Certified by Abstention: Distribution-Free Guarantees for Chain-of-Thought Verifiers at Small Calibration Budgets
New in LLM reasoning; no direction yet. LLM reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Signals that predict whether a chain-of-thought (CoT) trace is correct are compared by AUC, but deploying one requires a threshold with a guarantee. We ask what distribution-free selective guarantees deliver for CoT verifiers at realistic calibration budgets of tens to a few hundred labelled problems, using seven open models, five verifier signals and 37,000 graded traces. The central observation is validity by abstention: an (α,δ)-valid procedure that issues a certificate with probability Prm fire bounds the failure probability of an issued certificate only by δ/Prm fire, so a certificate that rarely fires can be valid and wrong every time it is used. In a simulation with known risk the standard certificate fails in at most 0.3% of calibration draws but in up to 69% of those in which it fires. A certification floor and a lattice condition for Benjamini-Hochberg conformal selection explain why certificates abstain at these budgets, and the data bear them out: the standard certificate returns nothing or a large accepted set, and an unreadable residual-stream probe buys two to three times the coverage of the readable signals, an edge a cross-fitted reconstruction cannot recover linearly from the readable features. We then give a floor-started fixed-sequence certificate, valid without monotonicity assumptions, that covers more than the Bonferroni certificate on every model-signal pair and raises coverage at the non-vacuous target 0.75π0 from 0.05 to 0.16, although the floor keeps absolute coverage small. Finally, a certificate cannot see what matters after deployment: under benchmark shift the error among accepted traces tracks the new task's base error, and under best-of-n selection against the verifier it rises past the target while the empirical failure frequency stays below δ, because abstention absorbs the failures.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2026.
Builds on
9 of 44 references.
References · 9
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
- 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 579
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 338
- 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 222
- 2025Olmo 3cited by 95
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Proof-Carrying Certificates for LLM Pipelines: A Trust-Boundary Architecture
- 2026The Hidden Signal of Verifier Strictness: Controlling and Improving Step-Wise Verification via Selective Latent Steering
- 2026An Enclosed Mode Is a Gauge Choice: Topology Relative to Reach in Certified Code World Models
- 2026When to Trust the Cheap Check: Weak and Strong Verification for Reasoning
- 2026Certified Speculative Execution for Untrusted AI Agents
- 2026Conformal Certification of Reasoning Trace Prefixes
- 2026A Verifiable Search Is Not a Learnable Chain-of-Thought
- 2026Available Guardrails: Certifying Selective Prediction across ML Systems