mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Online Verification of Language Model Responses Under Cost Constraints

arXiv 2610.02632 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As large language models are increasingly deployed for multi-step reasoning, verifying the correctness of their outputs has become essential for maintaining reliability at scale. Verifying the correctness of large language model outputs is often done by querying a costly ground-truth oracle, which is impractical to invoke at every step in an online setting. Prior work addresses this by querying a single weak verifier on every step, and using its score to decide whether the costly strong verifier needs to be queried as well, reserving strong verification for only a small fraction of the steps. However, a single fixed weak verifier may not perform consistently well as the subject matter or difficulty of incoming queries changes over time, and committing to one in advance risks either overly costly or inaccurate verification. We introduce OMVV (Online Multi-Verifier Verification), an algorithm that maintains a pool of K candidate weak verifiers with differing cost and verification performance, and adaptively routes each round's decision to a verifier selected via an online score combiner and an exponential-weights routing policy. OMVV provides a distribution-free, finite-time guarantee on false-accept and false-reject rates across the full pool of verifiers, and further achieves sublinear regret against the best fixed verifier in hindsight under a combined cost and consistency objective. Experiments on reasoning dataset benchmarks show that OMVV achieves higher accuracy at lower verification cost than any single fixed verifier, across a range of operating budgets.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

Builds on

17 of 29 references.

References · 17

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  2. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  3. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
  4. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
  5. 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,955
  6. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  7. 2023Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotationscited by 928
  8. 2019Analysing Mathematical Reasoning Abilities of Neural Modelscited by 335
  9. 2020Consistent Estimators for Learning to Defer to an Expertcited by 271
  10. 2024MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documentscited by 257
  11. 2025ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoningcited by 201
  12. 2021Differentiable Learning Under Triagecited by 76
5 more
  1. 2023Who Should Predict? Exact Algorithms For Learning to Defer to Humanscited by 70
  2. 2022Calibrated Learning to Defer with One-vs-All Classifierscited by 69
  3. 2025Shrinking the Generation-Verification Gap with Weak Verifierscited by 24
  4. 2021Online Selective Classification with Limited Feedbackcited by 9
  5. 2026When to Trust the Cheap Check: Weak and Strong Verification for Reasoningcited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.