pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20745 · v1 · pith:GIR72H7Wnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CL

The Hidden Signal of Verifier Strictness: Controlling and Improving Step-Wise Verification via Selective Latent Steering

Yefan Zhou , Yilun Zhou , Austin Xu , Soroush Vosoughi , Shafiq Joty , Jiang Gui This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 06:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL
keywords verifier strictnesshidden-state steeringstep-wise verificationgenerative verifierslatent interventionprocess supervisionreasoning verificationactivation steering
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hidden-state signal near verification paragraph boundaries encodes and allows control of verifier strictness through selective latent steering without fine-tuning.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how generative verifiers in step-wise reasoning often miscalibrate their strictness, either missing errors or rejecting valid steps. It locates a verification-specific signal in hidden states right at the boundaries of verification paragraphs that reflects the model's acceptance tendency. Steering this signal directly changes how lenient or critical the verifier becomes, without any retraining. To avoid the downside of uniform steering, which pits error detection against correctness approval, the method routes interventions at the sample level using other latent signals. This produces better verification results than prompt tweaks or standard activation steering while matching self-consistency performance at a fraction of the compute cost.

Core claim

In step-wise verification, a verifier's tendency to accept or reject a solution step is encoded near the boundary of the corresponding verification paragraph. Hidden-state steering can directly modulate verifier strictness without fine-tuning. Uniform steering creates a trade-off between error detection and correctness certification. VerifySteer resolves the trade-off by using latent correctness signals for sample-level routing and selectively intervening only at paragraph boundaries. On ProcessBench and Hard2Verify this yields higher performance than prompt optimization or activation steering baselines and remains competitive with self-consistency at 4-7x lower inference cost. The approach,

What carries the argument

The verification-specific hidden-state signal located near paragraph boundaries, which encodes strictness and is selectively steered by VerifySteer using sample-level routing to balance detection and certification.

If this is right

  • Selective steering balances error detection against correct-step approval better than uniform methods.
  • VerifySteer matches self-consistency accuracy while using 4-7 times less inference compute.
  • The method adds gains on top of already fine-tuned verifiers.
  • No retraining is required to adjust strictness on the fly for different tasks or models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paragraph-boundary signal could appear in other verification settings, such as fact-checking or code review, allowing similar steering.
  • Production systems might replace expensive multi-sample consistency checks with single-pass steered verification.
  • The routing logic could be tested on out-of-distribution reasoning problems to check if the latent signals remain informative.
  • Repeated application across model versions would show whether the boundary signal stays consistent or needs periodic rediscovery.

Load-bearing premise

The signal near verification paragraph boundaries is stable, causally tied to strictness, and can be routed reliably by latent correctness signals without introducing fresh failure modes.

What would settle it

Apply VerifySteer to a set of correct and incorrect steps while measuring whether acceptance rates change after steering at the identified paragraph boundaries; no change in rates or emergence of new error patterns would contradict the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20745 by Austin Xu, Jiang Gui, Shafiq Joty, Soroush Vosoughi, Yefan Zhou, Yilun Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of our findings on controlling step-wise verification through hidden￾state steering. (a) Effect of steering. The baseline verifier falsely accepts an erroneous step and misses the true error location. After steering, the verifier correctly rejects the erroneous step and identifies the exact error location. (b) Steering pipeline. In the offline stage, we collect hidden states of the paragraph-bound… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Verification strictness is adjustable via hidden-state steering. Results on Qwen3- 8B on the Math subset of ProcessBench. Each panel shows how hidden-state steering changes under-critical mistake count (lower is better), TNR (higher is better), over-critical mistake count, and TPR relative to the baseline. Upper: applying the strictness-increasing vector dstrict across different layers and steering strengt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Additional baseline comparisons and ablations. From left to right, the three sub￾plots report TNR, TPR, and F1, averaged over the four ProcessBench subsets. The leftmost gray bar corresponds to the activation steering baseline CAA (Rimsky et al., 2024). The gray-hatched and blue bars show ablations of VerifySteer without sample-level adaptivity and without delimiter-level adaptivity. The rightmost bar show… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Validation AUC of linear classifier on classifying delimiter tokens before the true [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Generative verifiers have emerged as a promising paradigm for step-wise verification, but their verification behavior is often poorly calibrated: they may be under-critical and miss erroneous steps, or over-critical and reject correct reasoning. We refer to this tendency to be overly lenient or overly critical as verifier strictness. In this work, we study whether verifier strictness can be controlled through hidden-state intervention. We uncover a verification-specific hidden-state signal: in step-wise verification, a verifier's tendency to accept or reject a solution step is encoded near the boundary of the corresponding verification paragraph. Exploiting this signal, we show that hidden-state steering can directly modulate verifier strictness without fine-tuning. However, uniform steering induces a trade-off between error detection and correctness certification. To address this, we propose VerifySteer, which exploits latent correctness signals for sample-level routing and selectively intervenes on paragraph boundaries. Experiments on ProcessBench and Hard2Verify show that VerifySteer outperforms prompt optimization and activation steering baselines, and is competitive with self-consistency while requiring 4-7x less inference compute. VerifySteer is also complementary to verification fine-tuning, providing further gains on top of fine-tuned verifiers. The code is available at https://github.com/YefanZhou/VerifySteer.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that generative verifiers for step-wise reasoning exhibit poorly calibrated strictness (overly lenient or critical behavior). It identifies a verification-specific signal in hidden states near the boundaries of verification paragraphs that encodes acceptance/rejection tendencies. Exploiting this, hidden-state steering can modulate strictness without fine-tuning. To avoid the error-detection vs. correctness-certification trade-off from uniform steering, the authors introduce VerifySteer, which uses latent correctness signals for sample-level routing and selectively steers only at paragraph boundaries. On ProcessBench and Hard2Verify, VerifySteer outperforms prompt optimization and activation steering baselines, matches self-consistency performance at 4-7x lower compute, and adds gains on top of fine-tuned verifiers.

Significance. If the boundary signal is robust and the routing heuristic generalizes, this provides an efficient, training-free method to calibrate verifier behavior in LLM reasoning pipelines. The reported compute savings relative to self-consistency and complementarity with fine-tuning suggest practical utility for improving step-wise verification reliability. The localization of a decision-relevant signal in hidden states also advances mechanistic understanding of how verifiers represent correctness.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3] §3.3 (VerifySteer routing): The assumption that latent correctness signals provide independent sample-level routing decisions is load-bearing for resolving the strictness trade-off. Because routing and steering both operate in the same hidden-state space, it is possible that routing correlates with the strictness signal rather than supplying orthogonal information; without explicit controls or ablations demonstrating independence, the claim that VerifySteer avoids new failure modes remains under-supported.
  2. [§4] §4 (Experiments on ProcessBench/Hard2Verify): The stability of the paragraph-boundary signal across model families, tokenizers, and prompt formats is not fully detailed. If the signal location or steering effect is an artifact of fixed verification-paragraph delimiters or specific tokenization, the method would not transfer, weakening the central claim that a general verification-specific hidden-state signal exists and can be steered.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states '4-7x less inference compute' without specifying the exact baseline configuration or metric (e.g., tokens generated or wall-clock time); adding this detail would strengthen the compute-efficiency claim.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and method diagrams could more explicitly label the paragraph-boundary positions used for steering to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the supporting evidence for our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.3] §3.3 (VerifySteer routing): The assumption that latent correctness signals provide independent sample-level routing decisions is load-bearing for resolving the strictness trade-off. Because routing and steering both operate in the same hidden-state space, it is possible that routing correlates with the strictness signal rather than supplying orthogonal information; without explicit controls or ablations demonstrating independence, the claim that VerifySteer avoids new failure modes remains under-supported.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation on the potential non-independence of routing and steering. The routing decisions in VerifySteer are derived from latent correctness signals that reflect per-step verification outcomes, while the strictness signal is localized specifically at paragraph boundaries. Our results show that selective application of steering via this routing resolves the error-detection/correctness-certification trade-off that appears under uniform steering, providing indirect evidence of useful separation. To directly address the concern, we will add an ablation in the revised manuscript that quantifies the correlation between the routing scores and the paragraph-boundary steering vectors across the evaluated benchmarks. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Experiments on ProcessBench/Hard2Verify): The stability of the paragraph-boundary signal across model families, tokenizers, and prompt formats is not fully detailed. If the signal location or steering effect is an artifact of fixed verification-paragraph delimiters or specific tokenization, the method would not transfer, weakening the central claim that a general verification-specific hidden-state signal exists and can be steered.

    Authors: We agree that broader validation of the paragraph-boundary signal's robustness is necessary to support the generality of the finding. The original experiments focus on the model and prompt configurations used in ProcessBench and Hard2Verify. In the revision we will add results across additional model families, tokenizer variants, and alternative verification-paragraph formatting to demonstrate that the signal location and steering effect persist beyond the specific delimiters and tokenization used in the main experiments. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical discovery and external benchmarks ground the claims

full rationale

The paper's core contribution rests on an empirical observation of a hidden-state signal near verification paragraph boundaries, followed by steering and sample-level routing experiments evaluated on held-out ProcessBench and Hard2Verify sets. No derivation step reduces a reported gain or strictness modulation to a quantity defined by the paper's own fitted parameters or equations; the routing decisions are presented as independent latent signals rather than tautological. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the central result, and the method does not rename known patterns or smuggle ansatzes via prior work. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the empirical discovery of a hidden-state signal and the effectiveness of selective intervention; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond standard LLM hidden-state manipulation techniques.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5786 in / 1147 out tokens · 25380 ms · 2026-05-21T06:47:54.720683+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Reza Bayat, Ali Rahimi-Kalahroudi, Mohammad Pezeshki, Sarath Chandar, and Pascal Vincent

    Seyedarmin Azizi, Erfan Baghaei Potraghloo, and Massoud Pedram. Activation steering for chain-of-thought compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04742,

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    URLhttps://openreview

    ISSN 2835-8856. URLhttps://openreview. net/forum?id=ePUVetPKu6. Survey Certification, Expert Certification. Siddharth Boppana, Annabel Ma, Max Loeffler, Raphael Sarfati, Eric Bigelow, Atticus Geiger, Owen Lewis, and Jack Merullo. Reasoning theater: Disentangling model beliefs from chain-of-thought.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.05488,

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    J1: Exploring simple test-time scaling for llm-as-a-judge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11875,

    Chi-Min Chan, Chunpu Xu, Jiaming Ji, Zhen Ye, Pengcheng Wen, Chunyang Jiang, Yaodong Yang, Wei Xue, Sirui Han, and Yike Guo. J1: Exploring simple test-time scaling for llm-as-a-judge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11875,

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    Seal: Steerable reasoning calibration of large language models for free.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07986, 2025a

    Runjin Chen, Zhenyu Zhang, Junyuan Hong, Souvik Kundu, and Zhangyang Wang. Seal: Steerable reasoning calibration of large language models for free.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07986, 2025a. Wei-Lin Chen, Zhepei Wei, Xinyu Zhu, Shi Feng, and Yu Meng. Do llm evaluators prefer themselves for a reason?arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03846, 2025b. Zhichen Dong, Zhanhui...

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    No free labels: Limitations of llm-as-a-judge without human grounding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05061,

    Michael Krumdick, Charles Lovering, Varshini Reddy, Seth Ebner, and Chris Tanner. No free labels: Limitations of llm-as-a-judge without human grounding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05061,

    work page arXiv

  6. [6]

    How do LLMs Compute Verbal Confidence

    Dharshan Kumaran, Arthur Conmy, Federico Barbero, Simon Osindero, Viorica Pa- traucean, and Petar Velickovic. How do llms compute verbal confidence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.17839,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Fairsteer: Inference time debiasing for llms with dynamic activation steering

    Yichen Li, Zhiting Fan, Ruizhe Chen, Xiaotang Gai, Luqi Gong, Yan Zhang, and Zuozhu Liu. Fairsteer: Inference time debiasing for llms with dynamic activation steering. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pp. 11293–11312,

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Hidden States as Early Signals: Step-level Trace Evaluation and Pruning for Efficient Test-Time Scaling

    Zhixiang Liang, Beichen Huang, Zheng Wang, and Minjia Zhang. Hidden states as early signals: Step-level trace evaluation and pruning for efficient test-time scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.09093,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Controlling thinking speed in reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.03704,

    Zhengkai Lin, Zhihang Fu, Ze Chen, Chao Chen, Liang Xie, Wenxiao Wang, Deng Cai, Zheng Wang, and Jieping Ye. Controlling thinking speed in reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.03704,

    work page arXiv

  10. [10]

    Fractional reasoning via latent steering vectors improves inference time compute.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15882, 2025a

    Sheng Liu, Tianlang Chen, Pan Lu, Haotian Ye, Yizheng Chen, Lei Xing, and James Zou. Fractional reasoning via latent steering vectors improves inference time compute.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15882, 2025a. Zijun Liu, Peiyi Wang, Runxin Xu, Shirong Ma, Chong Ruan, Peng Li, Yang Liu, and Yu Wu. Inference-time scaling for generalist reward modeling.arXiv pre...

    work page arXiv

  11. [11]

    S 2r: Teaching llms to self-verify and self-correct via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12853,

    Ruotian Ma, Peisong Wang, Cheng Liu, Xingyan Liu, Jiaqi Chen, Bang Zhang, Xin Zhou, Nan Du, and Jia Li. S 2r: Teaching llms to self-verify and self-correct via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12853,

    work page arXiv

  12. [12]

    Generative reward models

    Dakota Mahan, Duy Van Phung, Rafael Rafailov, Chase Blagden, Nathan Lile, Louis Castri- cato, Jan-Philipp Fr¨anken, Chelsea Finn, and Alon Albalak. Generative reward models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12832,

    work page arXiv

  13. [13]

    Scaling generative verifiers for natural language mathematical proof verification and selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13027,

    Sadegh Mahdavi, Branislav Kisacanin, Shubham Toshniwal, Wei Du, Ivan Moshkov, George Armstrong, Renjie Liao, Christos Thrampoulidis, and Igor Gitman. Scaling generative verifiers for natural language mathematical proof verification and selection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13027,

    work page arXiv

  14. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2023.blackboxnlp-1.2. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2023.blackboxnlp-1.2/. OpenAI. gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b model card,

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/ 2023

  15. [15]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508. 10925. Shrey Pandit, Austin Xu, Xuan-Phi Nguyen, Yifei Ming, Caiming Xiong, and Shafiq Joty. Hard2verify: A step-level verification benchmark for open-ended frontier math.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13744,

    work page arXiv

  16. [16]

    The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Models

    12 Preprint. Kiho Park, Yo Joong Choe, and Victor Veitch. The linear representation hypothesis and the geometry of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03658,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long 2024

  18. [18]

    Amrith Setlur, Chirag Nagpal, Adam Fisch, Xinyang Geng, Jacob Eisenstein, Rishabh Agarwal, Alekh Agarwal, Jonathan Berant, and Aviral Kumar

    URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.828/. Amrith Setlur, Chirag Nagpal, Adam Fisch, Xinyang Geng, Jacob Eisenstein, Rishabh Agarwal, Alekh Agarwal, Jonathan Berant, and Aviral Kumar. Rewarding progress: Scaling automated process verifiers for LLM reasoning. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations,

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    v 1: Unifying generation and self-verification for parallel reasoners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04304, 2026a

    Harman Singh, Xiuyu Li, Kusha Sareen, Monishwaran Maheswaran, Sijun Tan, Xiaoxia Wu, Junxiong Wang, Alpay Ariyak, Qingyang Wu, Samir Khaki, et al. v 1: Unifying generation and self-verification for parallel reasoners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04304, 2026a. Janvijay Singh, Austin Xu, Yilun Zhou, Yefan Zhou, Dilek Hakkani-T¨ur, and Shafiq Joty. On the shelf...

    work page arXiv

  20. [20]

    Steering Language Models With Activation Engineering

    Alexander Matt Turner, Lisa Thiergart, Gavin Leech, David Udell, Juan J Vazquez, Ulisse Mini, and Monte MacDiarmid. Steering language models with activation engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10248,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Angular steering: Behavior control via rotation in activation space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26243,

    Hieu M Vu and Tan M Nguyen. Angular steering: Behavior control via rotation in activation space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26243,

    work page arXiv

  22. [22]

    Chen Xiong, Zhiyuan He, Pin-Yu Chen, Ching-Yun Ko, and Tsung-Yi Ho

    13 Preprint. Chen Xiong, Zhiyuan He, Pin-Yu Chen, Ching-Yun Ko, and Tsung-Yi Ho. Steering externali- ties: Benign activation steering unintentionally increases jailbreak risk for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04896,

    work page arXiv

  23. [23]

    Stepwiser: Stepwise generative judges for wiser reasoning, 2025 c

    Wei Xiong, Wenting Zhao, Weizhe Yuan, Olga Golovneva, Tong Zhang, Jason Weston, and Sainbayar Sukhbaatar. Stepwiser: Stepwise generative judges for wiser reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19229,

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    Qwen3 Technical Report

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Error clas- sification of large language models on math word problems: A dynamically adaptive framework

    Zhangyue Yin, YuHong Sun, Xuanjing Huang, Xipeng Qiu, and Hui Zhao. Error clas- sification of large language models on math word problems: A dynamically adaptive framework. In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng (eds.),Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, November

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Spherical Steering: Geometry-Aware Activation Rotation for Language Models

    Zejia You, Chunyuan Deng, and Hanjie Chen. Spherical steering: Geometry-aware activation rotation for language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08169,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Reasoning models know when they’re right: Probing hidden states for self-verification

    Anqi Zhang, Yulin Chen, Jane Pan, Chen Zhao, Aurojit Panda, Jinyang Li, and He He. Reasoning models know when they’re right: Probing hidden states for self-verification. InSecond Conference on Language Modeling, 2025a. Lunjun Zhang, Arian Hosseini, Hritik Bansal, Mehran Kazemi, Aviral Kumar, and Rishabh Agarwal. Generative verifiers: Reward modeling as ne...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.264 2025

  28. [28]

    Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparency

    Andy Zou, Long Phan, Sarah Chen, James Campbell, Phillip Guo, Richard Ren, Alexander Pan, Xuwang Yin, Mantas Mazeika, Ann-Kathrin Dombrowski, et al. Representation engineering: A top-down approach to ai transparency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01405,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    as critical as possible

    15 Preprint. A Prompt Templates We use three prompt templates for step-wise verification evaluation, described below. Basic Prompt.This is the standard evaluation template provided by Zheng et al. (2025), which instructs the verifier to review the solution paragraph by paragraph and return the index of the first erroneous step. Basic Prompt ### User Promp...

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    A paragraph is labeled as Acceptance if it contains at least one required acceptance cue and none of the excluded cues; the same rule is applied analogously for Rejection

    Acceptance Required cues: correct, okay, no error Excluded cues: incorrect, the correct, not correct, **not** correct, let me, let’s Rejection Required cues: error, incorrect, issue, mistake, flaw, inconsistency, not correct, wrong Excluded cues: no/any error, any explicit/immedi- ate/mathematical error, no immediate/mathemati- cal error, is logically/mat...

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    For OlympiadBench and Omni-MATH, we sample 5,132 olympiad-level examples

    and MetaMath (Yu et al., 2024). For OlympiadBench and Omni-MATH, we sample 5,132 olympiad-level examples. For Hard2Verify, we sample 812 competition-level proof problems using keyword matching of competition names (e.g., IMO, Putnam, USAMO) following the problem categorization in Pandit et al. (2025). For each sample, we generate 16 verification rollouts ...

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    reasoning and precision

    of LLM concepts and behaviors in hidden states: Li et al. (2025); Zhang et al. (2025d); Lin et al. (2025) identify the steering layer as the one where the target features are most separable. Concretely, we sample 1,000 problems from ActPRM, generate 16 verification rollouts per problem, and collect delimiter-token hidden states preceding true rejection an...

    work page 2025