Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Pessimistic Verification for Open Ended Math Questions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2511.21522 v2 pith:S4JN5KZ4 submitted 2025-11-26 cs.AI

Pessimistic Verification for Open Ended Math Questions

classification cs.AI
keywords verificationpessimisticefficiencyaccuracyeffectivenessfurtherlongmath
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Automatic verification is a critical component in building math-solving agents and reinforcement learning, yet it often falls short in generalizability, performance, and cost-efficiency. Identifying that the primary bottleneck of verification lies in error detection capability, we propose pessimistic verification, a paradigm of agentic workflows that rejects a solution if any of multiple parallel verifiers identifies a flaw. We further introduce progressive pessimistic verification, which employs fine-grained proof decomposition to significantly enhance verification accuracy and efficiency. Our approach surpasses the performance and token efficiency of extended long chain-of-thought (long CoT) and mainstream verification workflows, crucially, our analysis reveals that existing benchmarks underestimate its effectiveness on stronger models due to inherent annotation errors. To further validate the effectiveness of our method, we applied a verification-based solving workflow on the IMO 2025 and MathArena Apex 2025 datasets, where the workflow with progressive pessimistic verification exhibits remarkable improvements in both efficiency and accuracy on highly challenging contest-level math problems with state-of-the-art models. Code is available at https://github.com/THUNLP-MT/pverify.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Pseudo-Formalization for Automatic Proof Verification

    cs.LO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Pseudo-Formalization decomposes proofs into self-contained natural language modules for independent LLM-based Block Verification, outperforming LLM-as-judge baselines on olympiad and research math benchmarks while rel...

  2. Pseudo-Formalization for Automatic Proof Verification

    cs.LO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Pseudo-Formalization decomposes natural language proofs into modular blocks for independent LLM verification via Block Verification, outperforming LLM-as-judge baselines on error detection in olympiad and research mat...