Viva La Vida: Verification and Accumulation Failures in Multi-Agent Proof Search

As LLM agents undertake increasingly complex, long-horizon tasks, verifying their outputs becomes increasingly challenging. We study how verification capability can be strengthened with a fixed base model, without access to reference answers or grading rubrics at test time. Repeated sampling yields multiple rollouts that can contain complementary correct claims, but we need a reliable verification mechanism to determine which claims to trust. We first find that disagreement often exposes correct alternatives, while consensus can conceal errors. These observations motivate VeriHarness, which turns the underlying LLM a generator uses into an agentic verifier by giving it a workspace, evidence tools, and reusable verification skills. A disagreement resolver checks competing claims against environmental evidence, while a consensus challenger tests shared claims and searches for omitted requirements. Their findings guide the selection and revision of the final artifact. Across five long-horizon workspace benchmarks and two frontier models, VeriHarness achieves the highest selection scores among the evaluated baselines. Evidence-backed revision further improves average performance, bringing gains over a single rollout to 6.2 points with Gemini 3.5 Flash and 6.4 points with Claude Opus 4.8. We further show that verification skills can self-improve from failure feedback, demonstrating VeriHarness as a novel and critical approach for scaling long-horizon agentic verification. We release the full pool of approximately 26,000 rollouts across all five benchmarks and both models, produced at a cost of over $100,000, to support future research on agentic verification.

Lean is increasingly used to verify mathematical proofs and software produced by LLM agents, but writing formal proofs remains hard. Existing prover systems take a divide-and-conquer approach that recursively decomposes hard proof goals into easier lemmas and splits again any lemma that resists proof. However, a lemma can resist proof for different reasons, including insufficient guidance, a false statement, or a flaw in the decomposition that produced it. Existing systems cannot tell these apart as a failed attempt reports little beyond its failure, and responses are confined to the failing node without considering the rest of the proof or revising the plan above it. The system may thus keep decomposing obligations along a flawed proof direction until the budget runs out, causing the whole proof attempt to fail. We introduce Maestro, a Lean prover harness that handles failures through global coordination. Provers report why they failed, not just that they failed, and a coordinator that sees the whole proof chooses an appropriate response, such as guiding a stuck prover, correcting a false lemma, or retracting a flawed subtree and replanning it. The same harness extends to verified code synthesis, where a checked counterexample sends the code back for repair. We evaluate Maestro with four frontier LLMs on seven mathematics and three software verification benchmarks. It proves more targets than each model's native coding agent (Claude Code or Codex) on every benchmark the agent has not already saturated, with the largest gains on research-level mathematics. With Claude Opus 5, it discovers its own proofs of 34 of the 48 theorems in the June 2026 release of arXivLean, against 19 for the native agent. It also outperforms all published prover systems on every benchmark they share, solving 669/672 PutnamBench, 59/60 Lean-IMO-Bench, and 6/6 IMO 2026.

Reusable Web-agent verification requires a rule to follow changing requirements and support subsequent execution. We introduce AgentProofBench, which connects paired tests of a frozen acceptance rule to execution from identical saved openings. The resource spans 97 tasks, 79 families, and four Web services. Experiments with DeepSeek Flash/Pro establish two linked measurements. Across 48 families, complete-panel and decision-replay tests retain 82/96 Flash and 79/96 Pro source programs; paired reuse-rebuild BA intervals are [-5.47, 1.57] and [-10.16, 0.00] percentage points. Across 22 execution families, deployment-state panel correctness separates program assignments whose two saved openings are both delivered correctly: 32/33 assignments with error-free panels, versus 1/11 with panel errors. All reference-defined program-gate regressions and withheld deliveries occur in the latter group. Neutral continuation attains the highest correct delivery under the tested generic feedback, providing a concrete baseline for measuring the value added by a gate. Released instructions, states, programs, reference rules, and trajectories connect each test failure to its execution consequences. AgentProofBench makes reusable verification assessable at both the requirement and policy levels.