Counterexample Guided Learning in the Large using Reasoning Agents
Authors: Hongyi Liu, Frederic Sala, Thomas Reps, Adithya Murali
Organizations: Department of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Abstract
LLMs and LLM agents should improve when given feedback, but identifying when they are able to do so is difficult: feedback is heterogeneous, domain-specific, and difficult to control. We approach this challenge by asking LLMs to perform regular-expression induction, a classical symbolic learning problem where precise mechanisms for feedback exist in the form of counterexamples. In counterexample-guided learning, a learner (LLM) proposes candidate regular expressions from positive/negative-labeled strings, and the teacher (verifier) returns counterexamples showcasing the difference between the candidate and target languages. We identify novel counterexample-guided refinement strategies that enable effective regex learning, such as regularization and symbolic counterexample clusters. We also explore agentic strategies such as reflection and repair loops. Empirically, we find that verifier feedback substantially improves sample efficiency on challenging regex-induction tasks, reducing the number of labeled examples required and enabling learning of complex target expressions where standard prompting fails. For example, on the hardest task groups, our counterexample-guided framework improves success from 3.2% to 38.1% and from 38.9% to 74.1% on two different regex domains. These results suggest that LLMs can benefit from rich feedback beyond treating it as additional data, opening the door for robust verifier-guided methods for LLM-based program synthesis and formal reasoning.
Verifiers are crucial components for enhancing modern LLMs' reasoning capability. Typicalverifiers require resource-intensive superviseddataset construction, which is costly and faceslimitations in data diversity. In this paper, wepropose LOVER, an unsupervised verifier regularized by logical rules. LOVER treats theverifier as a binary latent variable, utilizinginternal activations and enforcing three logical constraints on multiple reasoning paths:negation consistency, intra-group consistency,and inter-group consistency (grouped by thefinal answer). By incorporating logical rulesas priors, LOVER can leverage unlabeled examples and is directly compatible with any offthe-shelf LLMs. Experiments on 10 datasetsdemonstrate that LOVER significantly outperforms unsupervised baselines, achieving performance comparable to the supervised verifier(reaching its 95% level on average). The sourcecode is publicly available at https://github.com/wangxinyufighting/llm-lover.
Large Language Models (LLMs) using chain-of-thought have demonstrated great potential for solving complex reasoning and planning tasks. Despite these advances, LLM-generated outputs remain susceptible to errors, making verification important for reliable reasoning systems. Learned verifiers can increase trust, enforce safety constraints, and ensure alignment with personal preferences, while also providing feedback to improve generation. This raises a central challenge: when learned verifiers are used to guide generation, the feedback loop between generator and verifier may induce a distribution shift. This is particularly salient for process reward models, a prominent class of learned verifiers that score or classify individual steps in a chain-of-thought reasoning trace. Motivated by this challenge, we propose a new online learning framework for chain-of-thought verifiers that, given a problem statement and a reasoning trace, check the correctness of each reasoning step given the preceding steps. Highlighting the asymmetric role of soundness errors (accepting an incorrect reasoning step) and completeness errors (flagging a correct step as wrong), we introduce novel notions of dimension that characterize their optimal tradeoff. We then show how our learned verifiers can boost the accuracy of a weak generator. Assuming that the generator can produce a correct next step with a small success probability, we show how to learn a strong generator with small error and abstention rates. Our results also allow learning from offline data when queries to an expert verifier can be simulated from a small set of correct reasoning traces. However, we establish a separation between our approach and learning from offline expert demonstrations: we show that learning from offline demonstrations cannot in general achieve the soundness-completeness guarantees produced by our interactive learning approach.
Large language models still struggle with contest-level programming, while many agentic remedies rely on massive inference-time sampling or expensive multi-stage post-training. We study when execution feedback reliably helps an LLM CP solver and which mechanisms govern the gains. We model feedback-driven solving as a calibrated stopped process and identify three quantities: false-admission risk, program-level evidence against bad programs, and the active-state success hazard. Under held-out trace calibration and selection from a pre-declared finite controller manifest, the resulting structural certificate lower-bounds the clean success probability before false admission. We instantiate mechanisms targeting these quantities as Dual-Granularity Verification, Test Augmentation, and Experience-Driven Self-Evolving, yielding CP-Agent. Without updating any parameters, CP-Agent raises Pass@1 from 25.8% to 48.5% on LiveCodeBench Pro and improves Refine@5 by 11.0% on ICPC-Eval. Across three LLM backbones, CP-Agent lies on the cost--accuracy efficiency frontier, and ablations show that each component primarily affects its corresponding certificate quantity.