FineVerify: Scaling Test-Time Compute with Fine-Grained Self-Verification for Agentic Search

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00660v1
• Date: Sat, 30 May 2026 10:21:20 GMT
• Title: FineVerify: Scaling Test-Time Compute with Fine-Grained Self-Verification for Agentic Search
• Abstract summary: FineVerify is a fine-grained self-verification framework for agentic search.<n>It decomposes each question into checkable sub-questions, verifies sampled candidates, and selects the candidate with the highest aggregated score.<n>FineVerify consistently outperforms standard scaling baselines.
• Score: 88.16262636915975
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Agentic search requires language model agents to explore many sources and answer complex information-seeking questions. Scaling test-time compute is a promising way to improve these agents, but current approaches can fail, because correct answers are often sparse and score-based selection depends on model calibration. We propose FineVerify, a fine-grained self-verification framework that decomposes each question into checkable sub-questions, verifies sampled candidates against each sub-question, and selects the candidate with the highest aggregated score. This per-check structure turns selection into simpler local judgments and produces scores under the same explicit criteria. Across four agentic search benchmarks and two models, FineVerify consistently outperforms standard scaling baselines. With only four sampled trajectories, it improves GPT-5-mini by 8.2 accuracy points and Gemini-3-flash by 5.6% on average. With 12 samples, FineVerify enables GPT-5-mini to surpass frontier GPT-5 on BrowseComp-Plus. Beyond accuracy, FineVerify produces interpretable verification traces that help audit benchmark errors, suggesting broader applications for inspecting agentic search systems. Code and data are available at https://github.com/XuZhao0/fineverify

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)
• Disagree to Explore, Agree to Commit: Routing-Guided Test-Time Scaling for Software Agents [60.650808962786364]
  We study whether native MoE router traces can guide steering and selection without an external judge or selection-time test execution.<n>Our analysis shows that routing provides a robust behavioral role signal; token-granular readouts and decision-matched comparison sets turn it into effective control.<n>We evaluate on SWE-bench Verified using open-weight sparse MoE agents across scales and reasoning-effort settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T03:07:03Z)
• 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)
• Inference-Time Scaling of Verification: Self-Evolving Deep Research Agents via Test-Time Rubric-Guided Verification [71.98473277917962]
  Recent advances in Deep Research Agents (DRAs) are transforming automated knowledge discovery and problem-solving.<n>We propose an alternative paradigm: self-evolving the agent's ability by iteratively verifying the policy model's outputs, guided by meticulously crafted rubrics.<n>We present DeepVerifier, a rubrics-based outcome reward verifier that leverages the asymmetry of verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T09:47:31Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• Trust but Verify! A Survey on Verification Design for Test-time Scaling [8.428618801719198]
  Test-time scaling (TTS) has emerged as a new frontier for scaling the performance of Large Language Models.<n>Verifiers serve as reward models that help score the candidate outputs from the decoding process.<n>Verifiers could be prompt-based, fine-tuned as a discriminative or generative model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T22:27:21Z)
• 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)
• Reward Models Enable Scalable Code Verification by Trading Accuracy for Throughput [21.59519440154879]
  We show that an outcome reward model (ORM) plays a crucial role in scaling verification through trading accuracy for speed.<n>We analyze the generate-prune-then-rank approach and show that it works by filtering out incorrect but highly ranked solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T17:58:21Z)
• Claim Check-Worthiness Detection: How Well do LLMs Grasp Annotation Guidelines? [0.0]
  We use zero- and few-shot LLM prompting to identify text segments requiring fact-checking. We evaluate the LLMs' predictive and calibration accuracy on five CD/CW datasets from diverse domains. Our results show that optimal prompt verbosity is domain-dependent, adding context does not improve performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T13:31:05Z)
• Factcheck-Bench: Fine-Grained Evaluation Benchmark for Automatic Fact-checkers [121.53749383203792]
  We present a holistic end-to-end solution for annotating the factuality of large language models (LLMs)-generated responses. We construct an open-domain document-level factuality benchmark in three-level granularity: claim, sentence and document. Preliminary experiments show that FacTool, FactScore and Perplexity are struggling to identify false claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T14:41:57Z)
• 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.