{"id":"93b32d493415a3ff69aecd7f8aec248c3c07595989b0195e54ccf4cebb149aa0","title":"arXiv cs.AI: When Is Proof-Step Verification Worth Its Cost?","argument":"In their paper, Abhinav Gupta, Ben Slivinski, Yashica Patodia and Michael Saldivar examine whether proof-step verification earns its cost on mathematical reasoning tasks. The pipeline turns a solver’s answer into typed steps, then asks LLM judges to certify or decline it. The authors report higher answer-key-match precision on GPQA and AIME-2025, but the system answers only a fraction of attempts. On near-ceiling MATH-500, gains are smaller and coverage falls. An output-token-matched self-consistency selector performs similarly in the reported comparison, with a paired difference whose 95% interval includes zero. The paper also identifies a failure before judging: in a diagnostic sample, many completed problems ended in invalid proof construction without reaching a judge. External LLMs accepted fewer rendered certified chains than the answer-key-match figure might suggest. The authors stress that these audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, and that agreement between open-weight auditors measures consistency, not proof accuracy. Their argument is that selected-answer precision alone leaves out important operational failures and uncertainty about proof validity; they motivate reporting execution failures, selected-answer precision and independently assessed proof validity separately.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The paper says its audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, so the reported results do not establish proof validity against either standard. The abstract describes evaluation on GPQA, AIME-2025 and a MATH-500 subset; it does not establish performance beyond these evaluated settings.","speaker":{"name":"Gupta, Abhinav, Slivinski, Ben, Patodia, Yashica, Saldivar, Michael","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"When Is Proof-Step Verification Worth Its Cost? Operating Requirements of Certify-or-Decline Verification for Open-Weight Mathematical Reasoning","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","publishedAt":"2026-11-10","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"The authors evaluate a proof-step verification pipeline on open-weight models across GPQA, AIME-2025 and a MATH-500 subset.","excerpt":"We evaluate this pipeline on open-weight models across GPQA, AIME-2025, and a MATH-500 subset.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"On the strong GPQA configuration and AIME, certification raises answer-key-match precision, while the system answers only a minority of attempts.","excerpt":"Certification raises answer-key-match precision by 31 percentage points on the strong GPQA configuration and 46 on AIME, while answering only 35% and 21% of attempts.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"On near-ceiling MATH-500, the reported precision gains are small and coverage drops.","excerpt":"On near-ceiling MATH-500, gains are at most 5 points at a loss of 13-27 points of coverage.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The output-token-matched self-consistency selector's precision is close to the verifier's pooled result; the paired-difference interval includes zero.","excerpt":"An output-token-matched self-consistency selector obtains 82.9% precision at 35% coverage, compared with the verifier's pooled 87.6% (paired difference: +4.8 points, 95% interval [-8.2, 18.5]).","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"A diagnostic sample found invalid proof construction could prevent completed problems from ever reaching a judge.","excerpt":"52 of 88 completed problems end in invalid proof construction without ever reaching a judge.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, and auditor agreement does not establish proof accuracy.","excerpt":"These audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth. Open-weight auditor pairs show near-zero chance-corrected agreement, which measures consistency rather than accuracy against proof truth.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors argue that reporting should distinguish execution failures, selected-answer precision and independently assessed proof validity.","excerpt":"These results motivate separate reporting of execution failures, selected-answer precision, and independently assessed proof validity.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","checkedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"How would the reported selected-answer precision and proof validity compare with assessments against human or formal-kernel ground truth?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: When Is Proof-Step Verification Worth Its Cost?","summary":"In their paper, Abhinav Gupta, Ben Slivinski, Yashica Patodia and Michael Saldivar examine whether proof-step verification earns its cost on mathematical reasoning tasks. The pipeline turns a solver’s answer into typed steps, then asks LLM judges to certify or decline it. The authors report higher answer-key-match precision on GPQA and AIME-2025, but the system answers only a fraction of attempts. On near-ceiling MATH-500, gains are smaller and coverage falls. An output-token-matched self-consistency selector performs similarly in the reported comparison, with a paired difference whose 95% interval includes zero. The paper also identifies a failure before judging: in a diagnostic sample, many completed problems ended in invalid proof construction without reaching a judge. External LLMs accepted fewer rendered certified chains than the answer-key-match figure might suggest. The authors stress that these audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, and that agreement between open-weight auditors measures consistency, not proof accuracy. Their argument is that selected-answer precision alone leaves out important operational failures and uncertainty about proof validity; they motivate reporting execution failures, selected-answer precision and independently assessed proof validity separately.","question":"How would the reported selected-answer precision and proof validity compare with assessments against human or formal-kernel ground truth?","claims":[{"text":"The authors evaluate a proof-step verification pipeline on open-weight models across GPQA, AIME-2025 and a MATH-500 subset.","excerpt":"We evaluate this pipeline on open-weight models across GPQA, AIME-2025, and a MATH-500 subset.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"On the strong GPQA configuration and AIME, certification raises answer-key-match precision, while the system answers only a minority of attempts.","excerpt":"Certification raises answer-key-match precision by 31 percentage points on the strong GPQA configuration and 46 on AIME, while answering only 35% and 21% of attempts.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"On near-ceiling MATH-500, the reported precision gains are small and coverage drops.","excerpt":"On near-ceiling MATH-500, gains are at most 5 points at a loss of 13-27 points of coverage.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The output-token-matched self-consistency selector's precision is close to the verifier's pooled result; the paired-difference interval includes zero.","excerpt":"An output-token-matched self-consistency selector obtains 82.9% precision at 35% coverage, compared with the verifier's pooled 87.6% (paired difference: +4.8 points, 95% interval [-8.2, 18.5]).","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"A diagnostic sample found invalid proof construction could prevent completed problems from ever reaching a judge.","excerpt":"52 of 88 completed problems end in invalid proof construction without ever reaching a judge.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, and auditor agreement does not establish proof accuracy.","excerpt":"These audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth. Open-weight auditor pairs show near-zero chance-corrected agreement, which measures consistency rather than accuracy against proof truth.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors argue that reporting should distinguish execution failures, selected-answer precision and independently assessed proof validity.","excerpt":"These results motivate separate reporting of execution failures, selected-answer precision, and independently assessed proof validity.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The paper says its audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, so the reported results do not establish proof validity against either standard.","The abstract describes evaluation on GPQA, AIME-2025 and a MATH-500 subset; it does not establish performance beyond these evaluated settings."],"mediaId":"ba68d014b0c0b5fafbbfac6fa3ccfbca7fd62542dad283a76bd418a8273c7f16","correctionReason":null,"id":"93b32d493415a3ff69aecd7f8aec248c3c07595989b0195e54ccf4cebb149aa0","publicationId":"952edc6b-4a11-4709-85ab-eeafa1f7aa27","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","sourceTitle":"When Is Proof-Step Verification Worth Its Cost? Operating Requirements of Certify-or-Decline Verification for Open-Weight Mathematical Reasoning","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-10","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-13T07:39:24.740Z","createdAt":"2026-11-13T16:16:25.327Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"ba68d014b0c0b5fafbbfac6fa3ccfbca7fd62542dad283a76bd418a8273c7f16","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-13T16:03:38.733Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","checkedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v7","mediaId":"ba68d014b0c0b5fafbbfac6fa3ccfbca7fd62542dad283a76bd418a8273c7f16","confidence":0.6,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"6f3270e27f68d84cf02ec47f51b3a1670e02f0f92a97a746a7a0ccfa9b97e834","decidedAt":"2026-11-13T16:03:54.329Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observationId":"001a04816b5d430a6d735a2e35962e86994cc3cabba14894d0d023e2a1b90d8b","retrievedAt":"2026-11-13T16:03:38.351Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"7e901b19-9c5a-408e-813b-a4e97a468517"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"f3da07a2-a4c4-455d-85bc-a420bf6c4bed"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-13T16:16:25.327Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Gupta, Abhinav","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Slivinski, Ben","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Patodia, Yashica","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Saldivar, Michael","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Gupta, Abhinav","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Gupta, Abhinav","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","contentSha256":"e0425ea87a44bb2a24ddd252028b2af4f21652ed69b719fb888ae01936b35373","textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Slivinski, Ben","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Slivinski, Ben","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","contentSha256":"e0425ea87a44bb2a24ddd252028b2af4f21652ed69b719fb888ae01936b35373","textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Patodia, Yashica","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Patodia, Yashica","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8:participation:2","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","contentSha256":"e0425ea87a44bb2a24ddd252028b2af4f21652ed69b719fb888ae01936b35373","textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Saldivar, Michael","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Saldivar, Michael","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8:participation:3","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","contentSha256":"e0425ea87a44bb2a24ddd252028b2af4f21652ed69b719fb888ae01936b35373","textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":4,"returned":4,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","snapshotId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8","contentSha256":"e0425ea87a44bb2a24ddd252028b2af4f21652ed69b719fb888ae01936b35373","textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":44,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/93b32d493415a3ff69aecd7f8aec248c3c07595989b0195e54ccf4cebb149aa0/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-when-is-proof-step-verification-worth-its-cost-93b32d49","formats":{"html":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-when-is-proof-step-verification-worth-its-cost-93b32d49","markdown":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-when-is-proof-step-verification-worth-its-cost-93b32d49.md","json":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-when-is-proof-step-verification-worth-its-cost-93b32d49.json"},"attribution":"Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.","maintainedGuideLinks":[],"conditions":[],"readerContext":{"version":"reader-context-v1","attribution":"Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.","terms":[{"id":"term-llm","name":"Large language model","explanation":"A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.","referenceUrl":"https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model"},{"id":"term-open-weights","name":"Open weights","explanation":"A model whose trained numbers are published so others can download, run and inspect it; the license and training data may still be restricted.","referenceUrl":"https://opensource.org/ai/open-weights"}],"entities":[{"id":"arxiv","name":"arXiv","kind":"organization","context":"arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.","referenceUrls":["https://arxiv.org/","https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html"],"path":"/entities/arxiv","json":"/entities/arxiv.json","markdown":"/entities/arxiv.md"},{"id":"figure","name":"Figure","kind":"organization","context":"Figure develops humanoid robots and publishes its own tests of how they perform physical tasks.","referenceUrls":["https://www.figure.ai/news","https://www.figure.ai/news/helix-2-5-zero-shot-30-home-generalization"],"path":"/entities/figure","json":"/entities/figure.json","markdown":"/entities/figure.md"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"93b32d493415a3ff69aecd7f8aec248c3c07595989b0195e54ccf4cebb149aa0","revision":"952edc6b-4a11-4709-85ab-eeafa1f7aa27","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"arXiv cs.AI: When Is Proof-Step Verification Worth Its Cost?","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-when-is-proof-step-verification-worth-its-cost-93b32d49"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","revision":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"When Is Proof-Step Verification Worth Its Cost? Operating Requirements of Certify-or-Decline Verification for Open-Weight Mathematical Reasoning","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794"},"status":"available","items":[],"next":null,"scope":"Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter."},"revisions":[{"id":"93b32d493415a3ff69aecd7f8aec248c3c07595989b0195e54ccf4cebb149aa0","title":"arXiv cs.AI: When Is Proof-Step Verification Worth Its Cost?","argument":"In their paper, Abhinav Gupta, Ben Slivinski, Yashica Patodia and Michael Saldivar examine whether proof-step verification earns its cost on mathematical reasoning tasks. The pipeline turns a solver’s answer into typed steps, then asks LLM judges to certify or decline it. The authors report higher answer-key-match precision on GPQA and AIME-2025, but the system answers only a fraction of attempts. On near-ceiling MATH-500, gains are smaller and coverage falls. An output-token-matched self-consistency selector performs similarly in the reported comparison, with a paired difference whose 95% interval includes zero. The paper also identifies a failure before judging: in a diagnostic sample, many completed problems ended in invalid proof construction without reaching a judge. External LLMs accepted fewer rendered certified chains than the answer-key-match figure might suggest. The authors stress that these audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, and that agreement between open-weight auditors measures consistency, not proof accuracy. Their argument is that selected-answer precision alone leaves out important operational failures and uncertainty about proof validity; they motivate reporting execution failures, selected-answer precision and independently assessed proof validity separately.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The paper says its audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, so the reported results do not establish proof validity against either standard. The abstract describes evaluation on GPQA, AIME-2025 and a MATH-500 subset; it does not establish performance beyond these evaluated settings.","speaker":{"name":"Gupta, Abhinav, Slivinski, Ben, Patodia, Yashica, Saldivar, Michael","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"When Is Proof-Step Verification Worth Its Cost? Operating Requirements of Certify-or-Decline Verification for Open-Weight Mathematical Reasoning","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","publishedAt":"2026-11-10","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"The authors evaluate a proof-step verification pipeline on open-weight models across GPQA, AIME-2025 and a MATH-500 subset.","excerpt":"We evaluate this pipeline on open-weight models across GPQA, AIME-2025, and a MATH-500 subset.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"On the strong GPQA configuration and AIME, certification raises answer-key-match precision, while the system answers only a minority of attempts.","excerpt":"Certification raises answer-key-match precision by 31 percentage points on the strong GPQA configuration and 46 on AIME, while answering only 35% and 21% of attempts.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"On near-ceiling MATH-500, the reported precision gains are small and coverage drops.","excerpt":"On near-ceiling MATH-500, gains are at most 5 points at a loss of 13-27 points of coverage.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The output-token-matched self-consistency selector's precision is close to the verifier's pooled result; the paired-difference interval includes zero.","excerpt":"An output-token-matched self-consistency selector obtains 82.9% precision at 35% coverage, compared with the verifier's pooled 87.6% (paired difference: +4.8 points, 95% interval [-8.2, 18.5]).","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"A diagnostic sample found invalid proof construction could prevent completed problems from ever reaching a judge.","excerpt":"52 of 88 completed problems end in invalid proof construction without ever reaching a judge.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, and auditor agreement does not establish proof accuracy.","excerpt":"These audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth. Open-weight auditor pairs show near-zero chance-corrected agreement, which measures consistency rather than accuracy against proof truth.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors argue that reporting should distinguish execution failures, selected-answer precision and independently assessed proof validity.","excerpt":"These results motivate separate reporting of execution failures, selected-answer precision, and independently assessed proof validity.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","checkedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"How would the reported selected-answer precision and proof validity compare with assessments against human or formal-kernel ground truth?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: When Is Proof-Step Verification Worth Its Cost?","summary":"In their paper, Abhinav Gupta, Ben Slivinski, Yashica Patodia and Michael Saldivar examine whether proof-step verification earns its cost on mathematical reasoning tasks. The pipeline turns a solver’s answer into typed steps, then asks LLM judges to certify or decline it. The authors report higher answer-key-match precision on GPQA and AIME-2025, but the system answers only a fraction of attempts. On near-ceiling MATH-500, gains are smaller and coverage falls. An output-token-matched self-consistency selector performs similarly in the reported comparison, with a paired difference whose 95% interval includes zero. The paper also identifies a failure before judging: in a diagnostic sample, many completed problems ended in invalid proof construction without reaching a judge. External LLMs accepted fewer rendered certified chains than the answer-key-match figure might suggest. The authors stress that these audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, and that agreement between open-weight auditors measures consistency, not proof accuracy. Their argument is that selected-answer precision alone leaves out important operational failures and uncertainty about proof validity; they motivate reporting execution failures, selected-answer precision and independently assessed proof validity separately.","question":"How would the reported selected-answer precision and proof validity compare with assessments against human or formal-kernel ground truth?","claims":[{"text":"The authors evaluate a proof-step verification pipeline on open-weight models across GPQA, AIME-2025 and a MATH-500 subset.","excerpt":"We evaluate this pipeline on open-weight models across GPQA, AIME-2025, and a MATH-500 subset.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"On the strong GPQA configuration and AIME, certification raises answer-key-match precision, while the system answers only a minority of attempts.","excerpt":"Certification raises answer-key-match precision by 31 percentage points on the strong GPQA configuration and 46 on AIME, while answering only 35% and 21% of attempts.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"On near-ceiling MATH-500, the reported precision gains are small and coverage drops.","excerpt":"On near-ceiling MATH-500, gains are at most 5 points at a loss of 13-27 points of coverage.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The output-token-matched self-consistency selector's precision is close to the verifier's pooled result; the paired-difference interval includes zero.","excerpt":"An output-token-matched self-consistency selector obtains 82.9% precision at 35% coverage, compared with the verifier's pooled 87.6% (paired difference: +4.8 points, 95% interval [-8.2, 18.5]).","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"A diagnostic sample found invalid proof construction could prevent completed problems from ever reaching a judge.","excerpt":"52 of 88 completed problems end in invalid proof construction without ever reaching a judge.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, and auditor agreement does not establish proof accuracy.","excerpt":"These audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth. Open-weight auditor pairs show near-zero chance-corrected agreement, which measures consistency rather than accuracy against proof truth.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors argue that reporting should distinguish execution failures, selected-answer precision and independently assessed proof validity.","excerpt":"These results motivate separate reporting of execution failures, selected-answer precision, and independently assessed proof validity.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The paper says its audits lack human or formal-kernel ground truth, so the reported results do not establish proof validity against either standard.","The abstract describes evaluation on GPQA, AIME-2025 and a MATH-500 subset; it does not establish performance beyond these evaluated settings."],"mediaId":"ba68d014b0c0b5fafbbfac6fa3ccfbca7fd62542dad283a76bd418a8273c7f16","correctionReason":null,"id":"93b32d493415a3ff69aecd7f8aec248c3c07595989b0195e54ccf4cebb149aa0","publicationId":"952edc6b-4a11-4709-85ab-eeafa1f7aa27","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","sourceTitle":"When Is Proof-Step Verification Worth Its Cost? Operating Requirements of Certify-or-Decline Verification for Open-Weight Mathematical Reasoning","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-10","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-13T07:39:24.740Z","createdAt":"2026-11-13T16:16:25.327Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"ba68d014b0c0b5fafbbfac6fa3ccfbca7fd62542dad283a76bd418a8273c7f16","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-13T16:03:38.733Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","checkedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v7","mediaId":"ba68d014b0c0b5fafbbfac6fa3ccfbca7fd62542dad283a76bd418a8273c7f16","confidence":0.6,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"6f3270e27f68d84cf02ec47f51b3a1670e02f0f92a97a746a7a0ccfa9b97e834","decidedAt":"2026-11-13T16:03:54.329Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observationId":"001a04816b5d430a6d735a2e35962e86994cc3cabba14894d0d023e2a1b90d8b","retrievedAt":"2026-11-13T16:03:38.351Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"7e901b19-9c5a-408e-813b-a4e97a468517"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"f3da07a2-a4c4-455d-85bc-a420bf6c4bed"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-13T16:16:25.327Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Gupta, Abhinav","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Slivinski, Ben","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Patodia, Yashica","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Saldivar, Michael","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Gupta, Abhinav","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Gupta, Abhinav","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","contentSha256":"e0425ea87a44bb2a24ddd252028b2af4f21652ed69b719fb888ae01936b35373","textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Slivinski, Ben","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Slivinski, Ben","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","contentSha256":"e0425ea87a44bb2a24ddd252028b2af4f21652ed69b719fb888ae01936b35373","textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Patodia, Yashica","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Patodia, Yashica","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8:participation:2","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","contentSha256":"e0425ea87a44bb2a24ddd252028b2af4f21652ed69b719fb888ae01936b35373","textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Saldivar, Michael","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Saldivar, Michael","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8:participation:3","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","contentSha256":"e0425ea87a44bb2a24ddd252028b2af4f21652ed69b719fb888ae01936b35373","textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":4,"returned":4,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14794","snapshotId":"1e775505a96db150a256beaf2aa40cfab3a99073fdc6c96f796dc32636ac58a8","contentSha256":"e0425ea87a44bb2a24ddd252028b2af4f21652ed69b719fb888ae01936b35373","textHash":"dc783fc8931313c59bc03035850b4a5b6f35a9677d0f9e63946605a0413ea3ef","observedAt":"2026-11-13T20:32:19.685Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":44,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/93b32d493415a3ff69aecd7f8aec248c3c07595989b0195e54ccf4cebb149aa0/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"952edc6b-4a11-4709-85ab-eeafa1f7aa27","verdict":"uncertain","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"pass","explanation":"The draft correctly credits the paper and its findings to the four listed authors, and it keeps the results framed as their reported results.","excerpt":"Authors:Abhinav Gupta, Ben Slivinski, Yashica Patodia, Michael Saldivar"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"uncertain","explanation":"The reading is broadly faithful but loses force in three places. It drops the headline numbers (+31 and +46 points of precision while answering only 35% and 21% of attempts). It never says, even briefly, that the self-consistency selector is a comparison method given the same output-token budget, so the paper's 'worth its cost' point is not readable. It also omits that open-weight auditor agreement was near-zero. Smallest repair: restore those figures, add a plain clause on the matched-budget comparison, and state that auditor agreement was near-zero. Terms such as GPQA and formal-kernel need tooltips.","excerpt":"Open-weight auditor pairs show near-zero chance-corrected agreement, which measures consistency rather than accuracy against proof truth."},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"The originalPublished date of 2026-11-10 matches the v1 submission date shown on the arXiv page.","excerpt":"[Submitted on 10 Nov 2026]"},{"dimension":"support","status":"pass","explanation":"The claims match the abstract. Calling the self-consistency result 'similar' is supported by the paired 95% interval spanning zero. The diagnostic sample of 52 of 88 supports 'many'. External acceptance of 61.0-67.6% versus 87.6% supports 'fewer'. The question and limitations follow from the paper's stated lack of ground truth.","excerpt":"external-LLM acceptance of rendered certified chains is 61.0-67.6%, compared with 87.6% answer-key match"},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the most direct way to reach the source.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-13T16:16:25.327Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}