FUSE: Ensembling Verifiers with Zero Labeled Data

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.18547v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 17:40:33 GMT
• Title: FUSE: Ensembling Verifiers with Zero Labeled Data
• Abstract summary: Fully Unsupervised Score Ensembling (FUSE) is a method for improving verification quality by ensembling verifiers without access to ground truth correctness labels.<n>Despite requiring zero ground truth labels, FUSE typically matches or improves upon semi-supervised alternatives in test-time scaling experiments.
• Score: 11.563701622899295
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Verification of model outputs is rapidly emerging as a key primitive for both training and real-world deployment of large language models (LLMs). In practice, this often involves using imperfect LLM judges and reward models since ground truth acquisition can be time-consuming and expensive. We introduce Fully Unsupervised Score Ensembling (FUSE), a method for improving verification quality by ensembling verifiers without access to ground truth correctness labels. The key idea behind FUSE is to control conditional dependencies between verifiers in a manner that improves the unsupervised performance of a class of spectral algorithms from the ensembling literature. Despite requiring zero ground truth labels, FUSE typically matches or improves upon semi-supervised alternatives in test-time scaling experiments with diverse sets of generator models, verifiers, and benchmarks. In particular, we validate our method on both conventional academic benchmarks such as GPQA Diamond and on frontier, unsaturated benchmarks such as Humanity's Last Exam and IMO Shortlist questions.

Related papers

• Beyond the Answer Key: Robustness Evaluation of Large Language Models for Step-Level Mathematical Verification [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as graders, verifiers, and process auditors.<n>Most mathematical evaluations still emphasize final-answer accuracy.<n>We introduce a controlled linear-equation benchmark for evaluating LLMs in the evaluator role.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-28T16:17:11Z)
• CITE: Anytime-Valid Statistical Inference in LLM Self-Consistency [10.34950275095264]
  We study anytime-valid certification of a prespecified target answer as unique mode of the model's response distribution.<n>We propose the Certification by Intersection-union Testing with E-processes (CITE) algorithm, which provably controls false certification at any prescribed level.<n>We also prove an category-set-size-free stopping-time rate, establish matching minimax lower bounds up to constants in the main regime, and extend the construction to confidence-weighted voting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T08:41:51Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• The Unlearning Mirage: A Dynamic Framework for Evaluating LLM Unlearning [54.67958855362658]
  We propose a dynamic framework that stress tests unlearning using complex structured queries.<n>Our approach first elicits knowledge from the target model (pre-unlearning) and constructs targeted probes, ranging from simple queries to multi-hop chains.<n>Our framework enables practical and scalable evaluation of unlearning methods without the need for manual construction of forget test sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T19:51:33Z)
• PRIME: A Process-Outcome Alignment Benchmark for Verifiable Reasoning in Mathematics and Engineering [71.15346406323827]
  We introduce PRIME, a benchmark for evaluating verifiers on Process-Outcome Alignment verification.<n>We find that current verifiers frequently fail to detect derivation flaws.<n>We propose a process-aware RLVR training paradigm utilizing verifiers selected via PRIME.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T04:45:01Z)
• Reference-Specific Unlearning Metrics Can Hide the Truth: A Reality Check [60.77691669644931]
  We propose Functional Alignment for Distributional Equivalence (FADE), a novel metric that measures distributional similarity between unlearned and reference models.<n>We show that FADE captures functional alignment across the entire output distribution, providing a principled assessment of genuine unlearning.<n>These findings expose fundamental gaps in current evaluation practices and demonstrate that FADE provides a more robust foundation for developing and assessing truly effective unlearning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T20:50:30Z)
• 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)
• Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction [29.543787728397643]
  We propose training verifiers using the ubiquitous next-token prediction objective, jointly on verification and solution generation.<n>Compared to standard verifiers, such generative verifiers (GenRM) can benefit from several advantages of LLMs.<n>We observe improvements of 28% $rightarrow$ 44.6% on MATH, and 37.9% $rightarrow$ 53.5% on MMLU abstract algebra.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T17:57:45Z)
• PaCoST: Paired Confidence Significance Testing for Benchmark Contamination Detection in Large Language Models [41.772263447213234]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to be trained on vast amounts of data, which may unintentionally or intentionally include data from commonly used benchmarks.<n>This inclusion can lead to cheatingly high scores on model leaderboards, yet result in disappointing performance in real-world applications.<n>We introduce PaCoST, a Paired Confidence Significance Testing to effectively detect benchmark contamination in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T13:12:40Z)
• Weak Supervision Performance Evaluation via Partial Identification [46.73061437177238]
  Programmatic Weak Supervision (PWS) enables supervised model training without direct access to ground truth labels. We present a novel method to address this challenge by framing model evaluation as a partial identification problem. Our approach derives reliable bounds on key metrics without requiring labeled data, overcoming core limitations in current weak supervision evaluation techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T07:15:11Z)
• WeCheck: Strong Factual Consistency Checker via Weakly Supervised Learning [40.5830891229718]
  We propose a weakly supervised framework that aggregates multiple resources to train a precise and efficient factual metric, namely WeCheck. Comprehensive experiments on a variety of tasks demonstrate the strong performance of WeCheck, which achieves a 3.4% absolute improvement over previous state-of-the-art methods on TRUE benchmark on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T08:04:36Z)
• Sequential Kernelized Independence Testing [77.237958592189]
  We design sequential kernelized independence tests inspired by kernelized dependence measures.<n>We demonstrate the power of our approaches on both simulated and real data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-14T18:08:42Z)

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.