5k=5 and ~3000x at k=10k=10; the correlated fit at R=8R=8 tracks held-out depths. The practical lever is decorrelation -- changing model family, modality, or evidence source -- not adding gates.

Explore similar work

Sep 1, 2026cs.AI

Cheap Verifiers, Large Blind Spots: Measuring the Reliability Cost of Cost-Saving Cascades

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 (ββ 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 ββ 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∞≲q0β0ε_\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.
Dushyant Rajput
Jun 14, 2026cs.CR

Odds Law: The Decomposition Algebra On How Intelligence Organizes Itself to Solve Difficult Problems Reliably

We ask a structural question: given unreliable elementary problem-solvers, what organizations of them solve hard problems reliably, and what are the limits? We develop a decomposition algebradecomposition~algebra: elementary solvers are morphisms in a stochastic category, and four combinators (sequential composition, parallel ensembling, verification gating, and recursive reduction) generate the space of compound solvers. We equip this algebra with two homomorphisms, a reliabilityreliability valuation into the ordered monoid ([0,1],≤)([0,1],\le) and a costcost valuation into a commutative semiring, and we derive the composition laws that govern how reliability flows through structure. Our central results are (i) a verification odds lawverification~odds~law (the result that names this report), showing that a verification gate multiplies the odds of correctness by the verifier's likelihood ratio ΛΛ, so that kk conditionally independent gates yield geometric amplification; (ii) a reliability amplification theoremreliability~amplification~theorem, giving target reliability 1−δ1-δ at O(log⁡1/δ)O(\log 1/δ) verification depth whenever Λ>1Λ>1; and (iii) a threshold dichotomythreshold~dichotomy: above the critical parameters reliability can be driven arbitrarily close to one at logarithmic cost, while at or below them no amplification is possible. We then show that self−organizationself-organization is the least fixed point of a monotone improvement operator on the complete lattice of strategies, and that this fixed point equalizes marginal log-odds gain per unit cost. Finally, we prove matching limits: an information ceiling bounds per-gate amplification by a divergence quantity; shared error causes create a strictly positive voting floor, so diversity is necessarynecessary for unbounded amplification. Reliability, in short, is neither free nor magical: it is bought with independent information, arranged by composition, and bounded by the verifier.
Hidayet Aksu
Jun 25, 2026cs.MA

Delayed Verification Destabilizes Multi-Agent LLM Belief: Instability Thresholds and Optimal Corrector Placement

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems often rely on verifier and critic agents to suppress hallucinations, but verification is delayed. During this delay, false claims can propagate through the agent network. We model this process as delayed consensus on a graph with grounded corrector nodes. Spectral decomposition by the grounded Laplacian yields a closed-form stability threshold for the verification dose: correction that is too strong or too delayed can turn consensus into oscillation. The most unstable regime occurs when the communication and verification delays coincide; for delay two, the threshold is the inverse golden ratio. The same framework gives a supermodular placement objective and a greedy (1-1/e)-approximation rule for assigning a limited corrector budget to influential nodes. Experiments across five open models confirm the predicted dose-delay oscillations. By contrast, grounded factual answering makes truth an absorbing boundary and eliminates the effect, suggesting that the instability is specific to signed-belief tasks while grounded verification remains stabilizing
Igor Itkin