LLM Answer Verification

Large language models are increasingly used to answer questions over annual reports, earnings decks, and analyst notes, yet their outputs remain difficult to verify in high-stakes financial workflows. A fluent answer can blend directly grounded statements, weak synthesis, and unsupported claims across narrative text, tables, and charts. We present EvidenceLens, a visual analytics prototype that treats financial question answering as a claim-evidence alignment problem. The system decomposes an answer into atomic claims, summarizes support composition and confidence, support gaps, and coordinates claim-level inspection with source passages, table cells, and chart regions. Its core visual representation is a multimodal claim-evidence matrix that makes coverage, contradiction, and modality imbalance immediately visible. To support reproducibility, we also specify a JSON-based artifact schema, a lightweight multimodal alignment pipeline, and a deterministic review-priority ranking that maps backend signals into an auditable visual structure. Through representative report-auditing scenarios, we show how EvidenceLens helps analysts distinguish grounded claims from overconfident synthesis that conventional chat interfaces flatten.

Financial chart question answering in regulated settings demands more than accuracy: practitioners must know which answers to trust before acting on them, and many institutions cannot send client data to external model providers. Yet existing chart-QA agents are accuracy-focused and opaque, and most assume proprietary API access; to our knowledge, none combines auditability with on-premise deployability without significant accuracy compromise. We present AgentFinVQA, a multi-agent pipeline that decomposes each query into planning, OCR, legend grounding, visual inspection, and verification, recording every step in a traceable Model Evaluation Packet (MEP) per sample. On FinMME, AgentFinVQA improves $+7.68$ pp over a primary-backbone matched zero-shot baseline with a proprietary backbone (Gemini-3 Flash; 71.24% vs. 63.56%, McNemar $p \approx 1.1 \times 10^{-16}$), and $+4.84$ pp with open-weights Qwen3.6-27B-FP8 served locally. The verifier's verdict also serves as a useful confidence signal (68.2% vs. 55.6% exact accuracy on confirmed vs. revised answers), enabling human-in-the-loop review routing. Error analysis shows that question misunderstanding, legend confusion and extraction error account for nearly two-thirds of failures and are the categories least detected by the verifier, identifying clear directions for future work. Together these results show that auditable, on-premise financial chart QA is practical and that the open-weights system keeps most of the accuracy gains while enabling full data residency. We release our code to support reproducible evaluation.

Test-time scaling via sequential revision has emerged as a powerful paradigm for enhancing Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning. However, standard post-training methods primarily optimize single-shot objectives, creating a fundamental misalignment with multi-step inference dynamics. While recent work treats this as multi-turn reinforcement learning (RL), conventional approaches optimize over the multi-step trajectories directly, failing to further exploit the high-quality mistakes in intermediate steps that model can learn from correcting them. We propose a two-stage iterative framework that alternates between online data/prompt augmentation and policy optimization. By converting the intermediate steps (``near-miss'' answers) in the successful recovery trajectories into decoupled revision and verification prompts, our approach concentrates training on both effective answer transformation and error identification. This approach enables efficient off-policy data generation and reduces the computational overhead of long-horizon sampling compared to standard multi-turn RL. On LiveCodeBench, using publicly available test cases as feedback, we observe gains of +6.5 points over the RL baseline and +4.0 points over standard multi-turn training. Beyond coding, our approach matches the previously reported SOTA result on circle packing while using the smallest base model (4B) and far fewer rollouts than the much larger evolutionary search systems. Math results under ground-truth verification further confirm improved correction ability. It also generalizes to out-of-distribution constraint-satisfaction puzzles such as n_queens and mini_sudoku, where correctness is defined entirely by problem constraints. Code is available at https://github.com/yxliu02/REVES.git.

Tool-using LLM agents increasingly use the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to answer from heterogeneous evidence sources, including search, APIs, databases, clinical records, and formulary tools. Standard factuality metrics usually test whether an answer is supported by pooled evidence, missing a provenance-sensitive failure mode: a claim may be supported somewhere while being attributed to the wrong source. We call this cross-source conflation. We introduce ProvenanceGuard, a source-aware verifier for MCP-grounded answers. It consumes captured MCP traces with stable tool IDs, source IDs, and raw outputs; decomposes answers into atomic claims; routes claims to source-specific evidence; checks support with NLI and a token-alignment proxy; compares stated attribution with the routed source; and returns per-claim verdicts plus an answer-level allow/block decision. Blocked answers can be repaired with retrieval-augmented answer revision and re-verified. We evaluate on 281 medical-domain MCP-agent traces. A 266-trace adjudicated subset yields 2,325 LLM-assisted claim labels split by trace; 361 held-out labels are human-verified. On the 40-trace held-out split, ProvenanceGuard achieves block F1 0.802 and source accuracy 0.858 over 260 source-eligible claims, outperforming source-blind baselines that do not emit claim-to-source IDs. On a harder multi-source benchmark it reaches block F1 0.846, while source-plus-relation accuracy drops to 0.229, showing that exact source ownership remains difficult with semantically close sources. Repair-and-reverify resolves all blocked answers in the full trace set, often via conservative fallback. In 50 controlled clinical conflation probes, ProvenanceGuard detects all injected attribution swaps with no retained wrong attribution. These results show that source attribution is an independent axis for factuality verification in MCP-based agents.

With large language models (LLMs) increasingly applied to mathematical reasoning, formal proof assistants such as Lean can be leveraged to verify reasoning outputs with machine-checkable rigor, enabling use cases such as answer selection in test-time scaling with K sampled candidate answers. However, employing Lean requires that LLM outputs, originally in natural language, first be formalized. Existing Lean-based answer-selection work uses an autoformalization model to generate a formal statement in Lean for each candidate answer independently, incurring a significant computational cost. We propose BASE, a base-and-edit pipeline that formalizes a single base candidate per problem and derives the remaining K-1 statements by editing the answer expression in place. To facilitate this, we train a rewriter model LEANSCRIBE to localize the answer in the base formalization and generate a reusable edit function for the other K-1 candidates. BASE simultaneously improves selection accuracy and reduces formalization cost - a Pareto improvement that holds on all 12 (dataset, solver) configurations across four benchmarks and three solvers, cutting autoformalizer calls by about 5x at K=8, with the reduction expected to become larger as K grows. Code is available at https://github.com/ucr-rai/base-and-edit.

Objective: To enhance the accuracy, interpretability, and robustness of large language models (LLMs) in medical question answering (MedQA). Method: We designed a multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method in which multiple LLM agents independently generate chain-of-thought reasoning with candidate answers, then act as peer reviewers to evaluate each other's reasoning for factual correctness and logical soundness. The highest-rated reasoning chain is selected to produce the final answer. Experiments were conducted with five state-of-the-art LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, Phi-4, DeepSeek-LLM-7B, GPT-oss-20B) on three benchmark datasets: HeadQA, MedQA-USMLE, and PubMedQA. Performance was compared against single-model chain-of-thought reasoning and chain-of-thought-based majority voting. Results: Peer-reviewed reasoning consistently outperformed both baselines. The best model combination achieved an average accuracy of 0.820 across datasets, exceeding the strongest single model (0.777) and majority voting ensembles (up to 0.789). The method also scaled effectively with more participating models, while peer assessments reliably distinguished high- from low-quality reasoning chains. Conclusion: The proposed multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method enables LLMs to act as both solvers and evaluators, yielding superior performance in MedQA. By emphasizing reasoning quality rather than answer agreement alone, this approach improves accuracy, interpretability, and robustness, offering a promising direction for trustworthy biomedical AI systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used as automatic judges for open-ended instruction-following evaluation. This practice is convenient, scalable, and often more semantically aware than reference-based metrics, but it also introduces a new reliability question: does a judge evaluate the quality of an answer, or does it also react to the language in which the comparison is presented? We propose Judge-LS, a lightweight meta-evaluation protocol that transforms LLMBar response-pair items into English, Chinese, and Chinese-English language-switched variants. A reliable judge should preserve its preference under label-preserving language transformations and should not prefer a language when two answers are translation-equivalent. We evaluate four API-accessible judges on the full 419-item LLMBar benchmark, producing 13,408 successful pairwise judgments. Across models, Chinese and language-switched presentations induce 10.7--14.4% preference flips relative to English, and all judges achieve their highest accuracy in English. However, translation-equivalent tie probes do not reveal a systematic English preference: most probes are judged as ties, and non-tie decisions more often favor Chinese. We add confidence intervals, paired significance tests, and an automatic transformation audit with a sensitivity analysis that excludes mechanically flagged high-risk variants. The experiment requires no model training, uses only API calls, and is feasible on modest local hardware.

Financial and tabular question answering requires more than fluent reasoning: answers must be grounded in the exact facts, formulas, units, signs, and scales that support them. A single misread cell or incorrect operation can silently produce a plausible but wrong result. We introduce \textsc{MOCA-Agent}, a market-of-claims code agent that replaces free-form multi-agent debate with claim-level verification. The system decomposes each question into typed atomic claims, asks specialist trader agents to buy or sell those claims, clears their orders into confidence-weighted accept/reject decisions, and synthesizes an executable Python program from market-supported evidence. A code-aware verifier then checks the program for execution, structural consistency, and common financial reasoning errors, with at most one market-aware repair round. Across ten public benchmarks spanning financial numerical reasoning, general tabular reasoning, ESG question answering, and multimodal chart reasoning, \textsc{MOCA-Agent} achieves strong performance using a fixed Qwen3.6-27B backbone, including $78.3\%$ on FinQA, $76.0\%$ on FinanceMath, $71.2\%$ on MultiHiertt, $86.9\%$ on ESGenius, and $85.6\%$ average on FinChart-Bench. These results show that aggregating evidence at the level of atomic claims, rather than whole answers, improves robustness in high-stakes numerical reasoning.\footnote{The code and data are available: https://github.com/UBC-NLP/MoCA-Agent.

Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to rigorously verify complex mathematical proofs. Standard global evaluation approaches suffer from "context poisoning," in which superficially plausible statements mask subtle logical flaws, leading to hallucination or over-skepticism. To address this, we shift from global evaluation to strict step-level verification: our framework maintains detailed context for each deduction step and strictly constrains the sources of applied theorems. We evaluate on a carefully curated adversarial diagnostic suite of research-level proofs drawn from the FirstProof challenge. A systematic ablation study demonstrates that these deductive constraints are indispensable, as unconstrained global prompting consistently fails to localize subtle logical errors. Beyond outperforming global evaluation, our approach fundamentally alters the failure taxonomy. Error analysis reveals that, rather than exhibiting severe logical hallucinations, remaining rejections are primarily instances of "pedantic hyper-rigor" stemming from unstated domain conventions, effectively exposing implicit ambiguities within the expert benchmark itself. Our findings suggest that prompting agents to organize their verification notes in a cautious, human-mathematician-like manner can substantially improve their ability to distinguish rigorous proofs from flawed ones, with the potential to strengthen agentic reasoning on frontier mathematical concepts that the base model does not already know well, and to lay a theoretical foundation for future automated proof-review systems. Code and prompts are available at GitHub.

As autonomous research agents and AI co-scientist systems push large language models (LLMs) from drafting toward end-to-end manuscript production, the bottleneck shifts from generation to verification. Fluent LLM output can hide fabricated citations, numbers that drift from source tables, and unmet reporting-guideline items; existing tools generate without verifying, and self-critique inherits the blind spots that produce confident fabrication. We describe an architecture pairing generation with verification, resting on three principles: decompose the workflow into self-contained skills, gate every stage transition with halt-on-failure, and resolve each integrity question with the cheapest sufficient mechanism, a deterministic, re-executable check where one suffices and a prose-level probe only where interpretation is unavoidable. This determinism-where-possible split, organized as an integrity-gate taxonomy, is the core contribution. It is realized as MedSci Skills, an open-source toolkit of 43 skills with a 21-detector deterministic tier, evaluated on three public-dataset pipelines (STARD, PRISMA, STROBE) and a seeded-defect ablation. Across the three pipelines every content-hash manifest verified clean and the gates surfaced real defects; on 27 identical injected defects the deterministic gates detected all 27 with no false positives on the matched clean fixtures, whereas a single-prompt LLM reviewer detected 11, its misses in code, bibliography, and style defects the prose hides. Determinism-where-possible verification yields an auditable, re-executable trail that exposes the evidence a human needs to check an LLM-assisted manuscript: feasibility and reproducibility evidence, not a claim of human-competitive quality, which a separate blinded study addresses. MedSci Skills is MIT-licensed and archived (v3.8.0).

Test-time reinforcement learning has emerged as a promising paradigm for enhancing the complex reasoning abilities of large language models in a completely label-free manner. Despite existing studies focusing on Pass@1 performance, optimizing Pass@k remains under-explored yet critical in label-free settings, which measures generation coverage for sustained exploration. Optimizing Pass@k in label-free setting is highly non-trivial, as directly applying the Pass@k advantage designs effective for RLVR yields unsatisfactory performance. Through in-depth empirical analysis, we discover the root causes hindering performance: pseudo-label estimations for low-confidence samples have a high probability of being incorrect, while candidate answers for high-confidence samples suffer from severe diversity collapse. To overcome these hurdles, we propose TTRL-CoCoV (Test-Time Reinforcement Learning with Confidence-Conditioned Verification), a novel confidence-adaptive framework that expands Pass@k coverage and improves Pass@1 performance. Based on our key insight that verification capability generally leads generation capability, TTRL-CoCoV employs a confidence-conditioned mechanism: for high-confidence samples, it bootstraps verifier and applies an exploration-enhancing reward to prevent diversity collapse; for low-confidence samples, it delegates pseudo-label selection to the verifier to filter incorrect pseudo-labels; and for medium-confidence samples, it bypasses verification entirely. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TTRL-CoCoV outperforms the best competing methods across 6 widely-recognized benchmarks, achieves average absolute gains of +9.8% in Pass@1 and +18.7% in Pass@16 over TTRL, and even achieves absolute Pass@1 improvements of up to +5.0% across multiple reasoning benchmarks when compared against fully supervised RL methods. Our code repository: https://github.com/shanjf666/CoCoV.

In RAG-based fact-checking, LLMs are increasingly used as verifiers to check given claims against retrieved evidence. Their parametric knowledge can induce pre-evidence tendencies that may conflict with the retrieved context, yet existing evaluation frameworks do not characterize such prior-context discrepancy or measure how verifiers arbitrate between parametric and contextual signals. We introduce \textsc{PAVE} (\emph{Prior-Aware Verifier Evaluation}), a diagnostic testbed that stratifies an LLM verifier into four epistemic states based on the correctness and confidence of its pre-evidence prior and evaluates its arbitration behavior on this new benchmark, i.e., whether it persists in correct prior under misleading evidence, and whether it corrects wrong prior when accurate evidence is provided. Experiments across seven LLMs reveal unreliable and highly model-dependent prior-context arbitration, highlighting the importance of verifier selection for real-world RAG-based fact-checking applications. Based on these findings, we propose a lightweight JSD-based test-time arbitration method that improves factual reliability without modifying the underlying model, achieving competitive performance across diverse LLM families.

We present AXIOM, a trust-first neuro-symbolic execution architecture for natural-language mathematical reasoning. In AXIOM, the language model functions strictly as a canonicalizer: it rewrites informal problem text into a narrow schema consumed by a deterministic Computer-Algebra-System (CAS) pipeline, which derives and verifies the answer or abstains as a first-class output. Routing follows a 1:1:1 alignment between problem-shape regex, schema-specific prompt, and closed-form CAS handler, with 3,100+ such routes shipped and zero LOST_CORRECT regressions across 250+ consecutive ship commits. We report empirical results on 4 MATH categories with a cumulative correctness of 94.36% (2,592/2,747) at 100.00% trust on parseable (zero confident-wrong answers across the full 2,747-record benchmark), all four domains above the per-domain 70/90/70 floor with per-domain trust at 100.0%, and median latency of 1 ms on rule-only handlers (88% of records on the lm-eval arithmetic 20,000-record benchmark). The architecture has served ~30,000 production queries through a public deployment. The contribution we emphasize is not a final accuracy figure but the forward dynamic the architecture establishes: every logged abstain in production is a candidate correct after one ship cycle, since new tasks compose without regressing the registry. The operational discipline behind this property -- math-template bucketing, LOST_CORRECT scan as regression oracle, parseable-first onboarding, and abstain as first-class output -- constitutes a transferable framework for trustworthy neuro-symbolic systems beyond mathematics.

Agentic search requires language model agents to explore many sources and answer complex information-seeking questions. Scaling test-time compute is a promising way to improve these agents, but current approaches can fail, because correct answers are often sparse and score-based selection depends on model calibration. We propose FineVerify, a fine-grained self-verification framework that decomposes each question into checkable sub-questions, verifies sampled candidates against each sub-question, and selects the candidate with the highest aggregated score. This per-check structure turns selection into simpler local judgments and produces scores under the same explicit criteria. Across four agentic search benchmarks and two models, FineVerify consistently outperforms standard scaling baselines. With only four sampled trajectories, it improves GPT-5-mini by 8.2 accuracy points and Gemini-3-flash by 5.6% on average. With 12 samples, FineVerify enables GPT-5-mini to surpass frontier GPT-5 on BrowseComp-Plus. Beyond accuracy, FineVerify produces interpretable verification traces that help audit benchmark errors, suggesting broader applications for inspecting agentic search systems. Code and data are available at https://github.com/XuZhao0/fineverify

We present a protocol to evaluate ChatGPT's ability to generate disease-centric biomedical associations. It outlines how we generate the associations, validate the biological entities using biomedical ontologies, and verify associations using literature. The protocol includes a self-consistency strategy to assess generative reliability across ChatGPT models. To address ontology exact-match limitations, we provide a use case performing semantic verification through a workflow enabled by Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) powered by open-source large language models (LLMs). This enables LLMs to establish truth over content generated by other LLMs and expose hallucination.

While large language models have made significant progress in mathematical reasoning, they remain unreliable at judging the correctness of their own solutions. Existing approaches that equip models with self-verification typically treat solution generation and verification as two separate tasks, leading to substantially increased training time. In this paper, we propose FABSVer, which fuses these two tasks into a single generation pass, dramatically reducing training overhead while jointly optimizing both capabilities. We further identify a convergence bottleneck both theoretically and empirically: as training progresses, the reward reaches a plateau because the policy is constrained by a fixed reference model. To overcome this, we introduce Dynamic Reference Model Update (DRMU), which raises the reward ceiling and enables sustained reward growth. Extensive experiments on math benchmarks demonstrate that FABSVer achieves superior self-verification and reasoning performance across three model scales, while requiring only 51%--71% of the training time of existing methods. Analysis further reveals distinct learning phases in how models acquire self-verification, and that the gap between verify and answer rewards shrinks noticeably as model size increases.

Lean is increasingly used to judge natural-language mathematical answers, but its signal is partial: many answers never formalize, and a failed proof may reflect an ill-typed statement or a missing library fact, not a wrong answer. On MATH-500 we show this signal is (i) sharply coverage-dependent, that is the proof-winning answer is correct 96% of the time at high proved coverage but 20% at low, and (ii) sparse and often unfaithful: a 7B autoformalizer proves a class for only 28% of problems, and a manual audit finds only approximately 43% of those proofs faithful. We propose COVCAL, a selector over Lean-trace diagnostics that certifies a finite-sample selective-risk bound on accepted answers or abstains, under two regimes (a conservative Bonferroni bound and a tighter dev-then-cal rule). Feasibility depends on autoformalization coverage: with the 7B formalizer the signal is too sparse and Bonferroni abstains on all 20 bootstrap partitions, whereas a prover-specialized formalizer reaches 79% coverage and flips it to feasible on 17 of 20, accepting approximately 48% of problems at 0.98 accepted accuracy. Since self-consistency alone is already 91% accurate, our contribution is a precise account of when, and with which formalizer, a partial formal signal can be trusted under risk control.

LLMs deployed in high-stakes domains face fundamental reliability challenges: hallucinations, inconsistencies, and privacy vulnerabilities introduce unacceptable risks where errors carry legal, financial, or safety consequences. This paper presents a hybrid verification architecture combining formal symbolic methods with neural semantic analysis to provide complementary guarantees for LLM-generated content. This architecture employs logical reasoning for input verification, leveraging completeness properties to provide decidable guarantees on structured requirements. For output validation, embedding-based semantic similarity detects contextual hallucinations where formal methods lack expressiveness. This separation is realized in a parallel, actor-based pipeline, addressing limitations of prompt-based self-verification approaches, which inherit the distributional biases that produce hallucinations. The proposed architecture and type-aware verification method are validated with HAIMEDA, a real-world medical device damage assessment reporting system developed through Action Design Research. Evaluation shows hallucination detection rates of over 83% for structured entities and 72% for semantic fabrications, with a 30% reduction in report creation time, demonstrating that neuro-symbolic architectures can provide principled safeguards for LLM deployment in data-sensitive domains.

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.

We present \textbf{StepGap}, a hybrid NLI-LLM decision tree that detects step-level evidence gaps in multi-hop QA and emits one of three typed labels: \textsc{Contradicted Claim} (CC), \textsc{Irrelevant Evidence} (IE), or \textsc{Missing Bridge} (MB), each tied to a concrete repair action. On 82 multi-hop questions (181 annotated steps, $κ{=}0.704$), StepGap reaches sF1$=$72.0, within the bootstrap confidence interval of an LLM-only baseline (70.1) but with a more decomposable structure: every StepGap stage \emph{hurts} F1 when removed, while three of four LLM-only removals \emph{improve} F1 -- a sign of \emph{competing-error cancellation}, where internal stages mask each other's errors. We further expose a \emph{Q-F1 trap}: question-level F1 is mechanically inflated by checkers that flag every step, making step-level F1 the necessary diagnostic. Used as a typed GRPO process reward, StepGap improves Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct Exact Match from $32.1{\pm}0.3$ to $35.4{\pm}0.9$ across three seeds, with the single-run comparison showing a $+5.6$ Avg EM gain over the matched Search-R1 GRPO reproduction.

When Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans, code solutions, or multi-step proofs, individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions. We propose a decomposed energy function that combines a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs. The quality scorer is a heterogeneous ensemble of low-rank adapters on a single frozen encoder (3% trainable parameters); the ensemble mean ranks candidates while the standard deviation quantifies epistemic uncertainty, driving a two-pass inference loop that triggers targeted regeneration or abstention. Across five benchmarks (GSM8K, MuSR, TravelPlanner, TACO, Knights & Knaves), our 149M-parameter verifier orchestrating a pool of 7-26B open generators outperforms single-shot Qwen-72B on every benchmark, matches Claude Sonnet 4.6 on MuSR (67.7% vs. 68.0%), and reduces constraint violations by 53% relative to Opus 4.6 on TravelPlanner (oracle 0.028, random 0.231). The two routes are complementary: structural verification wins when constraints are checkable (the verifier captures signal frontier models cannot self-detect), while pretraining-scale priors win where they are not (narrative inference, code semantics). A cross-dataset confounding analysis confirms genuine quality discrimination on four reasoning tasks and identifies a model-identity shortcut on code, mitigated via last-layer retraining. Scorers trained on difficult data transfer zero-shot: a MuSR-trained scorer achieves 93.9% on GSM8K without seeing a math problem.

In a long conversation, an LLM may produce a fluent continuation that rests on premises the conversation has already abandoned. Context-manipulation attacks exploit precisely this weakness. We address this problem with a runtime verifier. An LLM Interpreter maps each utterance to one or more of eight epistemic operations, and then a symbolic engine applies these operations to a dependency map that records what every claim rests on and whether it still stands. Based on the dependency map, checking whether a continuation is grounded then reduces to a walk over the map, linear in its size and requiring no LLM call. Retraction propagates through the same map with a conflict-free guarantee and flags exactly the conclusions that lose support. Our experiments with five QA models demonstrate substantial improvements in QA accuracy at a low cost per query. On ReviseQA for belief revision and MemoryAgentBench's FactConsolidation split (MemAB-FC), the verifier outperforms a retrieval baseline and raises MemAB-FC single-hop accuracy from $0.46$--$0.95$ to $0.94$--$0.98$. With the verifier, even the small 7B model overtakes unaided GPT-4o. When a GPT-4o Interpreter extracts every update from raw text rather than taking the benchmarks' structured updates, the verifier still outperforms the retrieval baseline. Moreover, on MemAB-FC, QA prompts remain compact at $97$--$174$ tokens while the full-context baseline reaches $114.5$K. Retraction queries take less than a microsecond at $2000$ turns.

LLM-as-Judge systems are widely deployed for automated evaluation, yet practitioners lack reliable methods to know when a judge's verdict should be trusted. Token log-probabilities, the standard post-hoc confidence signal, are unavailable for many commercial LLMs and, even when accessible, saturate above 0.999 with structured JSON output. We introduce VERDI (VERification-Decomposed Inference), a method that extracts confidence from the reasoning trace a structured judge already produces, with no additional inference calls. VERDI decomposes each verification-style evaluation into sub-checks and derives three structural signals: Step-Verdict Alignment, Claim-Level Margin, and Evidence Grounding Score. We combine them with Platt-scaled logistic regression. On three public benchmarks, VERDI achieves AUROC 0.72-0.91 on GPT-4.1-mini and 0.66-0.80 on GPT-5.4-mini. On Qwen3.5-4B/9B/27B, where answer-token logprobs are anti-calibrated (higher confidence on errors, AUROC 0.32-0.49), VERDI achieves 0.56-0.70. We additionally validate on a production system with eight rubrics (AUROC 0.73-0.88 on factual rubrics), demonstrate cross-model transfer (AUROC 0.66-0.69), and show that a 33M-parameter NLI (Natural Language Inference) model provides a scalable alternative to regex extraction.

Self-verification, re-invoking the same vision language model (VLM) in a fresh context to check its own generated answer, is increasingly used as a default safety layer for medical visual question answering (VQA). We argue that this practice is fundamentally unreliable. We introduce [METHOD NAME], a diagnostic framework for mapping the reliability boundary of medical VLM self-verification by decomposing verifier behavior into discrimination capability and agreement bias. Because the verifier and answer generator are capacity-coupled, the verifier can overly agree with the generator, creating a verification mirage: a regime with both high verifier error and high agreement bias, driven by false acceptance of incorrect answers. Evaluating six open-weight VLMs across five medical VQA datasets and seven medical tasks, we find that this boundary is strongly task-conditioned. Knowledge-intensive clinical tasks fall deepest into the mirage, simpler tasks are more resistant, and perceptual tasks lie in between. Verification also fails to provide an independent safety signal: logistic mixed-effects analysis shows that verifier error and agreement bias become more likely when the generator is wrong, while saliency analyses show that verifiers under-attend to image evidence relative to generators, a phenomenon we call the lazy verifier. Cross-verification reduces but does not eliminate the mirage. Moreover, when verification is reused in multi-turn actor-verifier loops, most initially wrong answers become locked in by false verification. Since our experiments use clean benchmarks, the observed reliability boundary likely underestimates failures in real clinical deployment.

Evaluating whether Multimodal Large Language Models can produce trustworthy, verifiable reasoning over long, visually rich documents requires evaluation beyond end-to-end answer accuracy. We introduce DocScope, a benchmark that formulates long-document QA as a structured reasoning trajectory prediction problem: given a complete PDF document and a question, the model outputs evidence pages, supporting evidence regions, relevant factual statements, and a final answer. We design a four-stage evaluation protocol -- Page Localization, Region Grounding, Fact Extraction, and Answer Verification -- that audits each level of the trajectory independently through inter-stage decoupling, with all judges selected and calibrated via human alignment studies. DocScope comprises 1,124 questions derived from 273 documents, with all hierarchical evidence annotations completed by human annotators. We benchmark 6 proprietary models, 12 open-weight models, and several domain-specific systems. Our experiments reveal that answer accuracy cannot substitute for trajectory-level evaluation: even among correct answers, the highest observed rate of complete evidence chains is only 29%. Across all models, region grounding remains the weakest trajectory stage. Furthermore, the primary difficulty stems from aggregating evidence dispersed across long distances and multiple document clusters, while an oracle study identifies faithful perception and fact extraction as the dominant capability bottleneck. Cross-architecture comparisons further suggest that activated parameter count matters more than total scale. The benchmark and code will be publicly released at https://github.com/MiliLab/DocScope.

Verifiers are crucial components for enhancing modern LLMs' reasoning capability. Typicalverifiers require resource-intensive superviseddataset construction, which is costly and faceslimitations in data diversity. In this paper, wepropose LOVER, an unsupervised verifier regularized by logical rules. LOVER treats theverifier as a binary latent variable, utilizinginternal activations and enforcing three logical constraints on multiple reasoning paths:negation consistency, intra-group consistency,and inter-group consistency (grouped by thefinal answer). By incorporating logical rulesas priors, LOVER can leverage unlabeled examples and is directly compatible with any offthe-shelf LLMs. Experiments on 10 datasetsdemonstrate that LOVER significantly outperforms unsupervised baselines, achieving performance comparable to the supervised verifier(reaching its 95% level on average). The sourcecode is publicly available at https://github.com/wangxinyufighting/llm-lover.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, but retrieval is not verification: a passage can be topical and still fail to justify the answer. We frame this gap as evidence sufficiency verification for selective RAG answering: given a question, a candidate answer, and retrieved evidence, predict whether the evidence supports, refutes, or is insufficient, and abstain unless support is established. We present SURE-RAG, a transparent aggregation protocol built on the observation that evidence sufficiency is a set-level property: missing hops and unresolved conflicts cannot be detected by independent passage scoring. A shared pair-level claim-evidence verifier produces local relation distributions, which SURE-RAG aggregates into interpretable answer-level signals -- coverage, relation strength, disagreement, conflict, and retrieval uncertainty -- yielding a three-way decision and an auditable selective score. We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol (shortcut baselines, counterfactual swaps, no-oracle checks, GPT-4o audits). Calibrated SURE-RAG reaches 0.9075 Macro-F1 (0.8951 +/- 0.0069), substantially above DeBERTa mean-pooling (0.6516) and a GPT-4o judge (0.7284), while matching a strong but opaque concat cross-encoder (0.8888 +/- 0.0109) with full auditability. Risk at 30% coverage drops from 0.2588 to 0.1642, a 37% reduction in unsafe answers. To deliberately probe the task boundary, we further contrast SURE-RAG with GPT-4o on HaluBench unsafe detection: the ranking reverses (0.3343 vs 0.7389 unsafe-F1), establishing that controlled sufficiency verification and natural hallucination detection are distinct problems.

Financial AI systems must produce answers grounded in specific regulatory filings, yet current LLMs fabricate metrics, invent citations, and miscalculate derived quantities. These errors carry direct regulatory consequences as the EU AI Act's high-risk enforcement deadline approaches (August 2026). Existing hallucination detectors treat all claims uniformly, missing 43% of computational errors that require arithmetic re-verification against structured tables. We present FinGround, a three-stage verify-then-ground pipeline for financial document QA. Stage 1 performs finance-aware hybrid retrieval over text and tables. Stage 2 decomposes answers into atomic claims classified by a six-type financial taxonomy and verified with type-routed strategies including formula reconstruction. Stage 3 rewrites unsupported claims with paragraph- and table-cell-level citations. To cleanly isolate verification value from retrieval quality, we propose retrieval-equalized evaluation as standard methodology for RAG verification research: when all systems receive identical retrieval, FinGround still reduces hallucination rates by 68% over the strongest baseline ($p < 0.01$). The full pipeline achieves a 78% reduction relative to GPT-4o. An 8B distilled detector retains 91.4% F1 at 18x lower per-claim latency, enabling $0.003/query deployment, supported by qualitative signals from a four-week analyst pilot.

Verification is becoming central to both reinforcement-learning-based training and inference-time control of large language models (LLMs). Yet current verifiers face a fundamental trade-off: LLM-based verifiers are expressive but hard to control and prone to error, while deterministic executable verifiers are reliable and interpretable but often limited in capability. We study the following question: given a development set of LLM outputs and labels for a target objective, such as correctness, can we automatically induce a minimal set of Python verifiers whose joint satisfaction closely matches that objective? We propose AutoPyVerifier, a framework that uses an LLM to synthesize candidate verifier functions and then refines them through search over a directed acyclic graph (DAG). By navigating the DAG, AutoPyVerifier systematically explores the space of deterministic executable verifiers and selects a compact verifier set whose joint satisfaction best approximates the target objective. Across mathematical reasoning, coding, function calling, and instruction-following benchmarks for several state-of-the-art LLMs, AutoPyVerifier improves target-objective prediction by up to 55.0 F1 points over the initial LLM-generated verifier sets. Additional analyses show that the most useful verification targets vary by benchmark and model, and that the DAG-based search shifts the learned verifier sets toward more structural and semantically grounded checks. We further show that exposing the discovered verifier set to an LLM as an external tool improves downstream accuracy by up to 17.0 points. We release our code

Recent advancements in large language models have led to significant improvements across various tasks, including mathematical reasoning, which is used to assess models' intelligence in logical reasoning and problem-solving. Models are evaluated on mathematical reasoning benchmarks by verifying the correctness of the final answer against a ground truth answer. A common approach for this verification is based on symbolic mathematics comparison, which fails to generalize across diverse mathematical representations and solution formats. In this work, we offer a robust and flexible alternative to rule-based symbolic mathematics comparison. We propose an LLM-based evaluation framework for evaluating model-generated answers, enabling accurate evaluation across diverse mathematical representations and answer formats. We present failure cases of symbolic evaluation in two popular frameworks, Lighteval and SimpleRL, and compare them to our approach, demonstrating clear improvements over commonly used methods. Our framework enables more reliable evaluation and benchmarking, leading to more accurate performance monitoring, which is important for advancing mathematical problem-solving and intelligent systems.