LLM Answer Verification

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable fluency and versatility across a wide range of NLP tasks, yet they remain prone to factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. This limitation poses significant risks in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, and scientific communication, where trust and verifiability are paramount. In this paper, we introduce DAVinCI - a Dual Attribution and Verification framework designed to enhance the factual reliability and interpretability of LLM outputs. DAVinCI operates in two stages: (i) it attributes generated claims to internal model components and external sources; (ii) it verifies each claim using entailment-based reasoning and confidence calibration. We evaluate DAVinCI across multiple datasets, including FEVER and CLIMATE-FEVER, and compare its performance against standard verification-only baselines. Our results show that DAVinCI significantly improves classification accuracy, attribution precision, recall, and F1-score by 5-20%. Through an extensive ablation study, we isolate the contributions of evidence span selection, recalibration thresholds, and retrieval quality. We also release a modular DAVinCI implementation that can be integrated into existing LLM pipelines. By bridging attribution and verification, DAVinCI offers a scalable path to auditable, trustworthy AI systems. This work contributes to the growing effort to make LLMs not only powerful but also accountable.

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to support patients in addressing medical questions is becoming increasingly prevalent. However, most of the measures currently used to evaluate the performance of these models in this context only measure how closely a model's answers match semantically, and therefore do not provide a true indication of the model's medical accuracy or of the health equity risks associated with it. To address these shortcomings, we present a new evaluation framework for medical question answering called VB-Score (Verification-Based Score) that provides a separate evaluation of the four components of entity recognition, semantic similarity, factual consistency, and structured information completeness for medical question-answering models. We perform rigorous reviews of the performance of three well-known and widely used LLMs on 48 public health-related topics taken from high-quality, authoritative information sources. Based on our analyses, we discover a major discrepancy between the models' semantic and entity accuracy. Our assessments of the performance of all three models show that each of them has almost uniformly severe performance failures when evaluated against our criteria. Our findings indicate alarming performance disparities across various public health topics, with most of the models exhibiting 13.8% lower performance (compared to an overall average) for all the public health topics that relate to chronic conditions that occur in older and minority populations, which indicates the existence of what's known as condition-based algorithmic discrimination. Our findings also demonstrate that prompt engineering alone does not compensate for basic architectural limitations on how these models perform in extracting medical entities and raise the question of whether semantic evaluation alone is a sufficient measure of medical AI safety.

Verification of model outputs is rapidly emerging as a key primitive for both training and real-world deployment of large language models (LLMs). In practice, this often involves using imperfect LLM judges and reward models since ground truth acquisition can be time-consuming and expensive. We introduce Fully Unsupervised Score Ensembling (FUSE), a method for improving verification quality by ensembling verifiers without access to ground truth correctness labels. The key idea behind FUSE is to control conditional dependencies between verifiers in a manner that improves the unsupervised performance of a class of spectral algorithms from the ensembling literature. Despite requiring zero ground truth labels, FUSE typically matches or improves upon semi-supervised alternatives in test-time scaling experiments with diverse sets of generator models, verifiers, and benchmarks. In particular, we validate our method on both conventional academic benchmarks such as GPQA Diamond and on frontier, unsaturated benchmarks such as Humanity's Last Exam and IMO Shortlist questions.

Speculative decoding (SD) accelerates large language model inference by allowing a lightweight draft model to propose outputs that a stronger target model verifies. However, its token-centric nature allows erroneous steps to propagate. Prior approaches mitigate this using external reward models, but incur additional latency, computational overhead, and limit generalizability. We propose SpecGuard, a verification-aware speculative decoding framework that performs step-level verification using only model-internal signals. At each step, SpecGuard samples multiple draft candidates and selects the most consistent step, which is then validated using an ensemble of two lightweight model-internal signals: (i) an attention-based grounding score that measures attribution to the input and previously accepted steps, and (ii) a log-probability-based score that captures token-level confidence. These signals jointly determine whether a step is accepted or recomputed using the target, allocating compute selectively. Experiments across a range of reasoning benchmarks show that SpecGuard improves accuracy by 3.6% while reducing latency by ~11%, outperforming both SD and reward-guided SD.

Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification. While large language models (LLMs) have the potential to automate this task, achieving strong performance requires frontier models such as GPT-5 that are prohibitively expensive to deploy at scale. To efficiently perform biomedical evidence attribution, we present Med-V1, a family of small language models with only three billion parameters. Trained on high-quality synthetic data newly developed in this study, Med-V1 substantially outperforms (+27.0% to +71.3%) its base models on five biomedical benchmarks unified into a verification format. Despite its smaller size, Med-V1 performs comparably to frontier LLMs such as GPT-5, along with high-quality explanations for its predictions. We use Med-V1 to conduct a first-of-its-kind use case study that quantifies hallucinations in LLM-generated answers under different citation instructions. Results show that the format instruction strongly affects citation validity and hallucination, with GPT-5 generating more claims but exhibiting hallucination rates similar to GPT-4o. Additionally, we present a second use case showing that Med-V1 can automatically identify high-stakes evidence misattributions in clinical practice guidelines, revealing potentially negative public health impacts that are otherwise challenging to identify at scale. Overall, Med-V1 provides an efficient and accurate lightweight alternative to frontier LLMs for practical, real-world biomedical evidence attribution. Med-V1 is available at https://github.com/NLM-DIR/Med-V1.

Large Language Models (LLMs) using chain-of-thought have demonstrated great potential for solving complex reasoning and planning tasks. Despite these advances, LLM-generated outputs remain susceptible to errors, making verification important for reliable reasoning systems. Learned verifiers can increase trust, enforce safety constraints, and ensure alignment with personal preferences, while also providing feedback to improve generation. This raises a central challenge: when learned verifiers are used to guide generation, the feedback loop between generator and verifier may induce a distribution shift. This is particularly salient for process reward models, a prominent class of learned verifiers that score or classify individual steps in a chain-of-thought reasoning trace. Motivated by this challenge, we propose a new online learning framework for chain-of-thought verifiers that, given a problem statement and a reasoning trace, check the correctness of each reasoning step given the preceding steps. Highlighting the asymmetric role of soundness errors (accepting an incorrect reasoning step) and completeness errors (flagging a correct step as wrong), we introduce novel notions of dimension that characterize their optimal tradeoff. We then show how our learned verifiers can boost the accuracy of a weak generator. Assuming that the generator can produce a correct next step with a small success probability, we show how to learn a strong generator with small error and abstention rates. Our results also allow learning from offline data when queries to an expert verifier can be simulated from a small set of correct reasoning traces. However, we establish a separation between our approach and learning from offline expert demonstrations: we show that learning from offline demonstrations cannot in general achieve the soundness-completeness guarantees produced by our interactive learning approach.

In agentic search, an LLM agent searches the web, reads the pages it finds, and decides what to look for next before returning an answer. But can we trust an answer simply because the agent returns it? Often not, and even a correct answer can be a lucky guess: on questions with several constraints, we find that agents conclude the task is complete while a constraint remains unverified in up to 48% of their correct answers. We call this illusory completion. To see how it arises, we introduce the Epistemic Ledger, which tracks at every turn what the retrieved pages establish about each constraint and what the agent claims. Across 13 agents, from 7B RL-trained models to frontier LLMs, training and scale raise accuracy but change the pattern of verification failures rather than eliminating them: constraints may be left unchecked, assumed without support, or retained despite refuting evidence. To measure what agents lose without tracking their constraints, we show them each constraint's state, approximated by LiveLedger, a lightweight 4B tracker. Agents then answer 4.4-16.1 points more questions correctly, suggesting that on their own, they may not track what they have verified and what remains.

LLMs have shown strong performance in data-rich domains such as programming, but their reliability in engineering tasks remains limited. Circuit analysis is particularly challenging because it requires both multimodal understanding and precise mathematical reasoning. This paper presents an enhanced end-to-end circuit problem-solving framework using Gemini 2.5 Pro as the backbone model for scalable engineering-education applications. We systematically evaluate Gemini 2.5 Pro on undergraduate circuit-analysis problems and identify two major failure modes: circuit-recognition hallucinations, especially source-polarity errors, and reasoning-process hallucinations, such as incorrect current-direction assumptions. To reduce recognition errors, we integrate a fine-tuned YOLO detector with OpenCV-based processing to isolate voltage and current sources for polarity re-identification. To mitigate reasoning errors, we introduce an ngspice-driven verification loop that supports iterative refinement with optional human feedback. On 83 problems, the proposed pipeline achieves 97.59% accuracy, compared with 79.52% for baseline Gemini. Across four hand-drawn diagram variations, accuracy improves from 60.61%--71.21% to 89.39%--92.42%, with statistically significant gains (p<0.005). On 43 problems from a different textbook, accuracy increases from 58.14% to 83.72%, further supporting cross-textbook generalizability. Error analysis shows that circuit recognition remains the dominant source of residual failures, particularly under varying diagram representations. Overall, the framework substantially improves the robustness, scalability, and generalizability of LLM-based circuit problem solving for engineering education and practical circuit analysis.

The integration of Formal Verification tools with Large Language Models (LLMs) offers a path to scale software verification beyond manual workflows. However, current methods remain unreliable: without a solid theoretical footing, the refinement process acts as a black box that may oscillate, loop, or diverge. This work bridges this critical gap by developing an LLM-Verifier Convergence Theorem, providing the first formal framework with provable guarantees for termination in multi-stage verification pipelines. We model the interaction not as a generic loop, but as a sequential absorbing Markov Chain comprising four essential engineering stages: \texttt{CodeGen}, \texttt{Compilation}, \texttt{InvariantSynth}, and \texttt{SMTSolving}. We prove that for any non-zero stage success probability ($δ> 0$), the system reaches the \texttt{Verified} state almost surely. Furthermore, because of the sequential nature of the pipeline, we derive a precise latency bound of $\mathbb{E}[n] \leq 4/δ$. We stress-tested this prediction in an extensive empirical campaign comprising over 90,000 trials. The results match the theory with striking consistency: every run reached verification, and the empirical convergence factor clustered tightly around $C_f\approx 1.0$, confirming that the $4/δ$ bound accurately mirrors system behavior rather than serving as a loose buffer. Based on this data, we identify three distinct operating zones -- marginal, practical, and high-performance -- and propose a dynamic calibration strategy to handle parameter drift in real-world environments. Together, these contributions replace heuristic guesswork with a rigorous architectural foundation, enabling predictable resource planning and performance budgeting for safety-critical software.

Automatic verification is a critical component in building math-solving agents and reinforcement learning, yet it often falls short in generalizability, performance, and cost-efficiency. Identifying that the primary bottleneck of verification lies in error detection capability, we propose pessimistic verification, a paradigm of agentic workflows that rejects a solution if any of multiple parallel verifiers identifies a flaw. We further introduce progressive pessimistic verification, which employs fine-grained proof decomposition to significantly enhance verification accuracy and efficiency. Our approach surpasses the performance and token efficiency of extended long chain-of-thought (long CoT) and mainstream verification workflows, crucially, our analysis reveals that existing benchmarks underestimate its effectiveness on stronger models due to inherent annotation errors. To further validate the effectiveness of our method, we applied a verification-based solving workflow on the IMO 2025 and MathArena Apex 2025 datasets, where the workflow with progressive pessimistic verification exhibits remarkable improvements in both efficiency and accuracy on highly challenging contest-level math problems with state-of-the-art models. Code is available at https://github.com/THUNLP-MT/pverify.

Although large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance, the inherent stochasticity of their reasoning processes and varying conclusions present significant challenges. Majority voting or Best-of-N with external verifiers has been explored to mitigate this, but these approaches are limited in applicability or require additional training. To address this problem, we propose a novel framework that Recycles Few-shot examples to verify LLM outputs (ReFeri). Our key idea is to utilize the given few-shot examples not only to generate outputs, but also to evaluate the candidate outputs. Specifically, ReFeri combines a forward confidence score with a backward reconstruction penalty to select candidates that follow few-shot guidance while avoiding demonstration-specific overfitting. Experiments with three different LLMs across seven diverse tasks demonstrate that our framework significantly improves the accuracy of LLMs---achieving an average relative gain of 8.2%---through effective response selection.

An Achilles heel of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their tendency to hallucinate non-factual statements. A response mixed of factual and non-factual statements poses a challenge for humans to verify and accurately base their decisions on. To combat this problem, we propose Highlighted Chain-of-Thought Prompting (HoT), a technique for prompting LLMs to generate responses with XML tags that ground facts to those provided in the question. That is, given an input question, LLMs would first re-format the question to add XML tags highlighting key facts, and then, generate a response with highlights over the facts referenced from the input. Compared to vanilla chain of thought prompting (CoT), HoT reduces the rate of hallucination and separately improves LLM accuracy consistently on over 22 tasks from arithmetic, reading comprehension, to logical reasoning. When asking humans to verify LLM responses, highlights help time-limited participants to more accurately and efficiently recognize when LLMs are correct. Yet, surprisingly, when LLMs are wrong, HoTs tend to fool users into believing that an answer is correct.