Claim-Level Reliability Assessment for Efficient Test-Time Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11994v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 12:33:05 GMT
• Title: Claim-Level Reliability Assessment for Efficient Test-Time Reasoning
• Abstract summary: We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR)<n>CLR reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification.
• Score: 9.168249719115845
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR), a training-free framework that reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification. Since whole-trace evaluation often obscures decisive errors due to signal dilution from routine tokens, CLR condenses each reasoning trace into a compact set of decision-critical claims, thereby isolating its logical anchors. Furthermore, recognizing the inherent difficulty of generating entirely correct solutions under fixed model capabilities, CLR shifts the focus to semantic falsification. This approach exploits a fundamental asymmetry between solution construction and claim refutation. Constructing a valid solution requires a flawless reasoning path, whereas refuting an incorrect claim requires identifying only a single decisive flaw. This targeted search for negative evidence systematically compresses the survival space of high-confidence incorrect traces, effectively suppressing erroneous consensus via nonlinear reliability scoring. Across four LLMs and four reasoning benchmarks under matched budgets, CLR generally improves upon pass@1 and self-consistency. On GPT-OSS-20B/CMIMC25, for instance, CLR exceeds pass@1 by 27.15 percentage-points and raises self-consistency accuracy from 77.50\% to 82.19\% with 37.0\% fewer tokens.

Related papers

• SVR: Self-Verifying Refinement via Joint Verdict-Confidence Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Test-Time Compute [62.3458279176813]
  Self-Verifying Refinement is an oracle-free multi-turn reinforcement learning framework.<n>It learns to use self-verification as a compute-control policy.<n>It achieves a macro-average accuracy of 0.563 with only 2.99 inference turns on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T16:20:58Z)
• CauTion: Knowing When to Trust LLMs for Ensemble Causal Discovery [51.07538881798502]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising source of domain knowledge to complement statistical inference.<n>We propose CauTion, a framework that reliably integrates LLM domain knowledge into an ensemble of statistical causal discovery algorithms.<n>CauTion consistently outperforms both data-centric and LLM-augmented baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T13:07:43Z)
• Measuring Reasoning Quality in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Behavioral Framework [9.601233098598456]
  This study proposes a unified multi-dimensional framework for measuring reasoning quality in LLMs from a behavioral perspective.<n>Experiments on seven LLMs across 975 items from four benchmarks demonstrate that the framework reveals behaviors invisible to accuracy-only metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T17:03:42Z)
• Pause and Reflect: Conformal Aggregation for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [8.024041325202612]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning with self-consistency improves performance by aggregating multiple sampled reasoning paths.<n>We introduce a conformal procedure for CoT reasoning that directly addresses aggregation uncertainty.<n>Our approach replaces majority voting with weighted score aggregation over reasoning paths and calibrates an abstention rule using conformal risk control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T20:33:59Z)
• 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)
• ODAR: Principled Adaptive Routing for LLM Reasoning via Active Inference [60.958331943869126]
  ODAR-Expert is an adaptive routing framework that optimize the accuracy-efficiency trade-off via principled resource allocation.<n>We show strong and consistent gains, including 98.2% accuracy on MATH and 54.8% on Humanity's Last Exam.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T05:22:01Z)
• Know What You Know: Metacognitive Entropy Calibration for Verifiable RL Reasoning [31.629261193485053]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have emerged as a powerful paradigm for solving complex real-world tasks.<n>Most existing outcome-only RLVR pipelines rely almost exclusively on a binary correctness signal and largely ignore the model's intrinsic uncertainty.<n>We propose EGPO, a metacognitive entropy calibration framework that explicitly integrates intrinsic uncertainty into RLVR for enhancing LRMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T08:40:06Z)
• Reliability-Aware Adaptive Self-Consistency for Efficient Sampling in LLM Reasoning [20.371912257758634]
  Self-Consistency improves reasoning reliability through multi-sample aggregation, but incurs substantial inference cost.<n>We propose Reliability-Aware Adaptive Self-Consistency (ReASC), which addresses this limitation by reframing adaptive sampling from response counting to evidence sufficiency.<n>ReASC consistently achieves the best accuracy-cost trade-off compared to existing baselines, yielding improved inference efficiency across model scales from 3B to 27B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T12:27:53Z)
• CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering [64.50919789875233]
  We show that correctness of a solution is encoded as a geometrically separable signature within the trajectory of hidden activations.<n>ClUE consistently outperforms LLM-as-a-judge baselines and matches or exceeds modern confidence-based methods in reranking candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:14:33Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• 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)

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.