What Else Needs Fixing? Exploring Cost-Effective Test-Time Compute for Revision Propagation in Artifacts Generated Through Conversation

Test-time scaling via sequential revision has emerged as a powerful paradigm for enhancing Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning. However, standard post-training methods primarily optimize single-shot objectives, creating a fundamental misalignment with multi-step inference dynamics. While recent work treats this as multi-turn reinforcement learning (RL), conventional approaches optimize over the multi-step trajectories directly, failing to further exploit the high-quality mistakes in intermediate steps that model can learn from correcting them. We propose a two-stage iterative framework that alternates between online data/prompt augmentation and policy optimization. By converting the intermediate steps (``near-miss'' answers) in the successful recovery trajectories into decoupled revision and verification prompts, our approach concentrates training on both effective answer transformation and error identification. This approach enables efficient off-policy data generation and reduces the computational overhead of long-horizon sampling compared to standard multi-turn RL. On LiveCodeBench, using publicly available test cases as feedback, we observe gains of +6.5 points over the RL baseline and +4.0 points over standard multi-turn training. Beyond coding, our approach matches the previously reported SOTA result on circle packing while using the smallest base model (4B) and far fewer rollouts than the much larger evolutionary search systems. Math results under ground-truth verification further confirm improved correction ability. It also generalizes to out-of-distribution constraint-satisfaction puzzles such as n_queens and mini_sudoku, where correctness is defined entirely by problem constraints. Code is available at https://github.com/yxliu02/REVES.git.

Reflection, the ability to revisit and revise prior reasoning, is central to how humans improve their answers. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly prompted to "reflect," yet whether this resembles human revision remains unclear. We introduce the Human-LLM Reflection Framework (HRF), a controlled two-pass protocol comparing human and LLM revision under identical conditions across self-, peer-, and cross-agent settings. Using an information-theoretic analysis based on per-iteration cross-entropy reduction, we find two failure modes of LLM reflection. On objective tasks with finite answer spaces, reflection yields near-zero information gain (Delta I approx 0), behaving as neutral re-generation indistinguishable from re-sampling. On subjective tasks, it yields significant negative gain (Delta I < 0), moving predictions away from the target. Human revision, by contrast, yields positive gain in both settings. Cross-agent experiments localize the failure to the revision step, not input quality: LLMs degrade even high-quality human responses. Diagnostic analyses (revision conditioned on first-pass correctness, and oracle-guided revision against a random-reshuffle baseline) show that which sub-step dominates varies by task and by model rather than reducing to a single mechanism: self-error detection is present on objective multiple-choice tasks but weak on subjective ones, and recovery under an oracle error signal exceeds the baseline for some models and falls below it for others. The unifying account is structural: without external information, self-conditioned revision cannot reduce uncertainty about the target, so LLM reflection is better understood as conditioned re-generation than as genuine error-driven revision.

In a long conversation, an LLM can produce a plausible continuation that rests on premises the conversation has already abandoned. No runtime check ties its output to what the conversation has established, a gap that context-manipulation attacks on deployed agents exploit. We close this gap with a runtime verifier: an LLM Interpreter classifies each utterance into one of eight epistemic operations, and a symbolic engine applies them to a dependency map that records what every claim rests on and whether it still stands. Whether a continuation is grounded reduces to a walk over the map, linear in its size, with no LLM call. Retraction propagates through the same map with a conflict-free guarantee, flagging exactly the conclusions that lose support. On ReviseQA for belief revision and MemoryAgentBench's fact-consolidation split, two third-party benchmarks where earlier premises are superseded, the verifier leads a budget-matched retrieval baseline across five QA models and lifts MemoryAgentBench single-hop accuracy from 0.46--0.95 to 0.93--0.98. With the verifier, even the 7B model overtakes unaided GPT-4o. These runs feed the engine the benchmarks' own structured updates. When a GPT-4o Interpreter extracts every update from raw text instead, accuracy is statistically unchanged. Per-query cost is flat in conversation length, prompts staying near 0.8k tokens where full context reaches 114k and retraction queries under a microsecond at 2000 turns.