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.
The paper introduces LLM-as-an-Improver, a method that uses verification feedback to enhance the candidate set in verifier-based selection. It proposes Verify–Repair–Reselect (VRR), which keeps the initial winner, generates three complementary alternatives (repaired versions of the winner and runner‑up, and a new approach), filters invalid or duplicate candidates, and then reselects the final answer. Experiments on code‑generation and reasoning benchmarks show that VRR outperforms fixed‑pool selection and can recover correct solutions even when the initial pool is entirely wrong.
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.
ContractRL introduces a contract-constrained sequential repair protocol for structured tool calls, modeling verifier-guided JSON repair as a bounded decision process. The policy observes candidate data, verifier feedback, JSON pointers, repair history, and budget, using a contract-derived action mask to filter invalid operations before a deterministic validator applies changes. Compared to Patch‑SFT and full regeneration, ContractRL achieves higher semantic success (0.9362 vs. 0.9076 and 0.9148) while generating fewer tokens (34.4 vs. 44.9 and 137.2), and policy optimization further improves success rates.
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:2609.15684v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language agents increasingly rely on reusable skills, but post-failure repair is often handled by opaque one-shot reflection: a model generates a skill...
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.