# Resample or Reroute? Recoverable Stopping Debt Without Identified Action Selection

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08665 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.08665/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 40 of its 54 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 40)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [AWQ: Activation-aware Weight Quantization for LLM Compression and Acceleration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.00978/) (2023)
- [FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.05176/) (2023)
- [RouteLLM: Learning to Route LLMs with Preference Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18665/) (2024)
- [BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15877/) (2024)
- [CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Tests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.10397/) (2022)
- [On the Complexity of Best Arm Identification in Multi-Armed Bandit Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1407.4443/) (2014)
- [LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08468/) (2023)
- [RouterBench: A Benchmark for Multi-LLM Routing System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.12031/) (2024)
- [Scalable Best-of-N Selection for Large Language Models via Self-Certainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18581/) (2025)
- [AutoMix: Automatically Mixing Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12963/) (2023)
- [Let's Sample Step by Step: Adaptive-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning and Coding with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11860/) (2023)
- [NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 2: An Accurate and Efficient Hybrid Mamba-Transformer Reasoning Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.14444/) (2025)
- [A Unified Approach to Routing and Cascading for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10347/) (2024)
- [Router-R1: Teaching LLMs Multi-Round Routing and Aggregation via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09033/) (2025)
- [Learning to Route LLMs with Confidence Tokens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13284/) (2024)
- [BEST-Route: Adaptive LLM Routing with Test-Time Optimal Compute](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22716/) (2025)
- [RouterEval: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Routing LLMs to Explore Model-level Scaling Up in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10657/) (2025)
- [The Limits of Inference Scaling Through Resampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.17501/) (2024)
- [LLMRouterBench: A Massive Benchmark and Unified Framework for LLM Routing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.07206/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [ROUTEAUDIT: Interaction-Aware Identification for Budgeted Multi-Verifier Routing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.02808/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

After a weak verifier accepts a large-language-model response, a second call may resample or reroute. Because correctness is hidden, action selection is an identification problem. We order three gates: recoverable stopping debt, two-sided FIT action support, and held-out value from an outcome-blind selector. In a pinned 152-query MBPP+ experiment, a Qwen2.5-14B Base-only false-positive stop leaves +2.592 percentage points of Qwen2.5-7B recovery (query-cluster 95% interval [+1.618, +3.664]). Separately, after 7B Base-test rejection, fixed escalation to 14B exceeds leave-one-out 7B resampling by +2.882 points [+0.931, +5.201]; this is fixed-action ranking, not conditional selection. An all-episode audit produces a +2.697-point realized-maximum gap, but for two actions this statistic equals (1/2)E|Delta| - (1/2)|E Delta| and contains no observable-history term. It lies inside an exact-fold exchangeable reference (mean +3.158; 95% interval [+2.434, +3.947]). The audit unconditionally acts on 1,520 episodes: 1,240 observable stops and 280 verifier rejections; 198 stops are evaluator-only false positives. Neither tested outcome-blind controller improves on fixed rerouting. A separate LiveCodeBench ladder has all-zero FIT action advantages despite exclusive TEST rescues. A preregistered BigCodeBench support gate then finds only 23/19 and 22/19 signed episodes/queries against minima of 25/20, so L1-L4, DEV, and TEST stay unopened. Stopping debt exists, but current evidence does not identify when to resample rather than reroute.