Justified or Just Convincing? Error Verifiability as a Dimension of LLM Quality

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04418v2
• Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 03:14:22 GMT
• Title: Justified or Just Convincing? Error Verifiability as a Dimension of LLM Quality
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 24.614192550852277
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose $v_{\text{bal}}$, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

Related papers

• AutoVerifier: Residual-Guided Non-Parametric Optimization for Reference-Based Answer Verification [5.990350746292239]
  AutoVerifier learns implicit assumptions from recurring verifier errors.<n>Experiments on four verifier benchmarks demonstrate that AutoVerifier outperforms state-of-the-art verifiers by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:06:40Z)
• Claim-Level Confidence Calibration for Reliable Decision Making with Large Language Models [7.714704554667688]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains.<n>LLMs often hallucinate and express confidence that is misaligned with factual correctness.<n>We study claim-level confidence calibration as a decision-relevant uncertainty signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T16:09:54Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• 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)
• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Critique to Verify: Accurate and Honest Test-Time Scaling with RL-Trained Verifiers [63.99316853136304]
  Mirror-Critique is a framework that trains a verifier with informative critiques.<n>We deploy a small instruction-tuned model to synthesize high-quality critique data.<n>The resulting Mirror-Verifier is deployed to evaluate candidate solutions by generating multiple critiques per solution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T06:50:24Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• FactLens: Benchmarking Fine-Grained Fact Verification [6.814173254027381]
  We advocate for a shift towards fine-grained verification, where complex claims are broken down into smaller sub-claims for individual verification.<n>We introduce FactLens, a benchmark for evaluating fine-grained fact verification, with metrics and automated evaluators of sub-claim quality.<n>Our results show alignment between automated FactLens evaluators and human judgments, and we discuss the impact of sub-claim characteristics on the overall verification performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-08T21:26:57Z)
• Rationale-Aware Answer Verification by Pairwise Self-Evaluation [11.763229353978321]
  We show that training reliable verifiers requires ensuring the validity of rationales in addition to the correctness of the final answers. Our results suggest that training reliable verifiers requires ensuring the validity of rationales in addition to the correctness of the final answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T08:53:00Z)
• From Chaos to Clarity: Claim Normalization to Empower Fact-Checking [57.024192702939736]
  Claim Normalization (aka ClaimNorm) aims to decompose complex and noisy social media posts into more straightforward and understandable forms. We propose CACN, a pioneering approach that leverages chain-of-thought and claim check-worthiness estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that CACN outperforms several baselines across various evaluation measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T16:07:06Z)

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.