VStress: Correlation-Aware Auditing and Adaptive Budget Allocation for Repeated Verifiers

Imperfect verifiers can assign a harmful update direction even when clipping and regularization bound its magnitude. We introduce Audit-First VAPO, which separates discrete directional admission from continuous magnitude control. An observation-only accept-appeal-abstain policy uses a finite secondary-verification budget; its action trace is frozen before clean labels are joined. Simultaneous finite-sample bounds then certify selected harmful risk, coverage, and verifier-call rate over a predeclared policy family. Conditional Hoeffding-Azuma bounds account for the dependence induced by shared budgets, and rollout or verifier changes initiate a new certification stage. After admission, a bounded trust-clip-KL actuator controls magnitude. We evaluate two models on two reasoning benchmarks against static RLVR, matched-random selection, confidence thresholding, noise correction, and verifier augmentation. On Qwen3.5-0.8B and GSM8K at target risk $ρ=0.08$, RC-VAPO achieves 74.1% accuracy, selected harmful risk 0.0697, coverage 0.4125, and relative verifier cost $1.16\times$. At matched coverage and update magnitude, its selected-risk difference from matched random is -0.0260 with paired 95% interval $[-0.0364,-0.0157]$. Across asymmetric, confidence-dependent, and correlated-verifier noise, the certificate is satisfied on 57 of 60 independent runs. These comparisons isolate informative directional selection from proposal suppression, update shrinkage, and additional verifier computation.

Sampling several answers and keeping the one a verifier scores highest is one of the simplest ways to buy accuracy at test time. Its effect is reported as a scaling curve: accuracy against the number $k$ of sampled answers. The curve is cheap to draw and expensive to trust. A budget read off it is chosen after looking at every point, so only a band that covers all budgets at once protects the choice, and on a 100-question benchmark a fixed exact-binomial design needs 192,000 generated answers to certify 64 budgets to within $\pm1/32$ at 95%. Most of that cost pays for the wrong uncertainty. A benchmark is a fixed list of questions; at budget 64, about three quarters of the variance of a selected answer's correctness lies between questions, and an audit that revisits every question need not pay for it. We derive the minimax cost of certifying the whole curve, up to logarithmic factors. It has three parts: calibrating the tail of the score distribution, telling the questions apart, and within-question noise summed along the curve. At a single benchmark the last part sharpens to the variance of one answer's influence under the best allocation of answers to questions, which every valid audit pays and an audit that learns the allocation attains, up to a logarithm, as the precision grows. A paired audit built on an exponential inequality for two independent draws at the same question needs no pilot. On 185 held-out score pools it uses 0.74 times the answers of the cheapest competing certified audit at 64 budgets and 0.53 times at 1,024, and on a newly generated MMLU-Pro study it certified the curve with 79,133 answers, within 0.6% of what a cost law fitted beforehand predicted from the study's within-question variance. The same paths certify pass@$k$ and majority voting, and the bands extend to populations of questions and to answers that depend on earlier ones.

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.