AutoPyVerifier: Learning Compact Executable Verifiers for Large Language Model Outputs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 2026.
Builds on
21 of 30 references.
References · 21
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
- 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
- 2025Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Modelscited by 349
- 2025MathArena: Evaluating LLMs on Uncontaminated Math Competitionscited by 275
- 2024When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMscited by 230
- 2025Generalizing Verifiable Instruction Followingcited by 178
- 2024Benchmarking Complex Instruction-Following with Multiple Constraints Compositioncited by 147
- 2026MemSkill: Learning and Evolving Memory Skills for Self-Evolving Agentscited by 129
- 2025Process Reward Models That Thinkcited by 118
- 2026AutoHarness: improving LLM agents by automatically synthesizing a code harnesscited by 63
9 more
- 2026Natural-Language Agent Harnessescited by 54
- 2025LLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 33
- 2025How to Correctly Report LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluationscited by 25
- 2025StructEval: Benchmarking LLMs' Capabilities to Generate Structural Outputscited by 23
- 2025Advancing Tool-Augmented Large Language Models via Meta-Verification and Reflection Learningcited by 22
- 2025TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Themcited by 20
- 2026Beyond Outcome Verification: Verifiable Process Reward Models for Structured Reasoningcited by 12
- 2026AgentV-RL: Scaling Reward Modeling with Agentic Verifiercited by 12
- 2026Verified Multi-Agent Orchestration: A Plan-Execute-Verify-Replan Framework for Complex Query Resolutioncited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.
7 papers.
- 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gapcited by 6
- 2026Ratchet: How Reliable Must an LLM Judge Be to Retire a Skill?cited by 3
- 2026The Blind Curator: How a Biased Judge Silently Disables Skill Retirement in Self-Evolving Agentscited by 1
- 2026SBCO: Self-Supervised, Verifier-Grounded Harness Optimization For Planning Agentscited by 0
- 2026Metrics That Write Themselves: Evolving an Evaluator from Its Own Blind Spotscited by 0
- 2026Compile, Don't Memorize: A Context Compilation Architecture (CCA) for In-Context Learningcited by 0
- 2026Vestrum: Improving Agent Harnesses by Adapting Their Verification, Structure and Memorycited by 0
- 2026Vestrum: Improving Agent Harnesses by Adapting Their Verification, Structure and Memory27 Sep 2026
- 2026Compile, Don't Memorize: A Context Compilation Architecture (CCA) for In-Context Learning1 Sep 2026
- 2026Metrics That Write Themselves: Evolving an Evaluator from Its Own Blind Spots19 Aug 2026
- 2026SBCO: Self-Supervised, Verifier-Grounded Harness Optimization For Planning Agents10 Aug 2026
- 2026The Blind Curator: How a Biased Judge Silently Disables Skill Retirement in Self-Evolving Agents8 Jul 2026
- 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gap29 Jun 2026
- 2026Ratchet: How Reliable Must an LLM Judge Be to Retire a Skill?21 May 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Automating Formal Verification with Reinforcement Learning and Recursive Inference
- 2024VerifierQ: Enhancing LLM Test Time Compute with Q-Learning-based Verifiers
- 2025VerifyBench: A Systematic Benchmark for Evaluating Reasoning Verifiers Across Domains
- 2025PAG: Multi-Turn Reinforced LLM Self-Correction with Policy as Generative Verifier
- 2025VerIF: Verification Engineering for Reinforcement Learning in Instruction Following
- 2025Reinforcing General Reasoning without Verifiers
- 2025From Solving to Verifying: A Unified Objective for Robust Reasoning in LLMs
- 2026ReflexiCoder: Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Reflect on Generated Code and Self-Correct It via Reinforcement Learning