Verify-repair loops are a standard means for large language model (LLM) agents to correct faulty plans in code generation, mathematical reasoning, and tool use. When both the verifier and the repairer are noisy, repair can damage already-correct plans, and reported acceptance keeps rising while true validity falls, so existing methods lack a principled basis for deciding when repair should stop.
arXiv:2607. 17641v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Verify-repair loops are a standard means for large language model (LLM) agents to correct faulty plans in code generation, mathematical reasoning, and tool use.
arXiv:2607. 14167v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents often retry after external validation rejects a candidate, but the interface between validation and the next model call remains underspecified.
arXiv:2606. 19808v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time reasoning is increasingly used as a serving-time control knob, but extra reasoning is not uniformly valuable: it can repair failed attempts, waste compute on already-correct answers, or introduce harmful answer changes.
arXiv:2607. 24604v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generate--test--revise loops are common in coding agents, but repetition alone provides no reliability guarantee.
arXiv:2608. 04552v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Black-box language-model reliability is commonly pursued by sampling, prompting, voting, verifying, or iteratively revising individual answers.
arXiv:2607. 28871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect.
arXiv:2607. 19843v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have made automated program repair (APR) increasingly practical for real-world bugs, but repairing directly from bug reports remains underconstrained.
arXiv:2607. 00269v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs, solvers, and agent teams increasingly generate workflow actions, repairs, and plans, but a generated action may be syntactically valid yet stale, infeasible, conflicting, or destructive of the evidence that triggered a repair.
arXiv:2607. 12605v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have improved automated program repair (APR), but two limitations remain.
arXiv:2606. 16999v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frozen small code models ( =45.
arXiv:2607. 16215v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing guardrail systems for large language model agents operate as binary classifiers that block unsafe content, leaving organizations to discard failing outputs and retry from scratch.
arXiv:2606. 01416v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-augmented large language model (LLM) agents rely on orchestration layers that coordinate planning, retrieval, tool invocation, validation, memory, and recovery.