Verifier

Social engineering attacks exploit human trust rather than software vulnerabilities, making them difficult to detect using conventional filters. We propose a two-stage filter-then-verify framework combining inductive Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) for structural anomaly detection with a co-attention ModernBERT model for content verification. The GNN identifies anomalous sender-receiver patterns, while BERT analyzes message context to reduce false positives. Using the Enron dataset augmented with realistic synthetic campaigns, we show that the framework achieves 86% recall in structural filtering and over 92% precision after BERT refinement, effectively detecting both external attacks and insider threats. Our results demonstrate that combining structural and content analysis allows practical, scalable detection of multi-stage social engineering attacks in email networks.

Neural network verifiers aim to provide formal guarantees on model behavior, but existing verification benchmarks are fundamentally limited by their lack of ground-truth labels. As a result, verifier evaluation relies on indirect heuristics, which prevents exact scoring and systematic study of verifier failure modes. We address this gap by introducing a reusable framework for generating verification instances whose ground-truth robustness labels are known a priori through analytic construction. Our framework led to the discovery of multiple numeric tolerance concerns and an implementation bug in popular verifiers, highlighting the need for ground-truth labels. Additionally, to systematically study verifier failure modes, we introduce the verification Difficulty Profile, a collection of estimable quantities capturing distinct sources of instance hardness. Using our framework and these profiles, we evaluate five state-of-the-art verifiers and show that different instances stress distinct aspects of the verification pipeline. We show that these results can aid the future development of verifiers as they provide actionable targets for improving numerical reliability, relaxation quality, and search behavior. Our code is publicly available: https://github.com/dtroxell19/VeriStressGT.git.

Parallel reasoning, where a generator samples many candidate solutions and an aggregator selects the best, is one of the most effective forms of test-time scaling in large language models, and pairwise self-verification has become its strongest aggregation primitive. Yet pairwise verification carries a heavy cost: each judgment reads two complete solutions in full, and existing methods perform tens of such judgments per problem regardless of whether the comparison is informative. We introduce CAPS (Cascaded Adaptive Pairwise Selection), an inference-only framework that allocates verifier compute non-uniformly along two orthogonal axes: an evidence axis that adapts how much of each candidate the judge sees, and a distribution axis that adapts how comparisons are spread across the pool. CAPS instantiates these into a four-stage cascade with an optional rescue subroutine, and admits a closed-form verifier-token cost in which the per-candidate marginal cost is roughly halved relative to uniform full-evidence schedules. On four self-verifying models (Qwen3-14B, GPT-OSS-20B, Qwen3-4B-Instruct/Thinking) and five reasoning benchmarks spanning code (LiveCodeBench-v5/v6, CodeContests) and math (AIME 2025, HMMT 2025), CAPS outperforms the leading pairwise verifier on 14 of 20 suites while using 25.4% of its verifier-token budget on code, and outperforms pointwise self-verification on all 20. The trade-off suites admit an interpretable diagnostic in terms of the verifier's accuracy at partial versus full evidence, providing a concrete pre-deployment check for cascade suitability.

Multimedia verification requires not only accurate conclusions but also transparent and contestable reasoning. We propose a contestable multi-agent framework that integrates multimodal large language models, external verification tools, and arena-based quantitative bipolar argumentation (A-QBAF) as a submission to the ICMR 2026 Grand Challenge on Multimedia Verification. Our method decomposes each case into claim-centered sections, retrieves targeted evidence, and converts evidence into structured support and attack arguments with provenance and strength scores. These arguments are resolved through small local argument graphs with selective clash resolution and uncertainty-aware escalation. The resulting system generates section-wise verification reports that are transparent, editable, and computationally practical for real-world multimedia verification. Our implementation is public at: https://github.com/Analytics-Everywhere-Lab/MV2026_the_liems.

Formal verification of transformers has become increasingly important due to their widespread deployment in safety-critical applications. Compared to classic neural networks, the inferences of transformers involve highly complex computations, such as dot products in self-attention layers, rendering their verification extremely difficult. Existing approaches explored over-approximation methods by constructing convex constraints to bound the output ranges of transformers, which can achieve high efficiency. However, they may sacrifice verification precision, and consequently introduce significant approximation error that leads to frequent occurrences of false alarms. In this paper, we propose a transformer verification approach that can achieve improved precision. At the core of our approach is a novel usage of ReLU, by which we represent a precise but non-linear bound for dot products such that we can further exploit the rich body of literature for convex relaxation of ReLU to derive precise bounds. We extend two classic approaches to the context of transformers, a rule-based one and an optimization-based one, resulting in two new frameworks for efficient and precise verification. We evaluate our approaches on different model architectures and robustness properties derived from two datasets about sentiment analysis, and compare with the state-of-the-art baseline approach. Compared to the baseline, our approach can achieve significant precision improvement for most of the verification tasks with acceptable compromise of efficiency, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach.

In a long conversation, an LLM can produce a plausible continuation that rests on premises the conversation has already abandoned. No runtime check ties its output to what the conversation has established, a gap that context-manipulation attacks on deployed agents exploit. We close this gap with a runtime verifier: an LLM Interpreter classifies each utterance into one of eight epistemic operations, and a symbolic engine applies them to a dependency map that records what every claim rests on and whether it still stands. Whether a continuation is grounded reduces to a walk over the map, linear in its size, with no LLM call. Retraction propagates through the same map with a conflict-free guarantee, flagging exactly the conclusions that lose support. On ReviseQA for belief revision and MemoryAgentBench's fact-consolidation split, two third-party benchmarks where earlier premises are superseded, the verifier leads a budget-matched retrieval baseline across five QA models and lifts MemoryAgentBench single-hop accuracy from 0.46--0.95 to 0.93--0.98. With the verifier, even the 7B model overtakes unaided GPT-4o. These runs feed the engine the benchmarks' own structured updates. When a GPT-4o Interpreter extracts every update from raw text instead, accuracy is statistically unchanged. Per-query cost is flat in conversation length, prompts staying near 0.8k tokens where full context reaches 114k and retraction queries under a microsecond at 2000 turns.

Can AI systems discover genuinely new knowledge through iterative self improvement, and if so, at what cost? We introduce the NOVA framework, which models the common ``generate, verify, accumulate, retrain'' loop as an adaptive sampling process over a knowledge space. We identify sufficient conditions under which accumulated genuine knowledge eventually covers a finite domain, and show how their violations produce distinct failure modes: contamination, forgetting, exploration failure, and acceptance failure. We then analyze imperfect verification and identify a contamination trap: as easy-to-find knowledge is exhausted, the model mass assigned to new valid artifacts shrinks, so even small false-positive rates can cause invalid artifacts to enter the knowledge base faster than genuine discoveries. We clarify that Good--Turing estimation is a local batch-diversity diagnostic, not an estimator of the historically undiscovered valid mass that governs long-term discovery. Under a separate tail-equivalence assumption relating the model's effective discovery distribution to a Zipf law with exponent $α>1$, we prove that the cumulative generation cost required to obtain $D$ distinct genuine discoveries satisfies $R_{\mathrm{cum}}(D)=Θ(c_{\mathrm{gen}}D^α)$, where $c_{\mathrm{gen}}$ is the per-candidate generation cost. This scaling law quantifies asymptotic diminishing returns as the discovery frontier advances. Finally, we formalize human amplification through guidance, generation, and verification, explaining why expert input is most valuable near autonomous exploration barriers.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has enabled strong post-training gains in domains such as math and coding, though many open-ended settings rely on rubric-based rewards. We study reward hacking in rubric-based RL, where a policy is optimized against a training verifier but evaluated against a cross-family panel of three frontier judges, reducing dependence on any single evaluator. Our framework separates two sources of divergence: verifier failure, where the training verifier credits rubric criteria that reference verifiers reject, and rubric-design limitations, where even strong rubric-based verifiers favor responses that rubric-free judges rate worse overall. Across medical and science domains, weak verifiers produce large proxy-reward gains that do not transfer to the reference verifiers; exploitation grows over training and concentrates in recurring failures such as partial satisfaction of compound criteria, treating implicit content as explicit, and imprecise topical matching. Stronger verifiers substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, verifier exploitation. We also introduce a self-internalization gap, a verifier-free diagnostic based on policy log-probabilities, which tracks reference-verifier quality, detecting when the policy trained using the weak verifier stops improving. Finally, in our setting, stronger verification does not prevent reward hacking when the rubric leaves important failure modes unspecified: rubric-based verifiers prefer the RL checkpoint, while rubric-free judges prefer the base model. These disagreements coincide with gains concentrated in completeness and presence-based criteria, alongside declines in factual correctness, conciseness, relevance, and overall quality. Together, these results suggest that stronger verification reduces reward hacking, but does not by itself ensure that rubric gains correspond to broader quality gains.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on standard knowledge evaluation benchmarks, yet recent work shows that their knowledge capabilities remain brittle under question variants that test the same knowledge in different forms. Robustness augmentation of existing knowledge evaluation benchmarks is therefore necessary, but current LLM-assisted generate-then-verify pipelines are costly and difficult to scale due to low-yield variant generation and unreliable variant verification. We propose SAGE (Scalable Automated Generation of Robustness BEnchmarks), a framework for scalable robustness augmentation of knowledge evaluation benchmarks using fine-tuned smaller models. SAGE consists of VariantQual, a rubric-based verifier trained on human-labeled seed data, and VariantGen, a variant generator initialized with supervised fine-tuning and further optimized with reinforcement learning using VariantQual as the reward model. Experiments on HellaSwag show that SAGE constructs a large-scale robustness-augmented benchmark with quality comparable to the human-annotated HellaSwag-Pro at substantially lower cost, while the fine-tuned models further generalize to MMLU without benchmark-specific fine-tuning.

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

Recent frontier large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in identifying security vulnerabilities in large, mature open-source systems. As LLM-generated code becomes increasingly common, a natural goal is to prevent such models from producing vulnerable implementations in the first place. Formal verification offers a principled route to this objective, but existing verification pipelines typically require specifications written in rigid formal languages. Prior work has explored using LLMs to synthesize such specifications, with limited success. In this paper, we investigate a different approach: using LLMs both to generate specifications and to verify implementations compositionally when the specifications are expressed in natural language. Our preliminary results suggest that this approach is promising.

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

The rapid proliferation of LLM-based autonomous agents in real operating system environments introduces a new category of safety risk beyond content safety: behavior jailbreak, where an adversary induces an agent to execute dangerous OS-level operations with irreversible consequences. Existing benchmarks either evaluate safety at the semantic layer alone, missing physical-layer harms, or fail to isolate test cases, letting earlier runs contaminate later ones. We present LITMUS (LLM-agents In-OS Testing for Measuring Unsafe Subversion), a benchmark addressing both gaps via a semantic-physical dual verification mechanism and OS-level state rollback. LITMUS comprises 819 high-risk test cases organized into one harmful seed subset and six attack-extended subsets covering three adversarial paradigms (jailbreak speaking, skill injection, and entity wrapping), plus a fully automated multi-agent evaluation framework judging behavior at both conversational and OS-level physical layers. Evaluation across frontier agents reveals three findings: (1) current agents lack effective safety awareness, with strong models (e.g., Claude Sonnet 4.6) still executing 40.64% of high-risk operations; (2) agents exhibit pervasive Execution Hallucination (EH), verbally refusing a request while the dangerous operation has already completed at the system level, invisible to every prior semantic-only framework; and (3) skill injection and entity wrapping attacks achieve high success rates, exposing pronounced agent vulnerabilities. LITMUS provides the first standardized platform for reproducible, physically grounded behavioral safety evaluation of LLM agents in real OS environments.

Reachability analysis of neural networks, which seeks to compute or bound the set of outputs attainable over a given input domain, is central to certifying safety and robustness in learning-enabled physical systems. Since exact reachable set computation is generally intractable, existing methods typically rely on tractable overapproximations. Examining the state of the art for smooth, twice-differentiable networks, we observe that existing approaches exploit at most second-order information and do not systematically leverage higher-order information. In this work, we introduce \textsc{HiTaB}, a novel verification framework that exploits second-order smoothness through both the Hessian, $\nabla^2 f$, and its Lipschitz constant, $L_{\nabla^2 f}$. We further develop a unified hierarchy of zeroth-, first-, and second-order bounds, together with precise conditions under which higher-order approximations yield provable improvements. Our main technical contribution is a compositional procedure for efficiently bounding $L_{\nabla^2 f}$ in deep neural networks via layerwise propagation of curvature bounds. We extend the framework to both $\ell_2$- and $\ell_\infty$-constrained input sets and show how it can be integrated into branch-and-bound verification pipelines. To our knowledge, this is the first practical reachability analysis framework for smooth neural networks that systematically exploits Lipschitz continuity of curvature, leading to tighter and more informative safety certificates.

AI deployment in sensitive domains such as health care, credit, employment, and criminal justice is often treated as unsafe to authorize until model internals can be explained. This often leads to an excessive reliance on mechanistic interpretability to address a deployment challenge beyond its intended scope. We argue that the gate should instead be calibrated verification: authorization should be domain-scoped, independently checkable, monitored after release, accountable, contestable, and revocable. The reason is twofold. First, model capability is uneven across nearby tasks, so authorization must attach to a specific use rather than to a model in general. Second, societies have long governed opaque expertise through credentials, monitoring, liability, appeal, and revocation rather than mechanism-level explanation. Recent evidence reinforces this distinction between mechanistic understanding and deployment authority: a 53-percentage-point gap between internal representations and output correction shows that understanding may not translate into action, while one scoping review found that only 9.0% of FDA-approved AI/ML device documents contained a prospective post-market surveillance study. We propose Verification Coverage, a six-component reportable standard with a minimum-composition rule, as the metric that should sit beside capability scores in model cards, leaderboards, and regulatory disclosures.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong reasoning capabilities when guided by high-quality demonstrations, yet such data is often distributed across organizations that cannot centralize it due to regulatory, proprietary, or institutional constraints. We study federated reasoning, where a server improves multi-step reasoning by coordinating with heterogeneous clients holding private demonstrations, without centralized training or raw data sharing. The key challenge is that client reliability is query-dependent, while the server cannot inspect client data to determine which contributions are trustworthy. To address this, we propose Uncertainty-Aware Federated Reasoning (FERA), a training-free framework based on iterative server-client co-refinement. Across communication rounds, clients generate reasoning traces with lightweight uncertainty estimates, and the server synthesizes them into improved reasoning that is redistributed as context for the next round, progressively improving both server outputs and client-side reasoning. Within each round, Uncertainty-Aware Self-Critique Aggregation (UA-SCA) resolves conflicts among heterogeneous client traces through query-dependent trust weighting and structured cross-client verification. Rather than simply discarding low-quality traces, UA-SCA revises flawed reasoning steps to recover useful information. We provide theoretical guarantees showing that the proposed iterative protocol converges and that uncertainty-aware weighting accelerates convergence. Experiments on multiple reasoning benchmarks show that FERA consistently outperforms both federated training and training-free baselines, achieving progressively higher accuracy across rounds while maintaining communication and computational efficiency.

A valid tool call is not necessarily a valid intervention. Tool-using language agents are guarded by schema validators, policy filters, provenance checks, state predictors, and self-verification, yet such safeguards do not certify that a state-changing action has an identifiable causal effect. In confounded workflows, the action that looks optimal in observational logs can reduce utility when executed. We introduce CIVeX, a causal intervention verifier that maps proposed actions to structural causal queries over a committed action-state graph, checks identifiability, and returns one of four auditable verdicts: EXECUTE, REJECT, EXPERIMENT, or ABSTAIN. Execution requires an assumption-scoped causal certificate carrying graph commitments, an identification argument, a one-sided lower confidence bound (LCB), provenance, and risk limits. On Causal-ToolBench (1,890 instances, 7 seeds), CIVeX yields zero observed false executions across moderate and adversarial confounding. Under adversarial confounding it reaches 84.9% accuracy and 81.1% of oracle utility (+2.23 vs +2.76) and is the only non-oracle method whose constrained utility under a zero-false-execution constraint exceeds the AlwaysAbstain floor. On IHDP and ZOZO Open Bandit (real production logs with uniform-random ground truth), CIVeX matches Oracle correct-execution within 0.1pp and cuts per-execute false-execution by >=50x over naive baselines. A chain-of-thought LLM verifier (Claude Opus, Sonnet) cuts false-execution by an order of magnitude over a terse baseline, yet under adversarial confounding Opus's utility falls to 74% of CIVeX's. Intervention identifiability, not action validity, is the missing primitive for reliable tool use.

Large language models can generate useful code from natural language, but their outputs come without correctness guarantees. Verifiable code generation offers a path beyond testing by requiring models to produce not only executable code, but also formal specifications and machine-checkable proofs. Progress in this direction, however, is difficult to measure: existing benchmarks are often small, focus on only one part of the pipeline, lack ground-truth proofs or rigorous specification validation, or target verification settings far from mainstream software development. We present VeriContest, a benchmark of 946 competitive-programming problems from LeetCode and Codeforces for verifiable code generation in Rust with Verus. Each problem pairs a natural language description with expert-validated formal specifications, judge-accepted Rust code, Verus-checked proofs, and positive and negative test suites. VeriContest is constructed through a three-phase pipeline that scales from manually verified seed problems to semi-automated expansion with human-in-the-loop review. To further strengthen benchmark quality, we use testing as an additional quality-assurance layer for validating postcondition completeness. VeriContest supports isolated and compositional evaluation of specification generation, code generation, proof generation, and end-to-end verified program synthesis. Evaluating ten state-of-the-art models reveals a sharp gap between coding ability and verifiable code generation: the strongest model reaches 92.18% on natural-language-to-code generation, but only 48.31% on specification generation, 13.95% on proof generation, and 5.29% end-to-end. These results identify proof and specification generation as the central bottlenecks for models and establish VeriContest as a rigorous platform for measuring and training future systems that generate code with machine-checkable correctness.

In structured decision-making workflows such as form filling, compliance checking, and maintenance reporting, LLM outputs must be locally correct, globally consistent, and auditable against task-specific rules. Existing refinement methods often rely on heuristic debate, self-play, or LLM-generated supervision, creating a second-order assurance problem. We propose DPA-GRPO (Dual Paired-Action Group-Relative Policy Optimization), a paired-action training method for a two-player generator--verifier game with structured verifier interventions. The generator proposes outputs and may revise them when challenged; the verifier either remains silent or raises a safety assurance case (SAC) containing a claim, argument, and evidence. These SAC/no-SAC and KEEP/REVISE decisions induce paired counterfactual action groups, which DPA-GRPO uses for role-specific KL-regularized GRPO updates. We analyze the unregularized game and show that positive probability on strictly lower-reward intervention or revision actions creates a profitable unilateral deviation. Under standard stochastic-approximation assumptions, DPA-GRPO tracks the corresponding game ODE, whose isolated asymptotically stable limit points are stationary and candidate local equilibria under role-wise local optimality. Experiments on TaxCalcBench TY24 show that DPA-GRPO improves structured decision accuracy over zero-shot generation and generator-only RL baselines across Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B. Training increases correct silent acceptance, reduces missed errors, and improves calibrated revision behavior, indicating gains for both generator and verifier.

We present TraceFix, a verification-first pipeline for Large Language Model (LLM) multi-agent coordination. An agent synthesizes a protocol topology as a structured intermediate representation (IR) from a task description, generates PlusCal coordination logic, and iteratively repairs the protocol using counterexamples from the TLA+ model checker (TLC) until verification succeeds. Verified process bodies are compiled into per-agent system prompts and executed under a runtime monitor that rejects out-of-topology coordination operations. On 48 tasks spanning 16 scenario families, all tasks reach full TLC verification; 62.5% pass on the first attempt and none requires more than four repair iterations. State spaces span six orders of magnitude yet verification completes in under 60 s for every task. A 3,456-run runtime comparison shows that topology-monitored execution achieves the highest task completion (89.4% average, 81.5% full) and that runtimes using the verified protocol degrade at roughly half the rate of prompt-only and chat-only baselines when model capability is reduced. A paired ablation under a fixed runtime shows that TLC-verified protocols cut deadlock/livelock (DL/LL) from 31.1% to 14.1%, with the largest separation under fault injection.

Formal verification of neural control barrier functions (NCBFs) remains challenging, especially for neural networks with nonlinear activations like $\tanh$. Existing CROWN-based methods rely on conservative linear relaxations for Jacobian bounds, limiting scalability. We propose LightCROWN, which computes tighter Jacobian bounds by exploiting the analytical properties of activation functions. Experiments on nonlinear control systems including the inverted pendulum, Dubins car, and planar quadrotor demonstrate that LightCROWN improves verification success rates up to 100%, while enhancing speed and scalability. Our approach provides a generalizable improvement for CROWN-based frameworks, enabling more efficient verification of complex NCBFs. The code can be found at github.com/Autonomous-Systems-and-Control-Lab/verify-neural-CBF.

LLM-based game generation promises to turn natural-language specifications into executable games, but progress is limited by the lack of reliable automated verification. Unlike conventional code generation, game correctness is defined over long-horizon interaction: a game may appear correct while violating core mechanics such as state updates, interaction rules, and phase transitions. Existing Agent-as-a-Verifier approaches collapse verification into open-ended gameplay, making verdicts reachability-bound, time-consuming, coverage-limited, and sensitive to the agent's gameplay ability. We present GameGen-Verifier, an automated verification paradigm for LLM-generated games that decomposes a specification into verifiable keypoints and grounds them into independent verification units. Each unit patches the game runtime into a concrete target state, executes a bounded interaction, and judges the outcome against the keypoint assertion. We implement GGV-Harness, a scalable agentic harness providing concurrency management, runtime isolation, and fault recovery. On VeriGame, our dataset of 100 games across seven genres, GameGen-Verifier achieves up to 92.2% accuracy against human judgments versus 58.8% for the coverage-enforced Agent-as-a-Verifier baseline, while reducing wall-clock time by up to 16.6x.

Agent systems often decompose a task across multiple roles, but these roles are typically specified by prompts rather than enforced by access controls. Without enforcement, a team pass rate can mask whether agents actually coordinated or whether one role effectively did another role's work. We present TeamBench, a benchmark with 851 task templates and 931 seeded instances for evaluating agent coordination under operating system-enforced role separation. TeamBench separates specification access, workspace editing, and final certification across Planner, Executor, and Verifier roles, so that no role can read the full requirements, modify the workspace, and certify the final answer. Prompt-only and sandbox-enforced teams reach statistically indistinguishable pass rates, but prompt-only runs produce 3.6 times more cases where the verifier attempts to edit the executor's code. Verifiers approve 49% of submissions that fail the deterministic grader, and removing the verifier improves mean partial score in the ablation. Team value is also conditional. Teams benefit when single agents struggle, but hurt when single agents already perform well. A 40-session human study under the same role separation shows that our benchmark exposes interaction patterns that pass rate misses. Solo participants work through the task directly, human participants paired with agents often collapse into quick approval, and human teams spend more effort coordinating missing information across roles.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong capabilities for solving scientific and mathematical problems, yet they struggle to produce valid, challenging, and novel problems - an essential component for advancing LLM training and enabling autonomous scientific research. Existing problem generation approaches either depend on expensive human expert involvement or adopt naive self-play paradigms, which frequently yield invalid problems due to reward hacking. This work introduces VHG, a verifier-enhanced hard problem generation framework built upon three-party self-play. By integrating an independent verifier into the conventional setter-solver duality, our design constrains the setter's reward to be jointly determined by problem validity (evaluated by the verifier) and difficulty (assessed by the solver). We instantiate two verifier variants: a Hard symbolic verifier and a Soft LLM-based verifier, with evaluations conducted on indefinite integral tasks and general mathematical reasoning tasks. Experimental results show that VHG substantially outperforms all baseline methods by a clear margin.

Autonomous AI agents already transact at production scale -- 69,000 bots, 165 million transactions, $50 million in volume on a single marketplace -- and any party can verify a signed credential without a central service. In an open agent world that covers most of what trust requires: there are no universal borders, and each party chooses for itself whom to deal with. Borders appear only where a closed space draws one -- a marketplace, a platform, or a consortium sets house rules. Whoever draws the border holds the authority to apply it, and may apply it as they choose, behind closed doors. This paper addresses the gap that opens there: when you rely on someone else's border, how do you check that they applied their own published rules -- taking no one's word for it, and handing the check to no new trusted party? Our answer is the Combined Evidence Protocol (CEP): a five-condition predicate any party recomputes from anchored data, turning "did the boundary-owner follow its own admission rules" into a fact anyone verifies rather than a claim anyone believes. The move that secures optimistic rollups secures this -- correctness rests on recomputation, so the measurement belongs to everyone and the oracle problem dissolves. Its load-bearing setting is a consortium of co-equal, mutually distrusting peers under a shared charter, each able to verify, independently, that the rules they jointly agreed are the rules being applied. CEP belongs to the family of trustless systems -- optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups, verifiable ML, self-sovereign-identity predicates. The infrastructure beneath it is live: a W3C VC + DID trust layer running since March 2026, anchored on Base L2, continuing arXiv:2605.06738 and standing on its own.

We introduce an evaluation framework of 500 C verification tasks across five property types (memory safety, overflow, termination, reachability, data races) built on SV-COMP 2025, and evaluate 14 models across six families. We find that high overall accuracy masks a critical weakness: while most models reliably confirm properties hold, violation detection varies widely and degrades sharply with program length. To close this gap, we train on formal verification artifacts: running the Soteria symbolic execution engine on generic open-source C code and using the resulting traces for continued pretraining of Qwen3-8B. Just ${\sim}$3,000 bug traces combined with chain-of-thought reasoning at inference time improve violation detection by over 17 percentage points, producing one of the most balanced accuracy profiles among evaluated models. On violation detection, the trained 8B model outperforms the 4$\times$ larger Qwen3-32B without thinking and approaches it in overall accuracy. The interaction between trace training and chain-of-thought is superadditive: neither alone provides meaningful gains, but their combination does. Improvements transfer across all five property types, including ones the training traces do not target. Our 28 configurations confirm the gains stem from trace semantics, not code volume, and that trace curation and format matter.

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

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become a core paradigm for enhancing factual grounding and multi-hop reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs). Traditional text-based RAG often retrieves logically irrelevant pseudo-evidence, while graph-based RAG is frequently hindered by search-time pruning, which may discard potentially valid reasoning paths. Existing hybrid approaches primarily adopt simple evidence concatenation or unidirectional enhancement, which fails to address the fundamental "Information Island" problem caused by asymmetric reasoning flows between unstructured text and structured graphs. We propose \textbf{TGS-RAG}, a unified framework for \textbf{T}ext-\textbf{G}raph \textbf{S}ynergistic enhancement. TGS-RAG introduces a bidirectional mechanism: (i) a \textbf{Graph-to-Text} channel that employs a Global Voting strategy from visited graph nodes to re-rank and refine textual evidence, filtering out semantic noise; and (ii) a \textbf{Text-to-Graph} channel that utilizes the \textbf{Memory-based Orphan Entity Bridging} algorithm. This algorithm utilizes textual cues to proactively resurrect valid but previously pruned reasoning paths from the search history without additional database overhead. Experimental results on multiple multi-hop reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that TGS-RAG significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, achieving a superior balance between retrieval precision and computational efficiency.

Given two GNNs that output node embeddings, how can we determine if they were trained independently? An adversary could have trained one GNN specifically to mimic the other GNN's embeddings. To obscure this relationship between the GNNs, the adversarial GNN might then transform its output embeddings. The two GNNs could have different architectures, weights, and embedding dimensions, and the adversary can transform the embeddings. Despite these stringent conditions, our algorithm (named CopyCop) can identify such copycat GNNs, unlike existing watermarking and fingerprinting methods. We also provide theoretical guarantees for CopyCop. Finally, experiments on 14 datasets and 5 GNN architectures demonstrate that CopyCop is accurate and robust against a broad class of adversarial attacks and transformations. Code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CopyCop-Graph-Ownership-Verification-8143/README.md

Long-horizon LLM agents depend on intermediate information-gathering turns, yet training feedback is usually observed only at the final answer, because process-level rewards require high-quality human annotation. Existing turn-level shaping methods reward turns that increase the likelihood of a gold answer, but they require answer supervision or stable task-specific verifiers. Conversely, label-free RL methods extract self-signals from output distributions, but mainly at the answer or trajectory level and therefore cannot assign credit to intermediate turns. We propose Self-Induced Outcome Potential (SIOP), which treats semantic clusters of final answers as latent future outcome states for potential-based turn-level credit assignment. For each query, SIOP samples multiple rollouts, clusters final answers into semantic outcome modes, and builds a reliability-aware target distribution over these states. It then rewards turns for increasing posterior support for reliable future states using a tractable cluster-level approximation. The objective generalizes information-potential shaping from gold-answer supervision to settings without task-specific gold verifiers while avoiding the broadcasted rollout-level advantages used by standard GRPO. We formalize the framework, characterize its supervised gold-answer limit, and show that SIOP improves average performance over verifier-free outcome-level baselines on seven search-augmented agentic reasoning benchmarks while approaching a gold-supervised outcome baseline. Code is available at https://github.com/dl-m9/SIOP.git.

Alignment evaluation in machine learning has largely become evaluation of models. Influential benchmarks score model outputs under fixed inputs, such as truthfulness, instruction following, or pairwise preference, and these scores are often used to support claims about deployed alignment. This paper argues that deployment-relevant alignment cannot be inferred from model-level evaluation alone. Alignment claims should instead be indexed to the level at which evidence is collected: model-level, response-level, interaction-level, or deployment-level. Two studies support this position. First, a structured audit of eleven alignment benchmarks, extended to a sixteen-benchmark corpus, dual-coded against an eight-dimension rubric with Cohen's kappa = 0.87, finds that user-facing verification support is absent across every benchmark examined, while process steerability is nearly absent. The few interactional benchmarks identified, including tau-bench, CURATe, Rifts, and Common Ground, remain fragmented in coverage, and benchmark construction rather than data source determines what is measured. Second, a blinded cross-model stress test using 180 transcripts across three frontier models and four scaffolds finds that the same verification scaffold raises one model's verification support to ceiling while leaving another categorically unchanged. This shows that scaffold efficacy is model-dependent and that the gap identified by the audit cannot be closed at the model level alone. We propose a system-level evaluation agenda: alignment profiles instead of single scores, fixed-scaffolding protocols for comparable interactional evaluation, and reporting templates that make the inferential distance between evaluation evidence and deployment claims explicit.

Understanding whether deep neural networks are effectively optimized remains challenging, as training occurs in highly nonconvex landscapes and standard metrics provide limited visibility into layer-wise learning quality. This challenge is particularly acute for transformer-based language models, where training is expensive, models are often reused in frozen form, and poorly optimized layers can silently degrade performance. We propose a layer-wise peeling framework for monitoring training dynamics, in which each transformer layer is locally optimized against intermediate representations of the trained model. By constructing lightweight, layer-specific reference solutions and projecting layers onto multiple intermediate outputs via different permutations, we obtain achievable baselines that enable fine-grained diagnosis of under-optimized layers. Experiments on decoder-only transformer models show that these layer-wise reference bounds can match or even surpass the trained model at various stages of training, exposing inefficiencies that remain hidden in aggregate loss curves. We further demonstrate that this analysis remains effective under binarization and quantized settings, where training dynamics are particularly fragile. Across all numerical results, the proposed bounds consistently separate apparent convergence from effective optimality, highlighting optimization opportunities that are invisible when relying on training loss alone.

This position paper argues that reliable AI requires infrastructure for human validation of implicit knowledge. AI learns from both explicit knowledge (papers, documentation, structured databases) and implicit knowledge (reasoning patterns, debugging processes, intermediate steps). Implicit knowledge remains unexternalized because documentation cost exceeds perceived value -- yet AI learns from it indiscriminately, acquiring both beneficial patterns and harmful biases. Current reliability methods can only verify explicit knowledge against sources, creating a fundamental gap: the most valuable AI capabilities (reasoning, judgment, intuition) are precisely those we cannot verify. We propose Knowledge Objects (KOs) -- structured artifacts that externalize implicit knowledge into forms humans can inspect, verify, and endorse. KOs transform verification economics: what was previously too costly to verify becomes feasible, enabling accumulated human validation to improve reliability over time.

We present a certified purity architecture that converts governance enforcement in cognitive workflow systems from a runtime convention into a structural capability boundary. A prior three-layer governance architecture proves governance completeness, provenance completeness, and the impossibility of ungoverned effects, conditional on the pure module constraint: that step executors cannot perform effects. That constraint was enforced by module import graph analysis, which is insufficient against adversarial bypass on the BEAM virtual machine. This paper closes the gap through four mechanisms: (1) a restricted WebAssembly compilation target where effect-producing instructions are structurally absent; (2) purity certificates, cryptographically signed proofs binding executor binaries to their import classifications; (3) a runtime verification gate that rejects uncertified executors before they enter the governance pipeline; and (4) portable governance credentials via remote attestation for cross-organizational verification. We prove four theorems: structural purity by construction, bypass elimination for all five BEAM bypass classes, certificate integrity, and gate completeness. The guarantee holds relative to an explicit Trusted Computing Base. Evaluation on four implemented executors shows verification latency of 39--42 us, full plan cycle under 400 us, runtime overhead under 0.4% of a 100 ms HTTP request, and zero determinism divergences across repeated invocations.

Agent skills - structured packages of instructions, scripts, and references that augment a large language model (LLM) without modifying the model itself - have moved from convenience to first-class deployment artifact. The runtime that loads them inherits the same problem package managers and operating systems have always faced: a piece of content claims a behavior; the runtime must decide whether to believe it. We argue this paper's central thesis up front: a skill is untrusted code until it is verified, and the runtime that loads it must enforce that default rather than infer trust from a signature, a clearance, or a registry of origin. Without skill verification, a human-in-the-loop (HITL) gate must fire on every irreversible call - which is operationally untenable and degrades into rubber-stamping at any non-trivial scale. With skill verification treated as a separate, gated process, HITL fires only for what is unverified, and the system becomes sustainable. We give a trust schema that includes an explicit verification level on every skill manifest; a capability gate whose HITL policy is a function of that verification level; a biconditional correctness criterion that any candidate verification procedure must satisfy on an adversarial-ensemble exercise; and a portable runtime profile with ten normative guidelines abstracted from a working open-source reference implementation. The contribution is harness- and model-agnostic; nothing here requires retraining, fine-tuning, or proprietary infrastructure.

Tree-based speculative decoding accelerates autoregressive generation by verifying multiple draft candidates in parallel, but this advantage weakens for sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models. As the draft tree grows, different branches activate different experts, expanding the union of activated experts and substantially increasing target-side verification cost. We propose EVICT, a training-free, hyperparameter-free, and lossless adaptive verification method for MoE speculative decoding. EVICT makes every verified token count by truncating the draft tree before target verification and retaining only the cost-effective prefix. It leverages fine-grained drafter signals to estimate candidate benefit, combines them with offline-profiled verification cost, and remains highly compatible with the high-performance graph-based serving framework SGLang. Extensive experiments on diverse MoE backbones and benchmarks show that EVICT achieves up to 2.35x speedup over autoregressive decoding and an average 1.21x speedup over the state-of-the-art baseline EAGLE-3, while significantly reducing unnecessary expert activations during verification.

Rule-based systems remain central in safety-critical domains but often struggle with scalability, brittleness, and goal misspecification. These limitations can lead to reward hacking and failures in formal verification, as AI systems tend to optimize for narrow objectives. In previous research, we developed a neuro-symbolic causal framework that integrates first-order logic abduction trees, structural causal models, and deep reinforcement learning within a MAPE-K loop to provide explainable adaptations under distribution shifts. In this paper, we extend that framework by introducing a meta-level layer designed to mitigate goal misspecification and support scalable rule maintenance. This layer consists of a Goal/Rule Synthesizer and a Rule Verification Engine, which iteratively refine a formal rule theory from high-level natural-language goals and principles provided by human experts. The synthesis pipeline employs large language models (LLMs) to: (1) decompose goals into candidate causes, (2) consolidate semantics to remove redundancies, (3) translate them into candidate first-order rules, and (4) compose necessary and sufficient causal sets. The verification pipeline then performs (1) syntax and schema validation, (2) logical consistency analysis, and (3) safety and invariant checks before integrating verified rules into the knowledge base. We evaluated our approach with a proof-of-concept implementation in two autonomous driving scenarios. Results indicate that, given human-specified goals and principles, the pipeline can successfully derive minimal necessary and sufficient rule sets and formalize them as logical constraints. These findings suggest that the pipeline supports incremental, modular, and traceable rule synthesis grounded in established legal and safety principles.

Decentralized, agentic AI marketplaces are rapidly emerging to support software engineering tasks such as debugging, patch generation, and security auditing, often operating without centralized oversight. However, existing reputation mechanisms fail in this setting for three fundamental reasons: agents can strategically optimize against evaluation procedures; demonstrated competence does not reliably transfer across heterogeneous task contexts; and verification rigor varies widely, from lightweight automated checks to costly expert review. Current approaches to reputation drawing on federated learning, blockchain-based AI platforms, and large language model safety research are unable to address these challenges in combination. We therefore propose \textbf{AgentReputation}, a decentralized, three-layer reputation framework for agentic AI systems. The framework separates task execution, reputation services, and tamper-proof persistence to both leverage their respective strengths and enable independent evolution. The framework introduces explicit verification regimes linked to agent reputation metadata, as well as context-conditioned reputation cards that prevent reputation conflation across domains and task types. In addition, AgentReputation provides a decision-facing policy engine that supports resource allocation, access control, and adaptive verification escalation based on risk and uncertainty. Building on this framework, we outline several future research directions, including the development of verification ontologies, methods for quantifying verification strength, privacy-preserving evidence mechanisms, cold-start reputation bootstrapping, and defenses against adversarial manipulation.

We propose a paradigm shift toward open-ended curriculum self-play: rather than learning to answer on a fixed prompt set, a unified policy learns to question: generating verifiable problems, solving them, and turning verifier feedback into self-improvement without human-annotated solutions. We introduce ANCORA, in which the policy alternates between a Proposer that synthesizes novel specifications and a Solver that produces verified solutions, anchored by three load-bearing mechanisms: a two-level group-relative update coupling Proposer advantages across specifications with Solver advantages across solution attempts; iterative self-distilled SFT projecting the base model onto its valid-output manifold before RL; and a UCB-guided Curriculum DAG whose policy-induced problem set can provably expand under self-composition. Without these stabilizers, sparse verifier feedback drives Proposer collapse even under MLRL-aligned rewards; with them, ANCORA bootstraps a verifiable curriculum from zero human solutions. Instantiated in Verus, ANCORA lifts Dafny2Verus pass@1 from a 26.6% SFT baseline to 81.5% in test-time training (TTT, 0-shot), outperforming PSV self-play by 15.8 points despite PSV's 1-shot inference; in a transfer setting, training from Dafny2Verus seeds yields 36.2% and 17.2% pass@1 on held-out MBPP and HumanEval.

Integrated Circuit (IC) verification consumes nearly 70% of the IC development cycle, and recent research leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to automatically generate testbenches and reduce verification overhead. However, LLMs have difficulty generating testbenches correctly. Unlike high-level programming languages, Hardware Description Languages (HDLs) are extremely rare in LLMs training data, leading LLMs to produce incorrect code. To overcome challenges when using LLMs to generate Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) testbenches and sequences, wepropose HAVEN (Hybrid Automated Verification ENgine) to prevent LLMs from writing HDL directly. For UVM testbench generation, HAVEN utilizes LLM agents to analyze design specifications to produce a structured architectural plan. The HAVEN Template Engine then combines with predefined and protocol-specific templates to generate all UVM components with correct bus-handshake timing. For UVM sequence generation, HAVEN introduces a Protocol-Aware Sequence Domain-Specific Language (DSL) that decomposes sequences into fine-grained step types. A set of predefined DSL patterns first establishes sequences that achieve a high coverage rate without LLM involvement. HAVEN continues to improve the coverage rate by iteratively leveraging LLM agents to analyze coverage gap reports and compose additional targeted DSL sequences. Unlike previous works, HAVEN is the first system that utilizes pre-defined, protocol-specific Jinja2 templates to generate all UVM components and UVM sequences using our proposed Protocol-Aware DSL and rule-based code generator. Our experimental results on 19 open-source IP designs spanning three interface protocols (Direct, Wishbone, AXI4-Lite) show that HAVEN achieves 100% compilation success, 90.6% code coverage, and 87.9% functional coverage on average, and is SOTA among LLM-assisted testbench generation systems.

Reusing verification artefacts requires identifying structural and semantic similarities across programs and their specifications. In this paper, we focus on graph construction as a foundational step toward this goal. We present a pipeline that converts imperative programs and their annotations into typed, attributed graphs. Our experiments cover datasets including C with ACSL, Java with JML, and Dafny programs. The pipeline integrates abstract syntax tree parsing with semantic embeddings derived from models such as SentenceTransformer and CodeBERT. This enables the generation of graph representations that capture both structural relationships and semantic context. Our results show that consistent graph representations can be constructed across different languages and annotation styles. This work provides a practical basis for future steps in semantic enrichment and approximate graph matching for scalable verification artefact reuse.

With recent semantic query processing engines, semantic aggregation has become a primitive operator, enabling the reduction of a relation into a natural language aggregate using an LLM. However, the resulting semantic aggregate may contain claims that are not grounded in the underlying relation. Verifying such claims is challenging: they often involve quantifiers, groupings, and comparisons over relations that far exceed LLM context windows and require a costly combination of semantic and symbolic processing. We present Evergreen, a system that recasts claim verification as a semantic query processing task with tailored optimizations and provenance capture. Evergreen compiles each claim into a declarative semantic verification query that can execute on the same query engine used to produce the aggregate. To reduce cost, Evergreen avoids unnecessary LLM calls through verification-aware optimizations, including early stopping, relevance sorting, and estimation with confidence sequences, as well as general-purpose optimizations for semantic queries, such as operator fusion, similarity filtering, and prompt caching. Each verdict is accompanied by citations that identify a minimal set of tuples justifying the result, with semantics based on semiring provenance for first-order logic. On a benchmark of production-inspired workloads over restaurant review and customer support datasets, Evergreen's optimized configurations occupy the entire cost-quality Pareto frontier. With a strong LLM, Evergreen preserves verification quality at an F1 of 0.94 while reducing cost by 3.1x relative to unoptimized verification; with a substantially weaker LLM, it surpasses the strongest external baseline's F1 (0.87 vs. 0.83) at 7.0x lower cost.

Test-time scaling (TTS) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for improving the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs) by investing additional compute at inference time. A central component of TTS is the \emph{verifier}, which selects or scores candidate solutions to guide the search process. While prior work has explored the benefit of verification, a fundamental question remains underexplored: \emph{what is the optimal granularity of verification under a given compute budget?} Coarse-grained outcome reward models (ORMs) and fine-grained process reward models (PRMs) represent two extremes, yet neither alone achieves compute-optimality across all regimes. In this paper, we establish a unified theoretical framework, called \textbf{GRACE} (\underline{G}ranularity-\underline{R}egulated \underline{A}daptive \underline{C}omputational \underline{E}fficiency), that characterizes the optimal verification granularity as an explicit function of problem difficulty, verifier accuracy, and compute budget. We prove that there exists a phase transition: fine-grained verification dominates when either the compute budget is large or the problem is hard, whereas coarse-grained verification is preferred in the low-budget, easy-problem regime. Our theory unifies Best-of-$N$, beam search, and step-level MCTS within a single Pareto-optimality framework, and motivates an adaptive granularity strategy that provably achieves the compute-performance Pareto frontier. Empirical results on MATH-500, GSM8K, and AIME benchmarks corroborate all four theoretical claims, with our adaptive strategy outperforming fixed-granularity baselines by up to 3.1% accuracy at matched compute.

AI-generated media are advancing rapidly, raising pressing concerns for content authenticity and digital trust. We introduce DYMAPIA, a multi-domain Deepfake detection framework that fuses spatial, spectral, and temporal cues to capture subtle traces of manipulation in visual data. The system builds dynamic anomaly masks by combining evidence from Fourier spectra, local texture descriptors, edge irregularities, and optical flow consistency, which highlight tampered regions with fine spatial accuracy. These masks guide DistXCNet, a lightweight classifier distilled from Xception and optimized with depthwise separable convolutions for fast, region-focused classification. This joint design achieves state-of-the-art results, with accuracy and F1-scores exceeding 99% on FF++, Celeb-DF, and VDFD benchmarks, while keeping the model compact enough for real-time use. Beyond outperforming existing full-frame and multidomain detectors, DYMAPIA demonstrates deployment readiness for time-critical forensic tasks, including media verification, misinformation defense, and secure content filtering.

Recent evidence suggests that frontier AI systems can exhibit agentic misalignment, generating and executing harmful actions derived from internally constructed goals, even without explicit user requests. Existing mitigation methods, such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and constitutional prompting, operate primarily at the model level and provide only probabilistic safety guarantees. We propose the Policy-Execution-Authorization (PEA) architecture, a "separation-of-powers" design that enforces safety at the system level. PEA decouples intent generation, authorization, and execution into independent, isolated layers connected via cryptographically constrained capability tokens. We present five core contributions: (C1) an Intent Verification Layer (IVL) for ensuring capability-intent consistency; (C2) Intent Lineage Tracking (ILT), which binds all executable intents to the originating user request via cryptographic anchors; (C3) Goal Drift Detection, which rejects semantically divergent intents below a configurable threshold; (C4) an Output Semantic Gate (OSG) that detects implicit coercion using a structured $K \times I \times P$ threat calculus (Knowledge, Influence, Policy); and (C5) a formal verification framework proving that goal integrity is maintained even under adversarial model compromise. By shifting agent alignment from a behavioral property to a structurally enforced system constraint, PEA provides a robust foundation for the governance of autonomous agents.

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in automated software engineering, yet their guarantee of correctness is frequently undermined by erroneous or hallucinated code. To enforce model honesty, formal verification requires LLMs to synthesize implementation logic alongside formal specifications that are subsequently proven correct by a mathematical verifier. However, the transition from informal natural language to precise formal specification remains an arduous task. Our work addresses this by providing the NaturalLanguage2VerifiedCode (NL2VC)-60 dataset: a collection of 60 complex algorithmic problems. We evaluate 11 randomly selected problem sets across seven open-weight LLMs using a tiered prompting strategy: contextless prompts, signature prompts providing structural anchors, and self-healing prompts utilizing iterative feedback from the Dafny verifier. To address vacuous verification, where models satisfy verifiers with trivial specifications, we integrate the uDebug platform to ensure functional validation. Our results show that while contextless prompting leads to near-universal failure, structural signatures and iterative self-healing facilitate a dramatic performance turnaround. Specifically, Gemma 4-31B achieved a 90.91% verification success rate, while GPT-OSS 120B rose from zero to 81.82% success with signature-guided feedback. These findings indicate that formal verification is now attainable for open-weight LLMs, which serve as effective apprentices for synthesizing complex annotations and facilitating high-assurance software development.

The IC3 algorithm represents the state-of-the-art (SOTA) hardware model checking technique, owing to its robust performance and scalability. A significant body of research has focused on enhancing the solving efficiency of the IC3 algorithm, with particular attention to the inductive generalization process: a critical phase wherein the algorithm seeks to generalize a counterexample to inductiveness (CTI), which typically is a state leading to a bad state, into a broader set of states. This inductive generalization is a primary source of clauses in IC3 and thus plays a pivotal role in determining the overall effectiveness of the algorithm. Despite its importance, existing approaches often rely on fixed inductive generalization strategies, overlooking the dynamic and context-sensitive nature of the verification environment in which spurious counterexamples arise. This rigidity can limit the quality of generated clauses and, consequently, the performance of IC3. To address this limitation, we propose a lightweight machine-learning-based framework that dynamically selects appropriate inductive generalization strategies in response to the evolving verification context. Specifically, we employ a multi-armed bandit (MAB) algorithm to adaptively choose inductive generalization strategies based on real-time feedback from the verification process. The agent is updated by evaluating the quality of generalization outcomes, thereby refining its strategy selection over time. Empirical evaluation on a benchmark suite comprising 914 instances, primarily drawn from the latest HWMCC collection, demonstrates the efficacy of our approach. When implemented on the state-of-the-art model checker rIC3, our method solves 26 to 50 more cases than the baselines and improves the PAR-2 score by 194.72 to 389.29.

Autonomous GUI agents face two fundamental challenges: early stopping, where agents prematurely declare success without verifiable evidence, and repetitive loops, where agents cycle through the same failing actions without recovery. We present VLAA-GUI, a modular GUI agentic framework built around three integrated components that guide the system on when to Stop, Recover, and Search. First, a mandatory Completeness Verifier enforces UI-observable success criteria and verification at every finish step -- with an agent-level verifier that cross-examines completion claims with decision rules, rejecting those lacking direct visual evidence. Second, a mandatory Loop Breaker provides multi-tier filtering: switching interaction mode after repeated failures, forcing strategy changes after persistent screen-state recurrence, and binding reflection signals to strategy shifts. Third, an on-demand Search Agent searches online for unfamiliar workflows by directly querying a capable LLM with search ability, returning results as plain text. We additionally integrate a Coding Agent for code-intensive actions and a Grounding Agent for precise action grounding, both invoked on demand when required. We evaluate VLAA-GUI across five top-tier backbones, including Opus 4.5, 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro, on two benchmarks with Linux and Windows tasks, achieving top performance on both (77.5% on OSWorld and 61.0% on WindowsAgentArena). Notably, three of the five backbones surpass human performance (72.4%) on OSWorld in a single pass. Ablation studies show that all three proposed components consistently improve a strong backbone, while a weaker backbone benefits more from these tools when the step budget is sufficient. Further analysis also shows that the Loop Breaker nearly halves wasted steps for loop-prone models.

Half-truths, claims that are factually correct yet misleading due to omitted context, remain a blind spot for fact verification systems focused on explicit falsehoods. Addressing such omission-based manipulation requires reasoning not only about what is said, but also about what is left unsaid. We propose RADAR, a role-anchored multi-agent debate framework for omission-aware fact verification under realistic, noisy retrieval. RADAR assigns complementary roles to a Politician and a Scientist, who reason adversarially over shared retrieved evidence, moderated by a neutral Judge. A dual-threshold early termination controller adaptively decides when sufficient reasoning has been reached to issue a verdict. Experiments show that RADAR consistently outperforms strong single- and multi-agent baselines across datasets and backbones, improving omission detection accuracy while reducing reasoning cost. These results demonstrate that role-anchored, retrieval-grounded debate with adaptive control is an effective and scalable framework for uncovering missing context in fact verification. The code is available at https://github.com/tangyixuan/RADAR.

Many neural network (NN) verification systems represent the network's input-output relation as a constraint program. Sound and complete, representations involve integer constraints, for simulating the activations. Recent works convexly relax the integer constraints, improving performance, at the cost of soundness. Convex relaxations consider outputs that are unreachable by the original network. We study the worst case divergence between the original network and its convex relaxations; both qualitatively and quantitatively. The relaxations' space forms a lattice, where the top element corresponds to a full relaxation, with every neuron linearized. The bottom element corresponds to the original network. We provide analytical upper and lower bounds for the $\ell_\infty$-distance between the fully relaxed and original outputs. This distance grows exponentially, w.r.t. the network's depth, and linearly w.r.t. the input's radius. The misclassification probability exhibits a step-like behavior, w.r.t. input radius. Our results are supported by experiments on MNIST, Fashion MNIST and random networks.

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.

As reinforcement learning continues to scale the training of large language model-based agents, reliably verifying agent behaviors in complex environments has become increasingly challenging. Existing approaches rely on rule-based verifiers or LLM-as-a-Judge models, which struggle to generalize beyond narrow domains. Agent-as-a-Judge addresses this limitation by actively interacting with environments and tools to acquire verifiable evidence, yet its capabilities remain underexplored. We introduce a benchmark AJ-Bench to systematically evaluate Agent-as-a-Judge across three domains-search, data systems, and graphical user interfaces-comprising 155 tasks and 516 annotated trajectories. The benchmark comprehensively assesses judge agents' abilities in information acquisition, state verification, and process verification. Experiments demonstrate consistent performance gains over LLM-as-a-Judge baselines, while also revealing substantial open challenges in agent-based verification. Our data and code are available at https://aj-bench.github.io/.

Network change validation remains a critical yet predominantly manual, time-consuming, and error-prone process in modern network operations. While formal network verification has made substantial progress in proving correctness properties, it is typically applied in offline, pre-deployment settings and faces challenges in accommodating continuous changes and validating live production behavior. Current operational approaches typically involve scattered testing tools, resulting in partial coverage and errors that surface only after deployment. In this paper, we present Aether, a novel approach that integrates Generative Agentic AI with a multi-functional Network Digital Twin to automate and streamline network change validation workflows. It features an agentic architecture with five specialized Network Operations AI agents that collaboratively handle the change validation lifecycle from intent analysis to network verification and testing. Aether agents use a unified Network Digital Twin integrating modeling, simulation, and emulation to maintain a consistent, up-to-date network view for verification and testing. By orchestrating agent collaboration atop this digital twin, Aether enables automated, rapid network change validation while reducing manual effort, minimizing errors, and improving operational agility and cost-effectiveness. We evaluate Aether over synthetic network change scenarios covering main classes of network changes and on past incidents from a major ISP operational network, demonstrating promising results in error detection (100%), diagnostic coverage (92-96%), and speed (6-7 minutes) over traditional methods.

State-of-the-art code generation frameworks rely on mental simulation, where LLMs internally trace execution to verify correctness. We expose a fundamental limitation: the Mental-Reality Gap -- where models hallucinate execution traces and confidently validate buggy code. This gap manifests along two orthogonal dimensions: the Specification Gap (overlooking edge cases during planning) and the Verification Gap (hallucinating correct behavior for flawed code). We propose SolidCoder with a simple principle: don't imagine -- execute. The S.O.L.I.D. architecture addresses both dimensions by forcing edge-case awareness before algorithm design and replacing imagined traces with sandboxed execution using property-based oracles. With GPT-4o, SolidCoder achieves state-of-the-art pass@1 performance: 95.7% on HumanEval (+0.6%p), 77.0% on CodeContests (+4.3%p), and 26.7% on APPS (+3.4%p). Ablation reveals that edge-case awareness provides the largest individual gain, while execution grounding catches categorically different errors that specification improvements cannot address. These gains generalize to RL post-trained models, validating that bridging both gap dimensions is essential for robust code synthesis. We release our code and framework to facilitate future research.

State-of-the-art reasoning models utilize long chain-of-thought (CoT) to solve increasingly complex problems using more test-time computation. In this work, we explore a long CoT setting where the model makes up to K successive attempts at solving a problem, in which each attempt is allowed to build on earlier ones after the model receives a hard verifier feedback. This motivates RL methods that can harness per-attempt rewards by carefully weighting individual attempts. We study optimizing the Verification@K reward (the model succeeds by the K-th attempt) and show that naively weighing the attempts by their pass/fail results in biased gradients. We introduce Calibrated Attempt-Level (CAL) GRPO by devising a weighing strategy to obtain unbiased gradients while maintaining small variance. Our theory reveals how incorporating per-attempt rewards influence the training and the eventual Verification@K performance. Experiments, baselines, and ablations on synthetic and real data corroborate our theory and the benefits of CAL-GRPO over vanilla GRPO as well as naive weighting.

General-purpose LLMs pose misinformation risks for development and policy experts, lacking epistemic humility for verifiable outputs. We present AVA (AI + Verified Analysis), a GenAI platform built on a curated library of over 4,000 World Bank Reports with multilingual capabilities. AVA's multi-agent pipeline enables users to query and receive evidence-based syntheses. It operationalizes epistemic humility through two mechanisms: citation verifiability (tracing claims to sources) and reasoned abstention (declining unsupported queries with justification and redirection). We conducted an in-the-wild evaluation with over 2,200 individuals from heterogeneous organisations and roles in 116 countries, via log analysis, surveys, and 20 interviews. Difference-in-Differences estimates associate sustained engagement with 2.4-3.9 hours saved weekly. Qualitatively, participants used AVA as a specialized "evidence engine"; reasoned abstention clarified scope boundaries, and trust was calibrated through institutional provenance and page-anchored citations. We contribute design guidelines for specialized AI and articulate a vision for "ecosystem-aware" Humble AI.

While distributed device-edge speculative decoding enhances resource utilization across heterogeneous nodes, its performance is often bottlenecked by conventional token-level verification strategies. Such rigid alignment leads to excessive rejections, significantly diminishing the accepted sequence length and increasing interaction rounds under fluctuating wireless conditions. In this paper, we propose WISV (Wireless-Informed Semantic Verification), a novel distributed speculative decoding framework that goes beyond strict token-level matching via a channel-aware semantic acceptance policy. WISV integrates a lightweight decision head into the edge-side target LLM to dynamically evaluate speculative tokens by synthesizing high-dimensional hidden representations with instantaneous channel state information (CSI). To optimize the trade-off between verification fidelity and communication overhead, we further design two tailored communication protocols: full-hidden upload and mismatch-first selective-hidden upload. Extensive simulations using a 1B drafter and an 8B target model demonstrate that WISV achieves up to a 60.8% increase in accepted length, a 37.3% reduction in interaction rounds, and a 31.4% improvement in end-to-end latency compared to vanilla speculative decoding across tested settings, while maintaining a negligible task accuracy drop (<1%). Finally, we validate WISV on a hardware testbed comprising an NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin and an A40-equipped server, confirming its real-world efficacy in accelerating edge-deployed LLM inference.

Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for fairness and accountability. At the scale of modern conferences and journals, manually inspecting the grounding of such claims is infeasible. We present Peerispect, an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews by extracting check-worthy claims from peer reviews, retrieving relevant evidence from the manuscript, and verifying the claims through natural language inference. Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper, enabling rapid inspection and interpretation. Peerispect is designed as a modular Information Retrieval (IR) pipeline, supporting alternative retrievers, rerankers, and verifiers, and is intended for use by reviewers, authors, and program committees. We demonstrate Peerispect through a live, publicly available demo (https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peerispect) and API services (https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peerispect), accompanied by a video tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9RkvkUh14).

We present a novel approach for claim verification from tabular data documents. Recent LLM-based approaches either employ complex pretraining/fine-tuning or decompose verification into subtasks, often lacking comprehensive explanations and generalizability. To address these limitations, we propose a Multi-Agentic framework for Claim verification (MACE) consisting of three specialized agents: Planner, Executor, and Verifier. Instead of elaborate finetuning, each agent employs a zero-shot Chain-of-Thought setup to perform its tasks. MACE produces interpretable verification traces, with the Planner generating explicit reasoning strategies, the Executor providing detailed computation steps, and the Verifier validating the logic. Experiments demonstrate that MACE achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on two datasets and performs on par with the best models on two others, while achieving 80--100% of best performance with substantially smaller models: 27--92B parameters versus 235B. This combination of competitive performance, memory efficiency, and transparent reasoning highlights our framework's effectiveness.