Serving an answer from a large language model requires deciding when to abstain, yet a verifier's ranking accuracy alone does not determine the error rate among served answers. We introduce PriceCheck, which builds a compact family of decision rules from label-free checks such as re-solving a problem. Each check has a price: its agreement rates on correct and incorrect answers and its cost per run. Prices fitted on a small, class-enriched labelled set compose into predictions of a schedule's coverage and cost, guiding which checks to run and when to stop. A calibration test then selects a schedule at a stated selective-risk target. In mathematics, the selected schedules serve 76.1% of answers on average and keep held-out selective risk below 1.5% on all 15 splits. Under the shared testing protocol, PriceCheck serves more answers at that target than reward models, a prompted judge, the generator's confidence and a trained correctness classifier. At matched coverage, it keeps the fewest wrong answers among these scorers. Across 118 diagnostic schedules, price-based coverage predictions have a rank correlation of 0.97 with observed coverage. These results show that choosing how checks are combined and stopped matters alongside how well a verifier ranks answers. Code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/PriceCheck.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of PriceCheck. Top, the three steps: price each check on a labelled probe, compose prices into a schedule, and certify one schedule. Bottom, one candidate answer passing through a two-stage cascade. Green serves, red abstains, and amber passes the undecided band on.
Table 1: Price of each action on the frozen pool: completeness p1 and leak p0 per draw, and unit cost per draw in generated and in parameter-weighted tokens. The two confidence actions re-score the stored solution, so they generate nothing.
Financial question answering often requires precise numerical extraction, unit handling, and arithmetic over tables and text, but applying expensive verification uniformly wastes test-time compute. We propose BudgetVerify, a budget-tiered generator-verifier framework that routes each generated answer to one of three verification tiers: no verification, lightweight check-and-revise, or higher-cost solve-first-then-compare verification. The router is trained from offline correctness and token-cost outcomes and, at test time, selects a verification tier using information available before verification, including the question, context statistics, the generated answer, and associated generator metadata. The selected tier either returns the generated answer directly or invokes the corresponding verifier. Across six commercial and open-weight base models, BudgetVerify consistently produces more efficient accuracy-cost Pareto frontiers than fixed verification policies by selectively allocating stronger verification only when it is useful. Although absolute performance varies across models, these efficiency gains and the resulting qualitative frontier shape are consistent across generator models.
Qwen3-8B reviewing Llama-3.1-8B in math adds 33.2 points, yet Qwen3-8B alone is 6.4 points more accurate than the result. Reviewing another model's answer is usually judged by its gain over the generator. We show that this confuses verification, which adds accuracy beyond either model alone, with capability transfer, where a stronger reviewer supplies answers it could have given on its own. Measured against the stronger model alone, across 48 pairs of 12 open-weight models (3B to 72B) in math, knowledge, code and reasoning, review beats it in only 9 of 96 review directions, and does worse the larger the capability gap. The reason is anchoring: the reviewer mostly follows the generator, discarding its own correct answers. Review costs 2.6 to 2.8 times as much as the stronger model alone, while a selector using the same two calls is 2.7 to 4.2 points more accurate than review and cheaper. Studies of verification should report the stronger model alone, not only the gain over the generator.
A model should refuse two different things: answers it would get wrong, and questions it should not answer at all, such as unanswerable ones or ones resting on a false premise. The usual recipe thresholds a single confidence score, which cannot tell these apart. Across five instruction-tuned models from three families (2B to 14B), we find they are separate axes. Ordinary answer-confidence tracks whether an answer is right but is nearly blind to whether the question is answerable; a linear probe on hidden states does the reverse. The blind spot does not shrink with scale. It is worst on naturally occurring false-premise questions (CREPE). There, answer-confidence, P(IK), P(True), and even asking the model outright whether a premise is false all stay near chance, while a hidden-state probe reaches 0.69 to 0.77 AUROC: the model represents a problem it will not report. This turns out to be fixable. Instructing a model to check premises backfires, because it then disputes sound and false premises alike (57% false challenges), unable to tell them apart; routing the same instruction with the probe roughly triples challenge precision. We turn the two axes into a calibrated policy that answers only when an answerability score and a correctness score each clear a separately certifies behave differently: the unanswerable-answer rate is controllable at every scale, while the wrong-answer rate is capped by model accuracy, so the guarantee tightens as threshold policy certifies both budgets at 0.75 coverage of correct answers, against 0.31 for a single threshold; at 14B it is the only policy that certifies at all.