Verification

Vision-language and language models increasingly interpret materials data, yet benchmarks report that they hallucinate invalid properties and violate physical law. Evaluation matches final answers to scarce human labels, while discovery agents verify final proposals or density functional theory (DFT) execution. Neither measures the physical consistency of a model's reasoning chain. Materials data carries its own physics, making a large class of materials reasoning verifiable without annotation. We introduce MatPCR, a label-free benchmark whose programmatic oracles check diffraction geometry through Bragg's law, scale bars, spectral peaks, and Materials Project-grounded checks of near-hull stability, computed band-gap class, and net magnetization. We define the Physical-Consistency Rate over image and structure inputs; introduce Constraint-Grounded Self-Verification, an agentic loop whose gain survives self-refinement and equal-compute re-prompting controls; release an open verifier useful in distribution but near chance on all six held-out constraint types; and derive an exact identity for how oracle error displaces the reported rate.

Large language models are increasingly used for automated fact checking, but end-to-end prompting often entangles evidence retrieval, reasoning, and uncertainty estimation, making failures difficult to diagnose and confidence difficult to trust. We present R2VC, a modular retrieve, reason, verify, calibrate architecture for evidence-grounded fact checking with citations and abstention. R2VC combines hybrid sparse+dense retrieval over Wikipedia, a supervised fine-tuned and DPO-aligned generator that produces diverse structured verdict candidates, an external NLI cross-encoder for evidence-based candidate selection, and a lightweight sequence-level calibrator for confidence estimation and selective abstention. On FEVER, an 8B backbone with R2VC achieves 13.74% higher accuracy than baseline. Ablation studies show that verifier-based candidate selection and confidence calibration are the largest contributors to performance. Removing candidate selection drops FEVER accuracy to 76.24%, while removing calibration nearly doubles the Brier score to 0.161. A manual analysis of 250 errors further shows that retrieval failures, especially wrong-entity evidence, remain the dominant bottleneck. Together, these results show that modular fact-checking pipelines can substantially improve both predictive accuracy and confidence reliability in open-domain verification.

Verification and validation (V&V) of classification models is crucial to enable a wide range of sensor processing applications. Currently, the V&V process relies on time-consuming manual inspection of erroneous samples to find meaningful patterns. This work explores the use of Vision Language Models (VLMs) to speed up this laborious process. VLMs are trained to embed images into a semantically meaningful vector representation, from which human-interpretable systematic errors can be distilled. Deploying such VLM-based methods in a defence context introduces two major challenges: (1) the defence domain is underrepresented in the training data of VLMs, and (2) surroundings and context are less diverse than for other domains. This study provides an initial assessment of the suitability of VLM-based methods for V&V of defence applications. We propose a VLM-based error slice detection (ESD) method that independently groups and labels systematic errors made by a classification model. We demonstrate that this method is able to identify operationally-relevant artificially added perturbations in a non-military dataset. In a military context, our method clusters and describes images based on their surroundings, but also exhibits overlap between cluster descriptions. We further investigate the difference in embedding variation between our military and non-military dataset, which remains a topic of interest. Although the results do not yet warrant fully automated V&V through VLM-based ESD, they show that VLMs could be used to accelerate V&V processes in the future.

Most of mathematical knowledge has been communicated through so-called informal use of mathematics and natural language. With large language models (LLMs) being highly adept in using natural language, they achieve strong performance, yet not perfect, in informal mathematical reasoning. Restraining LLMs to informal reasoning misses out on the opportunity to use the discrete verification abilities that machines offer through machine-checkable proofs. In this paper, we bridge the gap between informal and formal reasoning by integrating Lean signals into the informal reasoning process. We introduce Magenta, a training-free agentic pipeline that, given only a natural-language problem, produces an answer, expresses it as a Lean 4 statement, and constructs a machine-checked proof. A statement judge verifies whether the formalisation preserves the original problem, while an error-attribution judge routes failed attempts either to mathematical re-derivation or local Lean repair. Magenta achieves 100% accuracy across all evaluated olympiad benchmarks, including AIME 2025, AIME 2026, and HMMT February 2026. When paired with the open-weight K2-Horizon-7B reasoner, it solves all six IMO 2026 problems. Our analysis shows that statement adjudication is essential for preventing false certificates and that feedback-guided correction outperforms independent resampling on difficult problems.

On August 2, 2026, the obligations of Article 50 of the EU AI Act took effect, requiring generative AI providers to mark the content their systems produce and ensure it can be detected as AI-generated. Days later, Anthropic disclosed that every Claude model released after that date embeds a watermark based on SynthID-Text in all generated text, enabled by default with no user opt-out; Google has deployed SynthID-Text in Gemini since 2024. Users objected that the watermark degrades quality, particularly for code, that it secretly encodes identifying information, and, in mutual contradiction, that it is easily removable and inescapable; the vendor answered with assurances of unchanged quality, no identifying information, and robustness to light editing. In this work, we argue that neither the objections nor the assurances can currently be verified and that this unverifiability, rather than watermarking itself, is the substantive governance failure. We sort the contested assertions by what it would take to settle each and evaluate the open-source SynthID-Text implementation on two open-weight models, because no public tool can test the deployed systems. On prose, the measured effect of the watermark does not exceed that of changing the sampling seed. On code, the cost is three points of correctness on one model and below measurement on the other, while detection remains near chance, a limitation of detectability rather than quality. The remaining gaps trace to withheld access or missing institutions and we map each to a requirement: release of matched outputs, configuration disclosure, accredited audits, a shared evaluation protocol, and interoperable detection.

Additional inference compute can increase the number of correctly resolved security-assurance tasks, but repeated success, unique coverage, accepted evidence, and operational protection are different quantities. We develop a resource-constrained framework that separates them. For repeated conditionally independent attempts with latent success probability $\Theta$, coverage is $C_n = 1 - E[(1-\Theta)^n]$, and its limiting value is $1 - P(\Theta = 0)$. Positive pairwise outcome correlation does not by itself imply a ceiling below one: we construct two models with the same mean success and pairwise correlation but different limiting coverage. We distinguish this result from the effective sample size used to estimate a mean, and show why finite-budget observations cannot generally identify an asymptotic support ceiling. We then connect coverage to fallible evidence checking, proper scoring of factual grounding, complete resource accounting, service capacity, and a response model that includes mitigation delay. A conceptual defensive architecture separates evidence analysis, adjudication, and operational authority. An evaluation protocol specifies held-out tasks, paired comparisons, negative cases, and uncertainty reporting. The contribution is a consistent theoretical synthesis and a set of counterexamples to invalid extrapolations, rather than an empirical scaling law. All numerical illustrations are analytic; no model-parity result, hardware benchmark, or general attacker-defender equilibrium is claimed.

A verifier for robot policies reads a candidate behavior and returns a score for how well it did, used both to evaluate vision-language-action policies and to train them. Verifiers range from success detectors and reward models to runtime monitors, safety filters, and temporal-logic specifications. We survey roughly 150 verifiers and compare them along two properties. Availability is how much a verdict costs, how early in a rollout the verdict arrives, and how often a verdict can be asked for. Availability rises as verdicts get cheaper, earlier, and denser. Credibility is how much a high score tells us about the task. Credibility falls as the judgment becomes gameable and self-serving. We group the verifiers by who supplies the judgment: human verifiers, rule-based and formal verifiers, learned and pretrained verifiers, and model-intrinsic verifiers. Across the four families, we find that credibility falls as availability rises. Regardless of who supplies the judgment, there is no free checker. We then examine what validates a verifier itself, and how much a high score tells us. Three measures appear in the literature: agreement with human labels, the performance of the policy it trains, and behavior under reward hacking. We close with nine metrics that make a verifier claim checkable, and coordinates for the verifiers still to be built.

Frontier gains in language-model reasoning come from reinforcement learning on reasoning traces and are concentrated in domains with a cheap, sound verifier. We argue the field's binding constraint is the verification gap: no scalable, incorruptible reward for reasoning outside formal domains. We make four contributions. (1) Theory: in a joint-Gaussian model of best-of-N selection, verifier-gold correlation rho is the exact exchange rate between test-time compute and capability, and an unsound verifier pays a polynomial penalty N^(1/rho^2); a margin-free copula form predicts realized soundness of real LLM judges to 4% median error. (2) Demonstration: in program-synthesis testbeds with executable ground truth, including a pre-registered scaled replication, unsound verifiers lose Soundness-under-Pressure as optimization grows (0.94 to 0.32 at N=4096) while a sound verifier improves monotonically; reality-anchored settlement beats a frozen verifier under i.i.d. and adversarial pressure, driving the hacking gap from ~0.27 to ~0; soundness scales log-linearly with settled labels, with on-policy settlement ~10x more label-efficient than random labeling. With real LLM judges and unit-test execution as gold, a weak judge loses soundness under best-of-N (p<0.001), a stronger judge is more robust, and selection alone manufactures +0.53 hacking gaps from honest samples. Under real GRPO training, a frozen reward model traces the full overoptimization curve (executed reward collapses 90%) while the same model refit on a 10% settlement stream preserves 6x the executed reward. (3) Paradigm: proof-carrying cognition, where reasoning steps are typed probabilistic claims priced by a self-built world model trained only on held-out reality and settled by proper scoring rules. (4) Benchmark: we specify Soundness-under-Pressure as the headline metric for a reality-settled reasoning benchmark.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting enables LLMs to perform explicit, step-by-step reasoning, creating opportunities for sophisticated autonomous robots. However, recent research reveals that reasoning models verbalize their actual decision processes only 25-39% of the time, with faithfulness degrading 44% on complex tasks. This paper presents CT-SAFR (Chain-of-Thought Safety and Faithfulness for Robotics), a multi-layered verification framework achieving 94.2% hallucination detection (n = 500, 95% CI: 91.8-95.9%) with sub-500ms latency. Through a warehouse robot case study, this work demonstrates 87% reduction in unsafe reasoning outputs (p < 0.001) and provides recommendations for responsible deployment of reasoning-capable autonomous robots.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed with hierarchical instructions, yet they remain vulnerable to conflicts in which user directives override system-level constraints. Existing defense mechanisms predominantly focus on static input inspection and therefore fail to detect Response Drift, a phenomenon in which the model's final response violates system-level constraints despite seemingly compliant inputs. To bridge this gap, we introduce ELCD, a response-level latent conflict detector for post-generation, pre-delivery verification. Given the full generated output, ELCD constructs a composite hidden-state representation by concatenating the final-token embedding with the mean-pooled response embedding. It then optimizes a pairwise margin ranking objective to separate compliant and drifting responses in latent space. Extensive experiments across five mainstream LLMs ranging from 1.5B to 14B parameters demonstrate that ELCD significantly outperforms competitive baselines. Notably, it improves the PR-AUC on Llama-2-7B by approximately 30 percentage points and reduces the False Positive Rate at 95% TPR (FPR95) on Mistral-7B to 2.67%. These results suggest that ELCD provides a promising approach for latent instruction-conflict detection in open-weight or self-hosted LLM deployments.

Hallucination detection is crucial for large language models (LLMs), as hallucinated content creates significant barriers in applications requiring factual accuracy. Current detection methods mainly depend on internal signals like uncertainty and self-consistency checks, using the model's pre-trained knowledge to identify unreliable outputs. However, pre-trained knowledge may become outdated and has coverage limitations, especially for specialized or recent information. To address these limitations, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution by retrieving relevant evidence at inference time, grounding outputs beyond the model's parametric knowledge. In this paper, we target a critical and practical learning problem RAG-based hallucination detection (RHD), where RAG is employed to enhance hallucination detection by addressing information updating challenges. To address RHD, we propose a novel method Evidence-Aligned Entity Verification (EAEV), which detects entity-level hallucinations by leveraging RAG to align generated entities with retrieved evidence contexts. Specifically, EAEV evaluates entity-evidence alignment through three complementary dimensions and introduces counterfactual stability analysis to ensure robust alignments under evidence perturbations. Experiments across multiple RAG benchmarks demonstrate that EAEV achieves consistent improvements over existing methods with strong generalization capabilities.

Reasoning agents increasingly rely on external tools such as web search to answer complex queries. Reinforcement learning (RL) finetuning algorithms such as GRPO have improved long-form reasoning in text-only language models, particularly for coding and mathematics. Reliable tool use in multimodal agents, however, remains challenging because models must interpret text and images while integrating noisy retrieved evidence, often under sparse outcome-level supervision without explicit verification signals. We present Self-Verification via Reinforcement Learning (SVRL), an RL-only finetuning framework that trains multimodal agents to verify and filter retrieved evidence within their own reasoning traces, reducing reliance on external verifiers at inference time. SVRL also introduces a search-aware penalty that discourages unnecessary tool calls and a query-diversity reward that encourages diverse, well-formed search queries, providing fine-grained feedback on when and what to search. Finetuning Qwen-2.5-VL-7B with SVRL on only 5{,}000 visual question answering examples yields consistent gains in multi-hop VQA generalization and tool efficiency across benchmarks. Overall, SVRL narrows the gap between compact agents and much larger proprietary models while requiring substantially lower training and inference cost.

Multi-agent federations need governance that answers three questions under adversarial conditions: who participated (identity), did they conform (enforcement), and who decides (authority). A separate question is whether the verification machinery that polices a federation's outputs can also steer a generate-and-test loop toward better answers. Part I. PRIMA introduced prime-power agent identity and a consensus token whose factorization indexes participation, but assumed honest agents. We present PRIMUS, which couples prime-power identity with BLS aggregate signatures (PIAC), derives a safe-kill threshold that reduces false-positive agent termination from 80% to 0.00% under 10% channel noise, gives the closed-form economic boundary where singleton governance outperforms Byzantine quorum ($γ^* \approx 9f$, verified flat across n = 50 to 10,000), and specifies VRF succession with lease and fencing that makes safety unconditional under partial synchrony. Five problems are identified as provably unfixable within the model and stated as scope boundaries. Part II. A verifier is not a solver. We ask whether PRIMA's binary artifact-fidelity verdict can be converted into a graded fitness signal, and measure the conversion on binary covering codes. Calibration against injected fault burden is strong ($ρ$ = 0.676 deterministic, 0.819 full); against real LLM-generated candidates the same scores fall to 0.158 and 0.406, roughly a quarter of the calibration value (the same-designer confound, measured). As a pre-filter it beats a random-score control convincingly and a binary gate narrowly. Under 400 iterations of explicit optimization it was not gamed, but only because the objective saturated after one honest answer. A cross-family judge preserves the burden-ordering signal while destroying individual judgments. No covering-code record resulted. Measured program cost: USD 164.78.

Multi-agent LLM pipelines increasingly span organisational boundaries; when a fault surfaces, someone must determine where it entered. The artifact available is rarely a full execution trace: it is the reports each agent filed, and a filed report can state a conclusion alongside its observations. Using a pre-registered, institutionally partitioned pipeline of six agents with process-level information boundaries, balanced defect injection and matched clean twins (345,600 requests per chain model, two models), we first report that our pre-registered hypothesis -- that collective responsibility framing degrades escalation with chain length -- is not supported. The layer nevertheless fails asymmetrically. It originates almost nothing: zero allegations across 7,996 clean episodes where every agent stayed silent. It filters upstream error poorly, naming an innocent party in 34.4% and 62.6% of clean episodes where an agent raised a false alarm. Conditional on no agent proposing the true origin (59.5% of episodes on one chain model), an auditor reading the reports recovers it in 4.1% of cases -- below a uniform guess (20%) and the best fixed-link accuser (31.0%) -- while reaching 60.3% from the raw documentation of the same episodes. Deleting one clause, the field carrying the agents' own conclusion, isolates the cause at constant observations: accuracy rises to 45.2% (+41.2 pp, 95% CI +35.3 to +46.9) and adherence collapses from 94.4% to 3.4%; where the suggestion was correct the same deletion instead costs accuracy, 70.5% to 55.7%. The harm replicates on two frontier auditors in four conditions out of four (+8.5 to +39.0 pp) and in a second domain (+47.7 and +61.1 pp), where the cost disappears. The net effect is governed by upstream reliability together with both conditional magnitudes. An accountability layer needs evidence sufficiently independent of the conclusions it verifies.

How can vision-language models help video anomaly detection (VAD) when surveillance data remain distributed, weakly labeled, and resource-constrained? Most weakly supervised VAD methods assume centralized training; recent VLM-based extensions further rely on dense inference, generated explanations, or additional adaptation. We introduce a lightweight federated MIL-VLM cascade in which only a compact MIL scorer is trained across clients, while a frozen VLM verifies high-scoring suspect segments post hoc. We study two VLM feedback interfaces: parsed text-generation decisions and a logit-based interface that extracts a continuous anomaly score from next-token Yes/No probabilities. Experiments on UCF-Crime with InternVL3.5-2B and Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct show that text-generation verification can improve frame-level AUC after diagnostic temporal post-processing, but remains sensitive to prompts, parsers, model choice, and smoothing. In contrast, the logit interface provides a fixed parser-free signal that improves both frame-level AUC and frame-level AP over the MIL baseline across both VLMs, without temporal post-processing in its main configuration. Since suspect segments are updated independently once available, next-token logit feedback provides a simple segment-local alternative to text-generation verification.

Natural-language Computer-Aided Design (CAD) code generation aims to turn design intent into executable and editable parametric programs. Large language models (LLMs) make this goal increasingly practical, but useful systems must preserve the construction process behind the rendered geometry. Existing benchmarks and methods mostly focus on how closely the generated CAD model matches the reference geometry, often using metrics such as Intersection over Union (IoU). Such metrics can miss errors in part decomposition, construction hierarchy, Boolean operations, sketch structure, and geometric relations. This gap calls for a representation that makes design intent explicit and lets a system check generated code against that intent. We propose CIT-CAD, a framework that infers a Constraint Intent Tree (CIT) from the input description to represent the intended entities, hierarchy, operations, and relations. The tree has two roles: it guides CAD code generation and defines expected constraints for verification. The framework extracts actual constraints from the generated program, compares them with the expected constraints, and uses mismatches to localize and repair design violations. Experiments show that the framework improves CAD generation performance, with larger gains on more complex multi-entity designs. By turning design intent into an explicit and checkable object, this work is the first attempt to move text-to-CAD generation beyond rendered-geometry matching toward construction-aware synthesis, verification, and repair.

An agent that inherits six one-line memories may pull at most one archived source record before acting; a directive written into the store can steer that choice: a pointer to the record, a criterion that identifies it, or both. Across twelve registered studies on one instrument lineage (14,760 attempts) we measured where the request goes under each form. On six direct-provider models a length-matched criterion exceeded a bare id by +35.0 points [+31.2, +38.8] (Study D); the contrast failed its registered superiority rule on a nine-model OpenRouter-served panel (Study E). Appending the id cancelled the criterion on three Claude models (Opus 5: 40/40 to 0/40; Study F-x); six byte-matched edits gave each exact string its own effect (Study G), and a re-run at eighty runs per cell left fifteen of thirty replication contrasts within the margin, fifteen unresolved and none beyond (Study G'). A ratification line (+96.0 points on Opus 5) and a budget of two credits restored the target on all three (Study J); across five criterion strings the suffix's cancellation held for four of the five wordings on Opus 5 and all five wordings on Fable 5.1 (Study H2); in a second store every model followed the criterion (Study H1). Continued into a decision, the criterion moved the choice toward the current record (+100.0 points, Opus 5) and away from it on Fable 5.1 (Study I). A one-character plan pointer's effect (+78.0 points; Study B, after a correction of its first repository report) returned the same verdict under a prospectively registered re-run (+81.7 points; Study B'). All results are descriptive effects of exact edits on fixed panels with registered intervals and no mechanism claim.

Visual fluency in generated video does not imply physical reliability, and a scalar quality score alone is incapable of indicating the obligation a clip violates or the moment it fails. We present VeriPhy, an auditable physical-verification system in which a text-only planner compiles the prompt into typed physical obligations and a statically validated execution plan before any frame is observed. During execution, observations gate and scope only declared calls to frozen low-level experts (e.g., segmentation and tracking, counting, eleven typed physical measurements over the resulting tracks, depth, OCR, and audio-event detection). Each action returns a provenance-carrying evidence record whose payload, when usable, is either a typed measurement or an explicitly tagged learned state. Typed resolvers and fixed composition map usable records to a three-valued state (supported, contradicted, or unknown, surfaced as plausible, implausible, or abstain) with full provenance, so that every verdict is traceable to the evidence that produced it. We anchor evaluation in a 1,500-clip corpus of human-annotated flaw records that localize real generation failures in prompt reference, space, and time. On a 149-clip core carrying 304 such records, VeriPhy accounts for 228, against 164 for a published question-decomposition evaluator given the same clips and the same claims. Recall alone does not separate it from prompting the same backbone monolithically, which reaches 222; what separates them is that each decision retains its evidence record and provenance, making the traces auditable one verdict at a time and usable as the interface through which a critic verdict could be written back into generation.

Scientific benchmarks are commonly built by domain experts who write tasks and cross-check one another's work, or who adapt existing material from textbooks, published papers, and online resources. These routes can produce strong evaluations, but they require substantial per-item labor. Language models can reduce this repeated work by proposing candidates quickly. The remaining problem is acceptance. We target scientific questions whose answers require computations with specialist software rather than unaided reasoning alone. A candidate is invalid if its script fails or returns a different answer, or trivial if a model answers it without the software. We present ToolGate, which treats every generated item as a proposal and keeps it only if three gates pass. First, an executable solution script must reproduce the proposed answer when run with the scientific software. Second, randomized no-tool screening rejects candidates that models can already solve from the prompt alone. Third, a tool-using agent must solve each survivor within a fixed time limit. We instantiate ToolGate in FEniCSx with 500 generation attempts. The local-verification gate retains 478 candidates. For final reporting, we rescreen this pool after generation: two randomized no-tool screens exclude 222 from the reported pool, and direct GPT-5.5 API calls at medium reasoning (the API default) exclude another 121. Of the remaining 135, a GPT-5.5 Codex CLI agent with access to FEniCSx solves 130; exact deduplication leaves 128 unique protocol survivors. ToolGate turns repeated answer checking and difficulty screening into an auditable process while leaving domain design and final review to experts.

Despite recent advances in large vision-language models (LVLMs), object hallucination remains a major barrier to their reliable deployment. Existing detection methods often characterize visual grounding using attention from individual layers, leaving its evolution across layers underexplored. We propose CADMP, a lightweight object hallucination detection framework that combines adjacent-layer cross-modal attention drift with prediction sensitivity to targeted visual masking. During decoding, CADMP quantifies distributional changes between consecutive cross-modal attention maps to capture abrupt transitions in visual grounding. It then selects the transition with the largest drift, locates the corresponding visually relevant regions, and measures the change in prediction probability after masking these regions. These two signals provide complementary evidence: attention drift characterizes the stability of internal visual grounding, while probability variation verifies whether a prediction truly depends on the identified visual evidence. A lightweight detector integrates both signals to identify hallucinated predictions. Experiments on multiple benchmarks and representative open-source LVLMs demonstrate that CADMP achieves consistently competitive detection performance. Ablation studies further confirm the complementary contributions of adjacent-layer drift modeling and mask-based grounding verification.

Agent evaluations face two distinct evidentiary questions: whether a reported claim is recomputable from retained evidence (sufficiency), and whether the retained records cover the committed experiment set (coverage). Generic logs and hash-linked transcripts answer neither reliably. We introduce ClaimReceipt, a claim-relative receipt specification and selective verifier that binds typed transaction evidence to a signed experiment manifest and returns PASS, INVALID, or INCONCLUSIVE per claim. We freeze the specification before implementation (SHA-256 18d109...b81). On 1,392 historical buyer--seller records, a CR-2 verifier reproduces all five manually labeled audit verdicts, exactly replays 600 deterministic and 792 post-generation records, makes every one of 13 declared field groups non-redundant under tested ablations, and returns the expected result on 11/11 semantic faults with 0/8 false positives. We then run a separate prospective CR-3 epoch: 30 assignments are committed before inference, terminal receipts are signed and chained, and private evidence is encrypted for an auditor. Complete evidence yields coverage and accounting PASS; withholding one terminal receipt returns INCONCLUSIVE_COVERAGE, while withholding all private openings preserves coverage and protocol verification but makes economic claims inconclusive, exactly matching a preregistered prediction. Receipt instrumentation adds 0.021% of model-inference time and 9.9 KB per transaction. A specification-legibility probe indicates that our own frozen specification is not yet unambiguous to an independent reader. Claim verification therefore requires both claim-sufficient evidence and a committed universe against which omissions become visible.

Multi-agent systems have shown strong performance in domains with reliable verifiers such as coding, where multi-parallel candidate generation selected by a verifier is effective. However, such pipelines would not generalize to open-ended, long-horizon research tasks without a verifier. While majority voting or self-consistency is often used to reach consensus as a proxy verifier, parallel agents repeatedly explore the same evidence, while access to peers' partial findings cause search to converge on an early candidate before alternatives are tested. We present ArcticSwarm, a multi-agent research architecture that separates evidence gathering from evidence integration. Subagents publish findings to a shared bulletin board, while gated isolation lets selected search tasks maintain their own prior, preventing early consensus. Structured review at three commitment boundaries enforce only confident candidates to be propagated. As a result, ArcticSwarm reaches 82.6% on the full BrowseComp-Plus set with the open-weight Qwen 3.5-27B model, compared with 78.8% without gated isolation and 74.5% additionally with structured review disabled, outperforming aligned baseline MiroFlow runs (70.6%). Extending to live-web BrowseComp, ArcticSwarm reaches 73.6% with GPT-5, which is well above the reported provider system (54.9%) and MiroFlow (63.4%). Overall, the results show that restricting peer reads during evidence gathering and strengthening commitment boundaries before a hypothesis is shared can broaden search and improve long-horizon multi-agent deep research.

Sentence-level recognition of depression symptoms is challenging because similar expressions can differ in symptom relevance, and language-model inference is insufficiently grounded in diagnostic definitions. This study proposes a two-stage framework separating symptom-candidate generation from definition-grounded verification. A contrastively fine-tuned sentence encoder generates a symptom candidate per sentence, and a fine-tuned language model verifies whether the candidate is present or absent using the sentence, its context, and a candidate-specific diagnostic definition, checking its judgment against that definition before answering. Evaluated against encoder, inference-based, medical, and general LLM baselines and a matched single-stage supervised classifier, the proposed pipeline attains the best accuracy and F1 scores of all methods, with rationales matching expert-authored annotations. A preliminary clinical audit indicates moderate alignment with diagnostic definitions, with explanation quality strongly dependent on prediction correctness. The results support decomposing symptom recognition into candidate generation and definition-grounded verification, though performance remains limited for rare categories.

Vision Language Models have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in interpreting static visual artifacts, but modern data analysis is inherently dynamic, requiring the active interrogation of interactive environments. Existing benchmarks are predominantly constrained to static imagery and one-shot question answering and fail to capture the epistemic demands of this domain, where evidence is frequently occluded, distributed across linked views, or conditionally revealed through user agency. In this paper, we introduce InSight, a benchmark for agentic claim verification over interactive visualizations. The dataset consists of 21,349 claims derived from human-authored analytical narratives and grounded in fully interactive web-based environments. Agents must navigate these environments to determine whether a natural language claim is supported, refuted or not verifiable given the available evidence. Unlike traditional evaluations, InSight treats interaction traces as intrinsic proxies for reasoning, enabling a rigorous audit of how models seek and synthesize visual evidence. We evaluate state-of-the-art models, revealing that interactive verification remains a non-trivial challenge. We release InSight at https://github.com/maevehutch/insight.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and standard benchmark evaluation both rely on an automatic verifier that turns a free text answer into a binary reward. Prior work reports that one evaluation harness accepts only about 94% of its own ground truth answers, blaming LaTeX parsing. That is an aggregate: it does not say which answer forms consume the error budget. We supply the decomposition. We apply metamorphic testing to the verifier rather than the model, generating certified equivalent answer variants, that is, rewrites that preserve mathematical meaning by construction, so that any rejection is a provable false negative needing no human adjudication. We then measure rejection per answer category across four widely used verifiers over 307,420 verdicts. We find three things. (1) Self validation ranges from 53.8% to 95.2% on identical inputs, a spread of 41.3 points. The published figure describes one implementation, not the task; two configurations of the same library disagree on 49.9% of pairs. (2) The residual is not spread across parsing categories but concentrated in whitespace and punctuation, which account for 93.0% of in contract failures for the default LaTeX configuration. A trailing period or newline dominates the budget. (3) Separating rejection from execution failure shows that verifiers with similar aggregate error fail for opposite reasons, and that a reference numeric cascade accepts off by one wrong answers as a step function of magnitude, from 0% below 10^4 to 100% at or above, because its relative tolerance is scale invariant.

Inference cascades cut cost by answering most queries with a cheap model and escalating a hard tail to a frontier model that acts as verifier. A natural extension closes the loop: fine-tune the cheap student on the verifier's rejections so the escalation rate, and cost, fall each round. We measure this loop on real LLMs and report four findings. First, the verifier's blind spot, the fraction of the student's wrong answers it accepts, is large and moves adversarially: it grows with student capability ($β$ from 0.12 to 0.55 as the student scales 0.5B to 32B) and shrinks with verifier capability, so it is worst in the cheap-student, cheap-verifier regime cascades exist to create. Second, buying it away returns the saving: a frontier verifier drives $β$ to about 0.05 but then escalates on 46% of hard-MATH queries against a 39% true error rate, paying the frontier price on nearly half of all traffic. Third, naive corrective fine-tuning on the verifier-rejected tail does not improve the small student but degrades and ultimately collapses it, across every teacher we tried (cross-family and same-family), so at this scale the self-improving loop is self-defeating. Fourth, through all of this the cascade's own dashboard, every metric computed through the verifier, reads a flat 3% error while true delivered error swings up to 32%: the system is blind to its own degradation by construction. We then give the theory that explains the blindness, a two-population conservation law, $ε_\infty \lesssim q_0 β_0$, under which every in-loop metric improves while true quality does not, and a synthetic study that validates the mechanism. The practical conclusion: the reliability of a self-improving cascade cannot be read from any metric computed through its own verifier.

Flagship language models appear saturated on benchmarks like MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2021), scoring above 90% - yet benchmarks test only what the experimenter thought to ask, the availability bias of fixed question sets. LLMPEDIA makes this bias measurable and browsable. We recursively materialized ~1.3M articles from three model families' parametric memory (GPT-5-mini, DeepSeek-V3.2, Llama-3.3-70B) without retrieval, then audited a stratified sample of atomic claims against Wikipedia and a curated web stack, coloring every claim supported, refuted, or insufficient (Saeed and Razniewski, 2026). On a uniform random sample the true rate is 68.4% - more than 21 pp below MMLU - with 30.5% of claims insufficient: assertions no benchmark probes and the world's largest encyclopedia cannot adjudicate - long-tail knowledge or plausible hallucination, the evidence cannot tell - extending to free text the coverage gap GPTKB established for triples (Hu et al., 2025). The resulting live, open encyclopedia lets visitors inspect this frontier one claim at a time through five one-click views - link-traversal exploration, claim-level factuality, cross-model and political-persona comparison, and a guided topic drill-down - each page, claim, and verdict at a stable URL. LLMPEDIA is live at https://llmpedia.net

Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) requires an agent to navigate through unseen 3D environments according to natural-language instructions. Explicit reasoning can improve instruction understanding and semantic grounding, but autoregressive generation at every step accumulates large decision-stage latency over multi-step navigation. We propose VerNav, a verifier-first framework for low-latency LLM-based VLN. The verifier reduces decision-stage latency by replacing per-step autoregressive generation with batched action verification, while an entropy-based adaptive generator is invoked only for uncertain decisions to produce compact state evidence. To further improve navigation performance with the verifier, we introduce a two-stage alignment scheme: (i) VPO improves local action-preference alignment in static verifier training, and (ii) step-level reinforcement fine-tuning provides dense progress rewards over multi-step navigation rollouts during dynamic task execution. Experiments on the Room-to-Room (R2R) benchmark show that the verifier-only decision path of VerNav achieves competitive navigation performance among representative LLM-based VLN agents while reducing average decision-stage LLM latency per step by more than $10\times$ compared with autoregressive methods.

Language model agents increasingly propose actions, observe external feedback, and explain their own behavior. Their confidence and rationales are convenient monitoring signals, but convenience is not verification. We introduce an environment-grounded audit in which every intermediate proposal receives an exact outcome. A language model operates an evolutionary Contexto search whose feedback function assigns every valid guess an exact rank without human annotation. Across 200 runs spanning five configurations and three model families, four reporting configurations produce 12,249 self-reports. We test three assumptions: stated confidence is calibrated, inherited rationales affect later proposals, and fitness-based selection improves report quality. All three fail. Operators overstate top-100 success by factors of 4.8 to 9.3, while calibration and discrimination dissociate across model families. Controlled interventions on 754 inherited rationales bound any measured benefit of the genuine rationale to roughly 250 ranks. Neither fitness-based nor random selection produces a detectable selection differential or parent-to-offspring transmission in report accuracy, despite sharply different search behavior. Agent self-reports should therefore be treated as claims to verify against the environment, not as evidence of their own reliability.

Social media fact-checking has long been challenged by evidence-level and aggregation-level conflicts, where erroneous evidence mimics authoritative news sources. To capture this challenge and support conflict verification tasks, we present ContraNote, a large-scale real-world dataset curated from X's Community Notes system. It includes 33,686 posts for evaluating evidence-level conflict resolution, and 54,474 instances for evaluating aggregation-level prioritization. Additionally, we propose CoVer, a factual adjudication framework with three-stage pipelines: evidence schema normalization, factual consensus and support verification. This prioritizes evidence over noise to prevent it from compromising the final verdict. Technical evaluations show that CoVer achieves strong performance compared with state-of-the-art baselines across ContraNote (86.0% Acc., 68.0% mac. F1, 64.5 bal. Acc. on Conflict; and 88.5% Acc., 88.5 mac. F1 and 89.2 bal. Acc. on Prioritization), CONFACT-HumC (88.4% Acc.) and CONFACT-ModC (89.4% Acc.).

AI compute verification is one of the first tangible and tractable points for international policy aimed at AI governance. Determining whether frontier labs, or any operator, comply with agreements requires the regulating authority to discern how their compute is used. The elementary building block of AI compute is the GPU, and any activity it executes leaves a physical trace. Here, we show that an external observer can identify the class of the workload running on an NVIDIA H200 from its power draw. Unlike on-chip NVML telemetry, which can be spoofed or replayed, such a physical channel can in principle be observed independently of operator cooperation. We recorded $930$ five-second traces at $\sim 10$ MHz, covering seventeen open LLM families and twenty-five non-AI workloads. Over this corpus we separate training from inference and from non-AI computation with an accuracy of $97\%$ and a macro-averaged F1 score of $0.955$, evaluated on model families unseen during training. AI workload spectral content predominantly lies below $\sim 20$kHz and training is particularly recognizable through the memory-bound optimizer update. The GPU operator is then treated as adversarial and able to reshape the physical computation itself. Four evasion strategies are tested to disguise training as inference, producing an additional 680 adversarial traces. A detector hardened against evasion strategies, with the tested strategy held out, catches training $\geq 99\%$ of the time for three of the four strategies. The fourth, diluted low-rank adaptation (LoRA), is detected $48$--$88\%$ of the time with a hardened classifier, rising to $\geq 98\%$ with an additional rescue rule. While these attacks are not a comprehensive evaluation against adversarial behaviour, they offer initial insights beyond genuine activities and a dataset for developing and testing stronger evasion mechanisms.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved strong performance on OCR-centric document understanding and text-rich visual reasoning benchmarks. Yet existing evaluations largely assume that every task is valid and answerable. In real-world OCR scenarios, this assumption often fails: questions may rely on illegible text, occluded evidence, nonexistent visual targets, contradictory premises, or missing variables. We study this reliability gap as OCR-grounded Task Verification: before answering, a model should determine whether the Image Premise (IP), Textual Premise (TP), and Question (Q) jointly define an executable task. We introduce VeriOCRBench, a 1,800-sample human-verified benchmark built from source images drawn from 8 OCR-related datasets and spanning 8 real-world image domains, with controlled, image-grounded diagnostic tasks. It contains 1,600 trap-injected invalid tasks across 8 trap types and four verification dimensions---Visual, Contextual, Factual, and Logical---plus 200 trap-free controls for measuring over-refusal. Built with a Visual Atomic Fact (VAF)-anchored pipeline and full human auditing, VeriOCRBench enables decoupled evaluation of task verification, root-cause diagnosis, and over-refusal. Evaluating 15 leading MLLMs reveals persistent blind compliance, diagnosis failures, and prompt-induced over-refusal, exposing a critical reliability gap in current OCR reasoning systems. The code is available at: https://github.com/zy001122/Beyond-Blind-Compliance.

The 2025--2026 AI market has seen a wave of stealth releases: frontier models launched anonymously on developer platforms under codenames. For their users, identity determines data-handling terms, supply-chain risk, and capability expectations. No validated methodology exists for black-box identity verification of anonymous models: practitioner checklists lack accuracy evidence, and self-identification is untrustworthy by design. We propose a four-stage forensic audit protocol for API-served models. Stage 0 reconstructs launch-time configuration from archived platform snapshots (Internet Archive), exposing preview--production drift. Stage 1 fingerprints configuration (context, output ceiling, reasoning, modality) against the platform catalog. Stage 2 tests tokenizer identity with a cross-length differential that rejects short-prompt collisions. Stage 3 corroborates with behavioral probes. We test declaration consistency on 10 known-identity releases (7 exact, 2 precision-differences, 1 partial, 0 counter-directional), not end-to-end identification under anonymity. Identification is validated prospectively on a flagship case whose 2026-08-23 analysis pointed to the GLM-5.3 version line and whose official reveal confirmed those family and version-line inferences (deployment variant was not pre-asserted; Flash was consistent post-reveal), and on three Stage-0-only cases where the protocol produced a graded hypothesis or declined rather than guessed. A standard-library-only implementation is provided as supplementary material.

The advent of foundation models have enabled a new era in zero-shot classification. Yet, key challenges persist. Despite their impressive generalization power that leverages the immense pre-training knowledge, both foundation models for image and text as well as vision-text hybrids lack the representational power needed for fine-grained, minutiae-based class separation that some real-world tasks require. To address the current gaps in the literature, we propose VeriCam, a pipeline designed to learn highly specialized features that enable classification of unknown classes in unseen data. VeriCam works by leveraging the representation power of image models trained for the verification task, where the model develops an intricate feature space that incorporates fine-grained details. By training a model to discriminate between pairs of images from the same and different classes, a relational graph is constructed, representing the class relationships between data points. We then present two approaches for graph clustering: a naive algorithm and a specific setup for the Leiden graph clustering algorithm. The pipeline is validated on the LPLCv2 dataset, which comprises real-world traffic surveillance images. We show that the dataset carries an inherent capture device bias that is posed as a generalization challenge for downstream License Plate recognition tasks such as OCR. As such, we dynamically identify capture devices with a label-agnostic approach, enabling the construction of a fair and unbiased benchmark. In the cross-device scenario, our pipeline reaches an F1-Score of 93.45 in the verification baseline and a V-Measure score of 80.13 in the clustering step. All code is publicly available at https://github.com/lmlwojcik/VeriCam

Masked diffusion language models predict tokens from a partially observed response canvas, enabling bidirectional conditioning and parallel token refinement. Yet standard masked-diffusion decoders use a rigid inference interface: the number of masked positions allocated to the answer is fixed before generation begins. Choosing this length is difficult. A short canvas can truncate reasoning or code, while a long canvas wastes computation and can perturb denoising. We introduce CARVE (Counterfactual-Aware Reveal with Verified Expansion), a training-free variable-length algorithm for masked diffusion LMs. Starting from a shorter canvas, CARVE can grow the response during decoding by inserting additional [MASK] positions. Rather than keeping every insertion, CARVE tests a candidate expanded canvas and asks a counterfactual question: would the model make similar predictions for the unresolved positions in the original canvas if the extra masked space were present? The inserted masks are kept only when they induce low Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence on aligned unresolved positions. This makes length growth a verified stability decision rather than a pure confidence heuristic. CARVE applies without retraining to both full-canvas and blockwise diffusion decoders. Across code generation and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, CARVE consistently improves average performance over fixed-length baselines across all evaluated model families. Crucially, CARVE achieves these accuracy gains while reducing inference cost, reaching half the FLOPs of fixed-length decoding in some settings.

Large language models can often generate plausible mathematical reasoning traces, but reliably identifying the correct solution among multiple candidates remains a key challenge. Existing test-time reasoning pipelines typically rely on text-based verifiers that re-read each generated solution, making verification an expensive component of inference. Prior work has shown, however, that LLMs often encode correctness-related signals in their internal representations, including awareness of when their own answers are likely to be wrong. Building on this observation, we introduce HSRM, a lightweight hidden-state reward model that verifies candidate solutions by directly reading the generator's internal representations rather than re-processing its text. HSRM extracts hidden states from a frozen generator at reasoning-step boundaries and uses a small Transformer encoder to rank candidates. It is trained from self-generated trajectories with outcome labels, requiring neither human-written process supervision nor a large pretrained verifier. Across four mathematical reasoning benchmarks, HSRM matches or outperforms a 55M-parameter text-only energy verifier in 15 of 16 generator--dataset settings while using only about 2M parameters, providing an efficient alternative to text-only verification by reusing representations already computed during generation.

Long-paragraph detailed audio captioning, which requires dense and transcript-faithful descriptions of fine-grained audio content, remains unsolved for current audio-visual multimodal language models. We attribute this failure to two structural problems. The first is data poverty, as no public corpus jointly provides long clips, paragraph captions, and verbatim-transcript fidelity. The second is generation-mode failure, evidenced by a 44.8 to 46.4 percentage-point gap between right-audio and shuffled-audio multiple-choice question (MCQ) accuracy. We address both within Self-Check Captioning (SCC), a unified framework that instantiates audio-grounded question answering as the verification primitive at every lifecycle stage. SCC yields three artifacts. Long-paragraph Audio Caption 50k (LACap-50k) is a 50,222-clip audio-visual corpus with 491.5-word captions and a post-hoc automatic speech recognition (ASR) audit. Layer-Curvature Supervised Fine-Tuning (LC-SFT) is the first on-policy supervised fine-tuning method to weight tokens by intermediate-layer evidence, motivated by our identification of Late-Layer Semantic-Entropy Collapse (SEC). SCC-Verifier arbitrates among caption rollouts via audio-grounded self-answering at inference. Across multiple benchmarks, our system attains state-of-the-art among open-source captioners and is competitive with proprietary baselines. We release LACap-50k to fill the resource gap for long-paragraph detailed audio captioning research.

Speculative decoding speeds up generation with an efficient draft model (drafter) that proposes tokens for a target model to verify in one pass, preserving the target's output distribution. High-acceptance block-diffusion drafters such as DFlash and DFlare fill an entire block in one parallel pass. In many cycles, the target accepts the whole block, so the drafter exhausts its trained block horizon before verification fails. We call this unrealized acceptance stranded speed-up. A mean committed length, per prompt or per cycle, hides it, whereas the acceptance histogram exposes it as a spike in the ceiling bin, the fraction of cycles that accept the entire block. We recommend the histogram as a preflight check before spending training compute. Naively widening the block at inference does not recover the speed-up, because once the block outgrows its training size, the drafter's bidirectional attention shifts its distribution even at early positions and erodes front-of-block verification. Instead, we post-train the drafter on a longer block with a short curriculum that emphasizes the newly exposed positions, a method we call DBloom. Expanding the pretrained DFlash and DFlare drafters from block size 16 to 24 across Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-4B targets raises the per-prompt committed length on the high-ceiling benchmarks by a median of +0.8 tokens (up to +1.1). Once continuation fine-tuning precedes expansion, the increase reaches 1.37 tokens. The same expansion also lifts committed length on all seven benchmarks for Gemma-4-12B-IT, a different model family, by a median of +0.41 tokens (Arm A), and the full continuation-then-expand pipeline (Arm B) adds +0.29 to +0.98 tokens over the same B16 drafter. In a prompt-matched comparison against JetSpec, a contemporary tree-based drafter not used in our design, DBloom commits more tokens on every benchmark at tree budgets up to 64 nodes.

Modern agent frameworks compose planners, tool agents, remote services, and shared specialists into runtime delegation graphs, but their revocation APIs still resemble token or subtree invalidation. When one delegation is withdrawn, the runtime must know which agents lose authority while independently authorized agents keep working. We study this authority consistency problem and introduce VERA (Verifiable Edge Revocation for Agents), a verifier-checkable revocation contract and API emitted by agent-runtime adapters as signed evidence. Under disjunctive authority, revoking edge e invalidates exactly T_intent(e,G) = reach(G) \ reach(G \ {e}), the agents whose every authorizing root path used e. Used as a contract, this target exposes two runtime failures: tree cascades over-revoke shared agents, while deployer-scoped cascades under-revoke cross-domain descendants. In a LangGraph framework-replt cells repeated 20 times yield 500compiled-framework traces and 2,000 valid signed delegation decisions; 13/25 cells contain runtime multi-parsharing and 8/25 contain cross-deployer shies 500/500 target proofs, preserves all320 alternate-parent shared-agent cases that tree cascade revokes, and rejects unauthorized signers and omission attacks. Baseline replay over 1,9that holder/node and tree-style targetscannot express this behavior. We further validate schema portability on A2A, AutoGen, and CrewAI artifacts: nine traces, including five executable Cregned delegation events that pass schema and signature checks.

Generating formally verified programs from natural language remains challenging: existing approaches either produce code in a single pass without recourse when verification fails, or rely on open-ended agentic reasoning that is non-deterministic and opaque. We introduce SKILLFORGE, a framework that decomposes formal code synthesis into a library of atomic, reusable skills, each targeting a specific subtask such as specification inference, body synthesis, invariant generation, error diagnosis, or targeted repair, and defined by a prompt template, tool binding, and decidable success criterion. A verification-driven harness orchestrates these skills: it submits candidates to the Dafny verifier, diagnoses failures into structured categories, deterministically routes to the appropriate repair skill, and iterates until formal correctness is proved or a budget is exhausted. On a curated benchmark of natural language to Dafny specification pairs, SKILLFORGE substantially outperforms both state-of-the-art agentic approaches (including ReAct-style agents, MCTS-based repair, and RL-guided verification) and traditional iterative baselines, while requiring fewer tokens and lower latency. Ablation studies confirm that every skill contributes measurably, and the harness converges rapidly with the majority of programs verified on the first attempt.

Post-deployment changes to large language models can alter behavior while leaving routine outputs largely unchanged, creating a challenge for AI governance when model weights are proprietary. We present a privacy-preserving zk-SNARK-based audit framework that searches for probes designed in the spirit of adversarial examples to amplify logit drift between an approved model and a modified deployment. Our framework explores complementary probe families under different access models. Token-based probes operate in a black-box setting and require only the input interface, tokenizer, and vocabulary. Embedding-based probes require gray-box access to the embedding interface. Stress probes rely on additional interface capabilities but do not require full white-box access to model weights or architecture. This range allows probe selection to balance sensitivity, access requirements, and deployment cost. We evaluate probe constructions across LLM architectures, model-tampering scenarios representative of post-deployment attacks, and GPU platforms. Importantly, our experimental results demonstrate that token-based probes consistently deliver the strongest mean sensitivity across models and GPU platforms, although operating in a black-box setting. Our Groth16 zk-SNARK workflow remains practical as the probe set scales from 1 to 50, where proving time increases from 1.02 to 1.78 seconds, verification remains near 0.84 seconds, and proof size remains constant.

Developments in high-performance computing (HPC) technology continue to drastically increase quantities of available processing power. In the context of digital evolution, this explosive growth offers opportunities to advance both hypothesis-driven explorations of multi-scale biological phenomena and application-driven evolutionary optimization targeting hard problem domains. A particular opportunity arises from emerging next-generation AI/ML hardware accelerator platforms, such as the 880,000-processor Cerebras Wafer-Scale Engine (WSE). Such hardware, however, constrains on-device data storage and movement --- a challenge compounded by vulnerability to failures arising over numerous device components. Best-effort relaxations that depart from a traditional deterministic computing paradigm can help accommodate such constraints, but complicate reproducibility and risk introducing artifactual biases. We explore these concerns, developing a framework to measure runtime behavior of best-effort code and examining case studies of best-effort computing in digital evolution projects. The first case study applies best-effort CPU-cluster multiprocessing to a multicellularity evolution model, which provides 92% scaling efficiency at 64 processes ($2.1\times$ speedup) and exhibits robust median quality of service, even under hardware anomalies. The second case study examines WSE-based simulations, demonstrating best-effort strategies to track spatiotemporal population history --- through sparse, asynchronous device-to-host sampling that tolerates hardware faults. In sum, across potential forms and scopes of best-effort relaxation, we argue that digital evolution is uniquely positioned to contribute in developing post-deterministic HPC paradigms.

AI agents are increasingly used for programming, but do not provide any guarantee on the correctness of generated code. Verified code generation, in which an agent produces both an implementation and a machine-checked proof of its specification, offers a stronger path toward trustworthy AI-generated software. Existing benchmarks in this direction either focus on individual functions or only evaluate proof generation with provided implementations. It is still an open question whether agents can make coherent implementation and proof choices across real multi-module codebases. To bridge this gap, we introduce Vero, the first benchmark to evaluate joint implementation and proof synthesis at the repository level. Vero contains 43 multi-module instances sourced from real-world repositories spanning Python, Dafny, Verus, and Coq, and covering diverse domains from cryptographic protocols to distributed systems. Each instance consists of a multi-module Lean 4 repository with predetermined API interfaces, manually curated formal specifications, and reference implementations, supporting both proof-only and code-and-proof evaluation modes. To improve benchmark reliability, Vero also includes an audit mechanism where agents are allowed to formally prove unsatisfiability of provided specification or incorrectness of reference code, which surfaces and corrects latent code and specification errors during curation. We evaluate frontier coding-agent configurations with Lean toolchain access. The strongest agent fully solves only 27 of 43 instances and closes no specifications on the hardest repositories. Vero provides a concrete testbed for measuring progress toward repository-scale verified software synthesis, where current agents still fall short. We release the benchmark, curation pipeline, and evaluation harness at https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/vero.

Verification of neural networks against relational specifications, such as global robustness, is crucial for safety-critical applications of cyber-physical systems (CPS), given their increasing adoption of AI components. Compared to simple trace properties (e.g., local robustness), verifying relational specifications requires reasoning about the relationship between multiple network inferences, which brings significant technical challenges. Existing research has explored abstraction techniques based on sound and convex over-approximation of neural network outputs; however, since these approaches are inherently incomplete and may raise false alarms, they further underscore the need of effective abstraction refinement. In this paper, we propose a branch-and-bound (BaB) framework to mitigate the issue, which iteratively splits the problem until all sub-problems are verified. Specifically, our BaB framework features splitting of relational neurons rather than individual neurons as prior works do, and as the core of our technique, we devise a relational neuron selection strategy based on the dual formulation of the verification problem, which allows us to efficiently select the (most likely) optimal relational neuron that maximizes the refinement brought by problem splitting. We evaluate SaBRe on 817 verification problems across ACAS Xu, MNIST-F, MNIST-C, CIFAR and GTSRB. The results show that SaBRe outperforms different baseline approaches, in terms of the number of solved instances and verification efficiency, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed techniques.

Knowledge-base question answering (KBQA) systems rely on effective retrieval and reasoning mechanisms to generate accurate answers from external knowledge sources. However, developing reliable KBQA systems for low-resource languages such as Bangla remains challenging due to limited retrieval-focused research, scarce language resources, and difficulties in grounding generated responses in external knowledge. In this work, we propose HybridRAG-BN, a retrieval-augmented framework for Bangla KBQA that integrates hybrid retrieval using BM25 and BGE-M3, answer generation using the GGUF version of Gemma-4-31B-Instruct, and a LoRA-fine-tuned Gemma-4-31B-Instruct model for answer verification and refinement. To further improve robustness, the framework incorporates a post-processing stage that addresses unresolved cases through fallback answer replacement and DuckDuckGo-assisted retrieval. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework, achieving token-level F1 scores of 0.71654 and 0.72912 on the public and private leaderboards, respectively, securing first place in the competition.

Multi-hop fact verification, which verifies claims by reasoning over multiple pieces of evidence, is critical for combating misinformation on social media yet remains highly challenging. Recent methods primarily rely on multi-agent collaboration to decompose fact verification into specialized subtasks. However, these methods face two critical limitations: (1) agents may perform individual subtasks without sufficient awareness of the global verification objective, causing their reasoning to deviate from the intended direction; and (2) conflicts between parametric knowledge and the provided evidence may undermine evidence-grounded reasoning and lead to incorrect verdicts. To address these challenges, we propose ReflectFact, a novel self-reflective agent framework for multi-hop fact verification. ReflectFact introduces three key tasks. Explicit Reasoning Path Planning builds an evidence-grounded reasoning path by resolving implicit entities, decomposing the claim into sub-questions, and integrating the verified facts into a verdict. Evidence-Drift Verification makes the agent re-answer by quoting the supporting evidence when a grounded answer merely echoes its parametric prior, thereby calibrating evidence deviation to ensure grounded comprehension. Reasoning Reflection Verification re-examines each reasoning step and regenerates it once an inconsistency is detected, correcting reasoning flaws such as location bias and replacement bias through a global task perspective. Subsequently, the agent aggregates validated reasoning chains to yield reliable verdicts. Extensive experiments on HOVER and EX-FEVER demonstrate that ReflectFact effectively remedies the comprehension and reasoning defects of existing methods, achieving state-of-the-art performance and respectively outperforming the strongest baseline by 3.32% and 2.78% on the two datasets.

Systems that generate GPU kernels with language models report high correctness rates. Those rates come from a single loose test: run the kernel on a few random inputs at one fixed shape and accept it if the output is close to a reference. A kernel can pass that test and still be silently wrong. It can return an ordinary number where the true answer is a NaN or an infinity, differ from run to run, break when the shape changes, or accumulate in fp16 where the reference keeps an fp32 total. We build the instrument that checks correctness properly: a contract-grade verifier of twelve adversarial gates, each a property a correct kernel must satisfy, several of them tolerance-free, so no choice of threshold can explain a failure away. Aimed outward, the verifier audits 2,638 machine-generated kernels that a public system's own harness had already accepted as correct. It finds 39.5% broken beyond any tolerance argument and 62.1% carrying at least one violation. The field's standard test accepts 1,487 kernels the verifier rejects, against only 14 the other way. We defend the finding four independent ways: a 7/7 positive control, a threshold-calibration sweep, 98.5% agreement with the reference benchmark's own correctness code, and a stratified hand-audit. Aimed inward, the verifier judges a kernel of our own: the first native Blackwell tcgen05 training backward for the gated-linear-recurrence (GDN) family, including the reverse-state stage the field still runs on a fallback. We establish its correctness independently, against a double-precision oracle, and train five family members through it. The correctness signal behind reported progress in kernel generation is far weaker than the numbers suggest, and a set of tolerance-free contracts would close most of the gap.

Multi-turn dialogues let users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia. No existing instrument measures this influence per clause, predicts it before delivery, or repairs it under matched budgets. \sysname{} closes the three gaps through the model API alone: a contract ledger pairs every constraint with an executable checker, records revocations as tombstones, and compiles the net constraint state ahead of time into a single specification; a sequential ablation probe measures per-clause adherence and incremental behavioral effect; a repair ladder operates under token- and attempt-matched budgets. On \dataname{} (\NTasks{} HumanEval tasks, \NClauses{} verified checkers), relapse at an 8B operating point climbs from \ScaleDelayedMTwo{} to \ScaleDelayedMEight{} as constraint load grows, while stronger models sit at floor. Under matched checkers, model, and budget, ahead-of-time compilation significantly reduces relapse against a no-ledger verifier-retry baseline (\RestoreDiff{}, 95% CI \RestoreDiffCI{}, $p$ \RestoreDiffP{}); adaptive ladder interventions stacked on top add no detectable gain (95% confidence excludes gains $\geq$ \LadderExcludedGain{}). The probe predicts relapse before delivery (AUROC \AurocPrimary{}); a one-sentence tombstone note recovers about a third of the compilation effect and survives a placebo control. At \CostDeliveryFactor{} delivery overhead and \CostTotalHedged{} of API compute for every result, revocation failure becomes a measurable, predictable, and repairable property of dialogue state rather than an invisible one.

Self-correction is particularly useful when a failure constrains the next repair. Coding agents benefit from this property because compilers, tests, and execution traces turn many failures into typed recovery signals, but broad language-agent tasks often expose only a coarse task failure. This creates a tension for generic recovery playbooks: they broaden the agent's context precisely when the system needs a narrower repair interface, mixing incompatible signals for invalid actions, missing procedures, and strict-format errors. Our insight is that development-set failures can recover part of the missing diagnostic substrate by deciding which recovery interventions are admissible before test-time correction. We propose DARC, a diagnosis-guided recovery harness that profiles task-family failure modes, prunes mismatched interventions from a shared recovery library, and freezes a verifier-selected success-cost policy for deployment. This causal order makes correction selective: the harness first determines what kind of failure can be repaired, then decides how much recovery evidence to spend. In ALFWorld, AppWorld, and XBRL Finance, the same protocol yields an action-validity harness, a procedural-recovery fallback, and a format-precision retrieval policy; in each evaluated setting it improves average task performance over base agents and broad playbooks while reducing environment steps or retrieval budget. Our experiments show that failures need not trigger uniformly more context: DARC turns self-correction from prompt expansion into recovery-interface design. DARC provides a practical route toward more reliable agents in domains where compiler-like feedback is absent: making failures actionable before making contexts larger.

Achieving effective self-correction, where models verify and correct their own mistakes, remains a fundamental challenge for large language models (LLMs). In this work, we propose Self-Fix Step-DPO (SFS-DPO), a reinforcement learning based, two-stage framework for step-level self-verification and self-correction. The first stage strengthens step-level reasoning via step-level preference optimization, while the second stage explicitly trains models to self-verify and self-correct. We further introduce a teacher-assisted variant, SFS-DPO-R, which incorporates explanatory rationales for error verification to provide stronger corrective signals. Comprehensive in-domain and out-of-domain evaluations across multiple LLMs demonstrate that SFS-DPO and SFS-DPO-R consistently outperform prior step-level training baselines. Our analysis further reveals improvements in self-correction frequency and effectiveness, highlighting the importance of strengthening step-level reasoning for robust performance.

Full justified representation (FJR) is among the strongest known satisfiable proportionality axioms for approval-based committee elections. Recent work has shown that an FJR committee can be found in polynomial time, but verifying whether a given committee satisfies FJR remains coNP-complete. We introduce FJR+, a strict strengthening of FJR and EJR+ that can be verified and satisfied in polynomial time. We then analyze the Residual-Budget Greedy (RBG) algorithm and prove that it selects a partial committee such that every size-$k$ completion satisfies FJR+. This freedom allows us to use sequential Phragmén to obtain a priceable completion. The resulting rule always satisfies FJR+ and the sub-core, and it is priceable whenever at least $k$ candidates receive an approval. We also obtain a Droop-quota version of FJR+. Finally, we extend FJR+ to approval-based participatory budgeting with arbitrary project costs. A project-specific version of RBG computes this property in polynomial time and can be continued to a priceable outcome satisfying a cost-based version of the sub-core.

We present the first-place solution to the MeViS-Text track of the 8th Large-scale Video Object Segmentation (LSVOS) Challenge 2026: referring video object segmentation guided by written motion expressions, including deceptive no-target expressions that match no object in the video and must yield empty masks in every frame. Our pipeline, SSUPER, resolves each expression into a visual concept, generates full-video candidate masklets with SAM~3.1, and selects target IDs. At every reasoning stage, three heterogeneous multimodal large language models independently execute the same stage-specific prompt before a single synthesis pass commits one schema-validated verdict. Although this system rejects every no-target expression in validation, the leaderboard reveals that a substantial share of test no-target cases still slips through. The reason is that hard negatives name a plausible object and fail only under the complete temporal predicate, so when selection and existence are decided together, a category-plausible masklet anchors the verdict. Hence, we decouple existence verification into an independent multi-agent audit of the full predicate (category, count, action, trajectory, event order, and semantic role) that distinguishes absence from temporary invisibility, discounts apparent motion caused by camera movement, and requires contradicting evidence rather than mere uncertainty for a no-target verdict. Without any new segmentation call, this audit recovers most of the residual no-target errors. A training-data-only StyleRefiner then aligns mask geometry with the annotation style of MeViSv2 while preserving every presence decision by construction, showing that once the semantics are fixed, part of the remaining error is stylistic rather than semantic. The complete system reaches a Final score of 0.9081339614 on the official challenge leaderboard.

Symbolic network verifiers can reason about correctness across vast spaces of routing inputs and failures, but only for the protocols and features an expert has encoded by hand. Creating and maintaining a faithful model of the control plane is both difficult and never-ending, since no written source specifies perfectly what a network does: vendor implementations deviate from the RFCs, and behaviour shifts with releases. The burden of constant upkeep ultimately keeps verification out of many networks that need it. We argue that the model should instead evolve automatically to faithfully capture the actual network behaviour. To achieve that, we leverage the only source that specifies it unambiguously: the router software itself. In a counterexample-guided loop, a coding agent proposes extensions to the verifier's symbolic encoding, while a trusted oracle (e.g., emulated routers) supplies the ground-truth routing state. The agent iteratively refines the network model using each disagreement with the oracle. As early evidence, a prototype of this system taught a 3,000-line SMT-based verifier three features it did not support: OSPF areas, BGP route reflection, and L3VPN over EVPN, converging autonomously on models that match the oracle, even noticing vendor-specific behaviour. Automating model growth shifts the hard problem from writing verification systems to systematically testing them; we propose a research agenda for trusting and harnessing automatically evolved verifiers.

Counterfactual video understanding evaluates whether models grasp physical and commonsense regularities. However, existing multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks inadvertently leak target events through their questions and candidate options. This reduces the core challenge from active discovery to text-guided verification. In this paper, we present FADE, an effective training framework for counterfactual discovery and explanation. Our method is built on an evidence-first, two-stage training paradigm. First, evidence-internalized supervised fine-tuning grounds the model's predictions in decisive visual anomalies. Second, we apply a fading-anchor reinforcement learning strategy that progressively removes textual guidance, compelling the model to independently discover and explain evidence. To rigorously evaluate this capability, we also introduce an effective pipeline that converts existing MCQ datasets into aligned MCQ, open-ended question answering (OQA), and captioning tasks without requiring additional data curation. Our simple approach yields strong results. Using Qwen3-VL-8B as the baseline, FADE achieves state-of-the-art strict paired scores across all three tasks on DualityVidQA-test and IPV-Bench, outperforming GPT-5.6. In specific, when transitioning from constrained MCQs to unconstrained OQA and captioning, our model demonstrates remarkable robustness. Its performance retention is 90.4% and 67.4% on DualityVidQA-test-substantially higher than the 48.1% and 30.7% retained by GPT-5.6. We hope this simple framework can serve as a solid baseline for future research in unconstrained counterfactual video understanding.

Multimodal large language models often generate reasoning chains containing subtle errors that lead to incorrect answers. Current verification approaches have notable limitations. Existing approaches either require expensive labelled supervision with inconsistent cross-task performance or aggregate scores from multiple sources by simple aggregations, missing a key insight: when these scores disagree, that disagreement itself carries important information about whether a reasoning step is truly valid or not. We formalise this as a coupled scoring problem among disparate, frozen verifiers, interpretable as a coordination game with a unique closed-form equilibrium where agreement signals valid steps while disagreement reveals instability. Towards this end, we propose a training-free domain-agnostic step-wise verification approach we call VERDICT: VERification via Disagreement-Informed Coupled Thresholding. To our knowledge, VERDICT is the first training-free verifier that makes the structure of cross-modal disagreement explicit and actionable. It computes consensus scores through a closed-form solution, enabling both disagreement-aware filtering and stability-conscious ranking of reasoning steps. Evaluated across six benchmarks, \method consistently improves over the base model by up to +5.95%, and performs competitively with domain-specific critics that demand extensive supervision, demonstrating that cross-modal agreement provides robust verification signals without task-specific adaptation and Training-Free Verification

Advances in advanced artificial intelligence tools have sparked research in robot autonomy, but the development of such systems has largely focused on execution rather than verifying the feasibility actions planning models propose. Like general-purpose LLMs, robotics planning models carry risks: biased toward user-specified goals, they may suggest actions misaligned with scientific ethics, they may be unsafe due to an inability to "remember" prior safety risks, or they may be vulnerable to adversarial attacks on the autonomy ecosystem. We propose a LLM-driven verification layer between planning and execution to evaluate action permissibility. Our LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble combines chain-of-thought reasoning across models and synthesizes those expert judge outputs, mirroring a combination of a mixture of experts and self-consistency approach. This layer serves as middleware, gating plans from the server's planning module before they reach the MCP server and therefore the robot's low-level controls: plans are approved, rejected for reformulation, or escalated for human review. With this system, we achieve near 85% precision across accept/escalate/reject categories 97% containment of adversarial attacks, with negligible errors between accepting and rejecting tasks, and errors mostly manifesting at the escalate boundary.

Large language models can write parametric CAD programs from a natural-language description (text-to-CAD generation), but a single sample is often wrong. Increasing test-time compute by sampling multiple candidates only helps if a good candidate can be identified, yet no ground-truth model is available at generation time. Existing systems often require a separate verifier, such as a vision-language judge, to select among candidates. We investigate whether the candidate pool itself provides enough signal for effective selection and a verifier-free alternative. We introduce 3D CAD consensus selection, hereafter consensus selection: sample $N$ parametric CAD programs, compile them to 3D models, and return the candidate that agrees most with the rest of the pool. The method is training-free and compatible with existing CAD agents. We investigate geometric and topological notions of agreement, each of which improves its corresponding evaluation metric. On the exact candidate pools of a state-of-the-art CAD generation method, geometric consensus improves all three geometric metrics over the method's verifier, while topological consensus matches it on topology. Across every tested LLM and prompt variant, geometric consensus also improves geometric accuracy over random selection from the same pool, reducing Chamfer distance by $1-10\%$.

Verified code generation asks a large language model (LLM) to generate both an executable program and a machine-checkable proof that the program meets a formal specification, promising software that is correct by construction. The de facto workflow decouples the two halves of the problem: first synthesize a program, then attempt to prove it correct. We observe that this sequential pipeline can be both ineffective and inefficient in practice. A program generated without anticipating its proof can be subtly incorrect or structurally difficult to verify, forcing the LLM into brittle repair loops that alternate between patching the code and patching the proof. Inspired by Dijkstra's view that a program and its correctness argument should be developed hand in hand, we propose $P^3$, an LLM-based agentic workflow that first derives a unified program-and-proof plan from the specification, then elaborates the implementation and proof scaffold under this shared plan. To evaluate verified code generation in realistic settings, we further introduce Lean4Commit0, a repository-derived, library-level benchmark built by extracting core APIs from real-world software repositories and translating their requirements, including relational specifications across APIs, into Lean tasks. Using four frontier LLM backends, we evaluate $P^3$ on Verina, AlgoVeri, and our Lean4Commit0 benchmark, where it achieves the highest solve rate in every benchmark--model setting. Compared with the stronger baseline, it improves solve rates by 4.6--11.2 percentage points and reduces per-task API cost by up to roughly 40% and wall-clock time by up to roughly 37% on the difficult subset of each benchmark. A targeted ablation further shows gains of 3.3--8.3 points over implementation-only planning, isolating the benefit of planning the program and proof jointly.

This work focuses on the impact and detection of clear contact lenses in the context of iris recognition. While the detection of cosmetic or patterned contact lenses has been extensively studied under the presentation attack detection (PAD) paradigm, clear prescription contact lenses, that are typically transparent, have received comparatively less attention despite their widespread use. Unlike patterned lenses, clear lenses introduce no salient texture artifact, making them difficult to detect and are often assumed to have no impact on iris recognition. We first examine this assumption using the commercial VeriEye matcher on four benchmark datasets and show that clear lenses marginally degrade genuine match scores and increase verification error. We then propose a two-stage contact-lens detection framework. Stage1 uses an existing PAD model to identify patterned lenses, while Stage2 focuses on the more challenging clear-lens versus no-lens distinction using a ConvNeXt-Base model equipped with Mask-Guided Spatial Attention (MGSA). The proposed MGSA module incorporates a Hough-derived anatomical ROI mask together with learned spatial attention and Squeeze-and-Excitation channel recalibration, allowing the network to focus on subtle limbal cues associated with clear lens wear. Across four datasets, the full pipeline consisting of both patterned and clear contact lens detection achieves between 90.0%--98.8% accuracy. Finally, we introduce a z-score calibration method that adjusts VeriEye match scores when a clear lens is detected in the input images. This calibration reduces EER by 4.1%--28.3% across datasets, demonstrating that reliable clear contact lens detection can directly improve iris verification performance.

Recommendation systems thrive on personalization, where ''correctness'' is rarely a binary truth but a matter of subjective human preference. As Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as autonomous verifiers of safety and quality guidelines, they face a distinctive challenge: context-aware preference alignment. Recent gains in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are indexed mostly on objective, mathematical tasks. Through a large-scale study spanning both proprietary and open-source models on four real-world verification tasks from a production recommender platform, we ask whether explicit reasoning generalizes to subjective, human-centric industry rubrics. We expose a fundamental vulnerability: rigid, math-centric reasoning traces actively degrade verification, and applying standard RLVR triggers a phenomenon we term reasoning collapse, in which the policy abandons deliberation in favor of rapid heuristic guessing. We introduce a conditional length-penalized post-training algorithm that intertwines verification accuracy with bounded reasoning length, halting collapse and recovering performance. Finally, we show that a reasoning trace's efficacy is tightly coupled with its socio-linguistic framing: across 1500 synthesized personas, verification accuracy swings by nearly 0.38 macro-F1 depending solely on the adopted reasoning persona---evidence that much subjective-verification error is really reasoning-style mismatch. This observation motivates a mid-training architecture that routes reasoning through contextually aligned personas. This work offers both a scalable algorithmic patch and a long-term architectural blueprint for aligning reasoning models with real-world subjective constraints.