Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper introduces "error verifiability" as a metric ($v_{\text{bal}}$) to quantify how well LLM-generated justifications help users discern correct from incorrect answers. They find that standard techniques like model scaling and post-training fail to improve verifiability. However, domain-aware methods like reflect-and-rephrase (for math) and oracle-rephrase (for factual QA), which incorporate external information, significantly improve verifiability, highlighting it as a distinct quality dimension beyond accuracy.
LLM-generated explanations often fail to help users identify incorrect answers, and simply scaling models or applying post-training doesn't fix the problem.
As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose $v_{\text{bal}}$, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.
