arXiv AI
Visible but Not Avoided: State-Dependent Re-Proposal of Rejected Candidates in Catalog-Based LLM Optimization Loops
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jun 15
Can Editing 1 Neuron Fix Repetition Loops in LLMs?
arXiv:2606. 13705v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Yes.
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 8
The Winner's Curse in LLM Self-Improvement Loops: Selection Noise, Lock-in, and Acceptance Rules
The paper investigates how self‑improving large language models (LLMs) can suffer from the winner’s curse when selecting better candidates based on noisy evaluation sets. By modeling correlated errors and empirically testing Qwen models that rewrite their own instructions, the authors find that most proposals after the first are harmful and that the reported gains on the selection set often overstate true held‑out performance. The study shows that larger selection sets can improve held‑out gains on some tasks (e.g., TREC) but not others (e.g., GSM8K), and that common acceptance rules do not outperform simple greedy selection across entire runs.
arXiv AI
Aug 26
When Can One Neuron Fix Repetition Loops in LLMs?
The paper investigates whether targeted edits to a few internal components of Gemma 4 instruction‑tuned models can reduce persistent repetition loops that occur during long factual enumeration prompts. By combining per‑layer ablation with per‑neuron attribution, the authors identify specific neurons whose weight edits dramatically lower loop frequency—one sign‑inverted neuron suffices for Gemma 4 E2B. Across all four Gemma variants, loop occurrences drop from 46/384 to 12/384 on held‑out prompts, while general‑purpose benchmarks show no significant regressions. The study also demonstrates that similar sparse edits can mitigate repetition in other families such as Qwen3.5 and LFM2.5, though the effect varies.
arXiv AI
Sep 3
Belief-Calibrated Optimization: An Explicit World Model for Agentic Optimization
The paper introduces Belief-Calibrated Optimization (BCO), a method that records and updates a persistent in‑context document representing an agent’s belief about how the environment responds to edits. By continually revising this world model as new candidates are evaluated, BCO improves the performance of frozen LLM agents across five benchmarks, outperforming a control lacking the world model. An offline ablation shows that the document’s content provides reusable, accurate predictions of environmental responses, beyond mere form.
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 9
TRACE: Diagnosing Verifier Brittleness in Agentic Evaluation
The paper introduces TRACE, a protocol designed to diagnose whether changes in verifier scores for large language model agents reflect actual changes in agent behavior or merely alterations in the evaluation process. TRACE works by applying targeted changes to evaluation components, running paired experiments, and re‑scoring unchanged trajectories to isolate the source of score variation. Experiments on synthetic tasks and public benchmark tasks demonstrate that seemingly significant score shifts can often be attributed to evaluation artifacts, while TRACE can also detect genuine behavioral changes.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 24
Exact Feedback Is Not Control: Evaluating Text-based Closed-Loop Revision in LLMs
The paper introduces a fixed‑budget revision protocol that uses deterministic verifiers to expose all remaining violations across exact‑length, lexical, and compositional constraints, thereby isolating model‑side revision behavior. Experiments on 19 open‑ and closed‑source LLMs show wide variability in controller‑level success, with some models achieving up to 99.8% success while others remain below 20%. Controlled studies reveal that post‑training and scale affect model responses to exact feedback, but do not consistently improve exact correction, and that recurrence of earlier outputs is linked to lower recoverability.