verification
When to Trust the Cheap Check: Weak and Strong Verification for Reasoning
Kiyani, Shayan, Noorani, Sima, Pappas, George, Hassani, Hamed
Reasoning with LLMs increasingly unfolds inside a broader verification loop. Internally, systems use cheap checks, such as self-consistency or proxy rewards, which we call weak verification. Externally, users inspect outputs and steer the model through feedback until results are trustworthy, which we call strong verification. These signals differ sharply in cost and reliability: strong verification can establish trust but is resource-intensive, while weak verification is fast and scalable but noisy and imperfect. We formalize this tension through weak--strong verification policies, which decide when to accept or reject based on weak verification and when to defer to strong verification. We introduce metrics capturing incorrect acceptance, incorrect rejection, and strong-verification frequency. Over population, we show that optimal policies admit a two-threshold structure and that calibration and sharpness govern the value of weak verifiers. Building on this, we develop an online algorithm that provably controls acceptance and rejection errors without assumptions on the query stream, the language model, or the weak verifier.
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Cognitive Science > Problem Solving (0.93)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.68)
- North America > United States > Missouri > St. Louis County > St. Louis (0.04)
- Europe > Hungary > Budapest > Budapest (0.04)
- Europe > Germany > Baden-Württemberg > Karlsruhe Region > Heidelberg (0.04)
- North America > United States > Florida > Pinellas County > St. Petersburg (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Barbara County > Santa Barbara (0.04)
- North America > United States > Arizona > Maricopa County > Phoenix (0.04)
- (4 more...)
- North America > United States > Florida > Pinellas County > St. Petersburg (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Barbara County > Santa Barbara (0.04)
- North America > United States > Arizona > Maricopa County > Phoenix (0.04)
- (5 more...)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.46)
- Instructional Material > Course Syllabus & Notes (0.46)
- North America > United States > California > Los Angeles County > Los Angeles (0.14)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston (0.04)
- North America > United States > Illinois > Champaign County > Urbana (0.04)
- Europe > Austria (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.68)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Optimization (0.68)
- Information Technology > Software Engineering (0.68)
- Information Technology > Security & Privacy (0.67)
- North America > United States > Maryland > Prince George's County > College Park (0.04)
- Asia > Thailand > Bangkok > Bangkok (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.93)
- North America > United States > Illinois > Champaign County > Urbana (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Monterey County > Monterey (0.04)
- Europe > Germany > Baden-Württemberg > Karlsruhe Region > Heidelberg (0.04)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Allegheny County > Pittsburgh (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Montreal (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Switzerland (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > San Diego County > San Diego (0.04)
- Europe > Germany > Baden-Württemberg > Karlsruhe Region > Heidelberg (0.04)