arXiv AI By Akiyoshi Tomihari, Yuma Ichikawa

LLM-as-an-Improver: Turning Verification into Better Candidates

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 20

Verify, Repair, Repeat, or Stop? Robust Stopping for Noisy Verify-Repair Loops in LLM Agents

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 AI
Aug 7

Refining Over Resampling: Test-Time Self-Correction for LLM Reasoning

arXiv:2608. 05643v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time scaling improves LLM reasoning by using additional inference compute, but wider sampling alone can suffer from diminishing returns: new rollouts often repeat existing answer patterns instead of adding useful reasoning diversity.

By Ahsan Bilal, Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin, Muhammad Umer, Lena Trigg, Ali Subhan, Muhammad Ali, Dean F. Hougen
arXiv AI
Aug 20

Selection, Recombination, or a Fresh Solve? A Candidate-Free Control for Single-Pass Test-Time Aggregation

The paper investigates whether providing candidate solutions during test‑time aggregation improves or harms accuracy compared to a fresh solve that does not use any candidates. Using Qwen3‑4B on AIME‑2025 and HMMT‑2025, the authors find that conditioning on multiple correct candidates boosts accuracy (+0.290), while conditioning on an all‑wrong candidate pool reduces accuracy (−0.123); the effect for a single correct candidate remains unclear. The study also explores structured interventions and placebo controls, but the underlying mechanisms of these effects are not resolved.

By Guiv Farmanfarmaian