Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16909v1
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 17:17:32 GMT
• Title: Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI
• Abstract summary: We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
• Score: 49.995126139461085
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper argues that AI-assisted peer review should be verification-first rather than review-mimicking. We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth, as the right objective for review tools. We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation: verification pressure, when claims outpace verification capacity, and signal shrinkage, when real improvements become hard to separate from noise. In a minimal model that mixes occasional high-fidelity checks with frequent proxy judgment, we derive an explicit coupling law and an incentive-collapse condition under which rational effort shifts from truth-seeking to proxy optimization, even when current decisions still appear reliable. These results motivate actions for tool builders and program chairs: deploy AI as an adversarial auditor that generates auditable verification artifacts and expands effective verification bandwidth, rather than as a score predictor that amplifies claim inflation.

Related papers

• Reality Is the Final Verifier: On Two Key Gaps in Agentic Software Engineering [78.51705689800838]
  We propose an assurance-revision loop that uses deployment evidence to revise the requirements, model, or evaluator.<n>We then cast assured agentic development as a resource-allocation problem over human judgment, agent capability, and compute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T17:58:48Z)
• VERDICT: Training-Free Step-Wise Verification of Multimodal Reasoning via Disagreement-Aware Consensus [15.909063535182632]
  Multimodal large language models often generate reasoning chains containing subtle errors that lead to incorrect answers.<n>We formalise this as a coupled scoring problem among disparate, frozen verifiers.<n>We propose a training-free domain-agnostic step-wise verification approach we call VERDICT: VERification via Disagreement-Informed Coupled Thresholding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T08:46:38Z)
• The Hidden Signal of Verifier Strictness: Controlling and Improving Step-Wise Verification via Selective Latent Steering [67.8271652641864]
  We study whether verifier strictness can be controlled through hidden-state intervention.<n>VerifySteer exploits latent correctness signals for sample-level routing and selectively intervenes on paragraph boundaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T05:48:16Z)
• Reward Hacking in Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning [23.418394508756464]
  We study reward hacking in rubric-based RL, where a policy is optimized against a training verifier but evaluated against a cross-family panel of three frontier judges.<n>Our framework separates two sources of divergence: verifier failure and rubric-design limitations.<n>Across medical and science domains, weak verifiers produce large proxy-reward gains that do not transfer to the reference verifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T17:54:25Z)
• AgentV-RL: Scaling Reward Modeling with Agentic Verifier [63.55502685076245]
  Verifiers have been demonstrated to enhance LLM reasoning via test-time scaling (TTS)<n>We propose Agentic Verifier, a framework that transforms reward modeling into a multi-turn, tool-augmented deliberative process.<n>We show that Agentic Verifier yields consistent performance gains under both parallel and sequential TTS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T12:27:36Z)
• Justified or Just Convincing? Error Verifiability as a Dimension of LLM Quality [24.614192550852277]
  No standard measure exists for whether model-generated justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones.<n>We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose $v_textbal$, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness.<n>We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T04:53:59Z)
• Verifiable Reasoning for LLM-based Generative Recommendation [106.7765000777685]
  Reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs) has recently shown strong potential in enhancing generative recommendation.<n>We propose a novel textbftextitreason-verify-recommend paradigm, which interleaves reasoning with verification to provide reliable feedback.<n>Experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that VRec substantially enhances recommendation effectiveness and scalability without compromising efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T16:55:45Z)
• When to Trust the Cheap Check: Weak and Strong Verification for Reasoning [26.38833436936642]
  We formalize the tension between strong and weak verification.<n>We show that optimal policies admit a two-threshold structure and that calibration and sharpness govern the value of weak verifiers.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T18:47:38Z)
• From Fluent to Verifiable: Claim-Level Auditability for Deep Research Agents [8.49451413641847]
  We argue that as research generation becomes cheap, auditability becomes the bottleneck.<n>This perspective proposes claim-level auditability as a first-class design and evaluation target for deep research agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T19:39:15Z)
• interwhen: A Generalizable Framework for Verifiable Reasoning with Test-time Monitors [47.363850513075356]
  We present a test-time verification framework, interwhen, that ensures that the output of a reasoning model is valid wrt. a given set of verifiers.<n> Verified reasoning is an important goal in high-stakes scenarios such as deploying agents in the physical world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T08:35:01Z)
• Adaptive Test-Time Compute Allocation via Learned Heuristics over Categorical Structure [1.8055130471307603]
  Test-time computation has become a primary driver of progress in large language model (LLM) reasoning.<n>We study reasoning under a emphverification-cost-limited setting and ask how verification effort should be allocated across intermediate states.<n>We propose a state-level selective verification framework that combines (i) deterministic feasibility gating over a structured move interface, (ii) pre-verification ranking using a hybrid of learned state-distance and residual scoring, and (iii) adaptive allocation of verifier calls based on local uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T19:57:53Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• Verifiability-First Agents: Provable Observability and Lightweight Audit Agents for Controlling Autonomous LLM Systems [0.0]
  We propose a Verifiability-First architecture that integrates run-time attestations of agent actions using cryptographic and symbolic methods.<n>We also embed Audit Agents that continuously verify intent versus behavior using constrained reasoning.<n>Our approach shifts the evaluation focus from how likely misalignment is to how quickly and reliably misalignment can be detected and remediated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T06:12:43Z)
• Co-Sight: Enhancing LLM-Based Agents via Conflict-Aware Meta-Verification and Trustworthy Reasoning with Structured Facts [18.221173068008603]
  Co-Sight turns reasoning into a falsifiable and auditable process.<n>Two mechanisms: Conflict-Aware Meta-Verification (CAMV) and Trustworthy Reasoning with Structured Facts (TRSF)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T15:14:14Z)
• Veri-R1: Toward Precise and Faithful Claim Verification via Online Reinforcement Learning [53.05161493434908]
  Claim verification with large language models (LLMs) has recently attracted growing attention, due to their strong reasoning capabilities and transparent verification processes.<n>We introduce Veri-R1, an online reinforcement learning framework that enables an LLM to interact with a search engine and to receive reward signals that explicitly shape its planning, retrieval, and reasoning behaviors.<n> Empirical results show that Veri-R1 improves joint accuracy by up to 30% and doubles the evidence score, often surpassing its larger-scale model counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T11:49:48Z)
• VeriLLM: A Lightweight Framework for Publicly Verifiable Decentralized Inference [3.8760740008451156]
  We introduce VeriLLM, a publicly verifiable protocol for decentralized language models (LLMs) inference.<n>VeriLLM combines lightweight empirical rerunning with cryptographic commitments, allowing verifiers to validate results at approximately 1% of the underlying inference cost.<n>We show that VeriLLM achieves reliable public verifiability with minimal overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T04:07:32Z)
• Latent Veracity Inference for Identifying Errors in Stepwise Reasoning [78.29317733206643]
  We introduce Veracity Search (VS), a discrete search algorithm over veracity assignments.<n>It performs otherwise intractable inference in the posterior distribution over latent veracity values.<n>It generalizes VS, enabling accurate zero-shot veracity inference in novel contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T04:16:36Z)
• VerifiAgent: a Unified Verification Agent in Language Model Reasoning [10.227089771963943]
  We propose a unified verification agent that integrates two levels of verification: meta-verification and tool-based adaptive verification.<n>VerifiAgent autonomously selects appropriate verification tools based on the reasoning type.<n>It can be effectively applied to inference scaling, achieving better results with fewer generated samples and costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T04:05:03Z)
• FIRE: Fact-checking with Iterative Retrieval and Verification [63.67320352038525]
  FIRE is a novel framework that integrates evidence retrieval and claim verification in an iterative manner.<n>It achieves slightly better performance while reducing large language model (LLM) costs by an average of 7.6 times and search costs by 16.5 times.<n>These results indicate that FIRE holds promise for application in large-scale fact-checking operations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T06:44:18Z)

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.