Proof-Carrying Numbers (PCN): A Protocol for Trustworthy Numeric Answers from LLMs via Claim Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06902v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 17:20:16 GMT
• Title: Proof-Carrying Numbers (PCN): A Protocol for Trustworthy Numeric Answers from LLMs via Claim Verification
• Authors: Aivin V. Solatorio,
• Abstract summary: We propose textbfProof-Carrying Numbers (PCN), a presentation-layer protocol that enforces numeric fidelity through mechanical verification.<n>PCN is lightweight and model-agnostic, integrates seamlessly into existing applications, and can be extended with cryptographic commitments.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) as stochastic systems may generate numbers that deviate from available data, a failure known as \emph{numeric hallucination}. Existing safeguards -- retrieval-augmented generation, citations, and uncertainty estimation -- improve transparency but cannot guarantee fidelity: fabricated or misquoted values may still be displayed as if correct. We propose \textbf{Proof-Carrying Numbers (PCN)}, a presentation-layer protocol that enforces numeric fidelity through mechanical verification. Under PCN, numeric spans are emitted as \emph{claim-bound tokens} tied to structured claims, and a verifier checks each token under a declared policy (e.g., exact equality, rounding, aliases, or tolerance with qualifiers). Crucially, PCN places verification in the \emph{renderer}, not the model: only claim-checked numbers are marked as verified, and all others default to unverified. This separation prevents spoofing and guarantees fail-closed behavior. We formalize PCN and prove soundness, completeness under honest tokens, fail-closed behavior, and monotonicity under policy refinement. PCN is lightweight and model-agnostic, integrates seamlessly into existing applications, and can be extended with cryptographic commitments. By enforcing verification as a mandatory step before display, PCN establishes a simple contract for numerically sensitive settings: \emph{trust is earned only by proof}, while the absence of a mark communicates uncertainty.

Related papers

• Verifier-Bound Communication for LLM Agents: Certified Bounds on Covert Signaling [0.0]
  Colluding language-model agents can hide coordination in messages that remain policy-compliant at the surface level.<n>We present CLBC, a protocol where generation and admission are separated.<n>We show how this protocol yields an upper bound on transcript leakage in terms of latent leakage plus explicit residual channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T23:42:37Z)
• Verifiable Fine-Tuning for LLMs: Zero-Knowledge Training Proofs Bound to Data Provenance and Policy [0.0]
  We present Verifiable Fine Tuning, a protocol and system that produces succinct zero knowledge proofs.<n>We show that the system composes with probabilistic audits and bandwidth constraints.<n>Results indicate that the system is feasible today for real parameter efficient pipelines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-19T13:33:27Z)
• Do LLMs Know They Are Being Tested? Evaluation Awareness and Incentive-Sensitive Failures in GPT-OSS-20B [1.948261185683419]
  We investigate whether "evaluation scent" inflates measured performance without commensurate capability gains.<n>We run six paired A/B scenarios that hold task content and decoding fixed while varying framing.<n>We provide a reproducible A/B framework (prompt banks, validators, per-run scores, scripts) and practical guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T09:49:05Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers [90.50039419576807]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling.<n>To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary $0,1$ during training.<n>This choice carries a cost: it introduces textitfalse negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and textitfalse positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:56:44Z)
• Unsupervised Conformal Inference: Bootstrapping and Alignment to Control LLM Uncertainty [49.19257648205146]
  We propose an unsupervised conformal inference framework for generation.<n>Our gates achieve close-to-nominal coverage and provide tighter, more stable thresholds than split UCP.<n>The result is a label-free, API-compatible gate for test-time filtering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T23:40:47Z)
• Trusted Uncertainty in Large Language Models: A Unified Framework for Confidence Calibration and Risk-Controlled Refusal [31.458406135473805]
  We present UniCR, a unified framework that turns heterogeneous uncertainty evidence into a calibrated probability of correctness.<n>UniCR learns a lightweight calibration head with temperature scaling and proper scoring.<n>Experiments on short-form QA, code generation with execution tests, and retrieval-augmented long-form QA show consistent improvements in calibration metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-01T13:14:58Z)
• Can AI Keep a Secret? Contextual Integrity Verification: A Provable Security Architecture for LLMs [0.0]
  We present Contextual Integrity Verification (CIV), a provenance-time security architecture that attaches cryptographic inferenceally signed labels to every token.<n>CIV provides provenance, per-token non-interference guarantees on frozen models.<n>We demonstrate drop-in protection for Llama-3-8B and Mistral-7B.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T18:47:30Z)
• COIN: Uncertainty-Guarding Selective Question Answering for Foundation Models with Provable Risk Guarantees [51.5976496056012]
  COIN is an uncertainty-guarding selection framework that calibrates statistically valid thresholds to filter a single generated answer per question.<n>COIN estimates the empirical error rate on a calibration set and applies confidence interval methods to establish a high-probability upper bound on the true error rate.<n>We demonstrate COIN's robustness in risk control, strong test-time power in retaining admissible answers, and predictive efficiency under limited calibration data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T07:04:49Z)
• Broken Tokens? Your Language Model can Secretly Handle Non-Canonical Tokenizations [83.93566096400723]
  We find that instruction-tuned models retain up to 93.4% of their original performance when given a randomly sampled tokenization.<n>Character-level segmentation improves string manipulation and code understanding tasks by up to +14%.<n>Right-aligned digit grouping enhances large-number arithmetic by +33%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T18:02:26Z)
• Robust Conformal Prediction with a Single Binary Certificate [58.450154976190795]
  Conformal prediction (CP) converts any model's output to prediction sets with a guarantee to cover the true label with (adjustable) high probability.<n>We propose a robust conformal prediction that produces smaller sets even with significantly lower MC samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T08:41:53Z)
• Fact-Checking the Output of Large Language Models via Token-Level Uncertainty Quantification [116.77055746066375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are notorious for hallucinating, i.e., producing erroneous claims in their output. We propose a novel fact-checking and hallucination detection pipeline based on token-level uncertainty quantification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T17:44:17Z)
• Cryptography with Certified Deletion [16.354530084834863]
  We propose a new, unifying framework that yields an array of cryptographic primitives with certified deletion. primitives enable a party in possession of a quantum ciphertext to generate a classical certificate that the encrypted plaintext has been information-theoretically deleted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T00:48:06Z)
• Quantum Proofs of Deletion for Learning with Errors [91.3755431537592]
  We construct the first fully homomorphic encryption scheme with certified deletion. Our main technical ingredient is an interactive protocol by which a quantum prover can convince a classical verifier that a sample from the Learning with Errors distribution in the form of a quantum state was deleted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-03T10:07:32Z)
• Auditing AI models for Verified Deployment under Semantic Specifications [65.12401653917838]
  AuditAI bridges the gap between interpretable formal verification and scalability. We show how AuditAI allows us to obtain controlled variations for verification and certified training while addressing the limitations of verifying using only pixel-space perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-25T22:53:24Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.