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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17641 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.17641/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 24 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [Tool learning and function calling](https://mlsanity.com/agents/tool-learning-and-function-calling/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [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)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15240/) (2024)
- [The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.07301/) (2025)
- [When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01297/) (2024)
- [Feedback Loops With Language Models Drive In-Context Reward Hacking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06627/) (2024)
- [The Limits of Inference Scaling Through Resampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.17501/) (2024)
- [Sample, Scrutinize and Scale: Effective Inference-Time Search by Scaling Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01839/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Judges as Evaluators: The JETTS Benchmark of LLM-as-Judges as Test-Time Scaling Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.15253/) (2025)
- [Inference-Time Reward Hacking in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.19248/) (2025)
- [Spontaneous Reward Hacking in Iterative Self-Refinement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.04549/) (2024)
- [Noisy but Valid: Robust Statistical Evaluation of LLMs with Imperfect Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.20913/) (2026)
- [Uncertainty-Aware Step-wise Verification with Generative Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11250/) (2025)
- [When Does Verification Pay Off? A Closer Look at LLMs as Solution Verifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02304/) (2025)
- [ROC-n-reroll: How verifier imperfection affects test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.12399/) (2025)
- [Scaling Flaws of Verifier-Guided Search in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.00271/) (2025)
- [A Probabilistic Inference Scaling Theory for LLM Self-Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.16456/) (2025)
- [Solve-Detect-Verify: Inference-Time Scaling with Flexible Generative Verifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11966/) (2025)
- [Balanced Accuracy: The Right Metric for Evaluating LLM Judges -- Explained through Youden's J statistic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.08121/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Cost-Utility Alignment in LLM Agent Trajectories:Profiling,Attribution,Diagnosis,Adaptation,and Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.26195/) (2026)
- [What Can Component-Replacement Evidence Establish? A Critical Scoping Review of Local Decisions in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39989/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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. We propose VRR-Stop, a robust stopping framework for noisy verify-repair-repeat (VRR) loops. A four-parameter noise model separates verifier false acceptance and false rejection from the repair and damage behavior of the repairer. Belief filtering turns repeated verification votes into an estimate of committed validity, and the loop commits or repairs according to the sign of the true marginal gain, which requires only sign identifiability rather than accurate recovery of all parameters. When verifier discrimination approaches zero, calibration itself fails and estimation error can flip the stopping sign, so we pair VRR-Stop with VRR-Guard, an estimation-free fallback that replaces the incumbent candidate only under a sufficient verification margin. On a GSM8K stress setting, VRR-Stop improves final true validity by 60.6 percentage points over fixed five-round repair at an average cost of 0.72 repair rounds. Across settings, stopping reliability is governed jointly by verifier discrimination and the decision margin rather than by the absolute size of estimation error.