arXiv:2610.15738v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: LLM optimization loops often show the proposer the candidates it has already tried and rejected, but leave it to the proposer to avoid them. We ask whether avoidance measured in a static probe predicts avoidance in the states an optimizer's own trajectory produces. In catalog-based loops where three open LLMs improve a GUI agent by naming one of 40 edits, a re-proposal is identified exactly by the edit's name. Clean base-state probes underpredict re-proposal in the proposers' own loops (macro-averaged loop-minus-probe rate 0.32 [0.27, 0.37]), and proposals of already evaluated harness-edit pairs consume 28-63% of valid proposer iterations. The two settings reject different edits: a probe's rejected edits are mostly ones the proposer did not choose, whereas a loop's are its own earlier choices, which remain preferred when the history is removed. Ordinary history lowers re-proposal for two proposers but raises it for the third, and the effects of failure evidence are model-specific. Stating the rejection status in one sentence lowers re-proposal in every model (-0.16 [-0.22, -0.09] relative to a neutral list of the same IDs). For catalog-based loops with exact edit identities, rejection avoidance should be measured on the rejected sets the loop produces.
Abstract: LLM optimization loops often show the proposer the candidates it has already tried and rejected, but leave it to the proposer to avoid them. We ask whether avoidance measured in a static probe predicts avoidance in the states an optimizer's own trajectory produces. In catalog-based loops where three open LLMs improve a GUI agent by naming one of 40 edits, a re-proposal is identified exactly by the edit's name. Clean base-state probes underpredict re-proposal in the proposers' own loops (macro-averaged loop-minus-probe rate 0.32 [0.27, 0.37]), and proposals of already evaluated harness-edit pairs consume 28-63% of valid proposer iterations. The two settings reject different edits: a probe's rejected edits are mostly ones the proposer did not choose, whereas a loop's are its own earlier choices, which remain preferred when the history is removed. Ordinary history lowers re-proposal for two proposers but raises it for the third, and the effects of failure evidence are model-specific. Stating the rejection status in one sentence lowers re-proposal in every model (-0.16 [-0.22, -0.09] relative to a neutral list of the same IDs). For catalog-based loops with exact edit identities, rejection avoidance should be measured on the rejected sets the loop produces.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: