From Outcomes to Components: A Counterfactual Evaluation Framework for LLM-Proposed Repairs

LLM agents that repair failures often discard successful corrections, forcing later episodes to rediscover similar solutions. We study whether finalized repair outcomes can improve subsequent Text-to-SQL episodes without parameter updates. We introduce MERIT, a training-free agent that maintains an online dual-polarity memory of oracle-verified corrections and observed unsuccessful directions. Under oracle-assisted benchmark feedback, only memories from earlier finalized episodes are eligible for retrieval. A deterministic classifier assigns a coarse failure type, which conditions a hybrid lexical-dense retriever before the frozen model generates each revision. Using Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct with identical initial predictions and repair budgets, \method{} improves execution accuracy over stateless iterative repair from $66.34\%$ to $69.79\%$ on Spider and from $47.35\%$ to $48.44\%$ on BIRD. Paired analyses provide clear evidence for the Spider gain but weaker evidence on BIRD. MERIT is not reliably separated from untyped dynamic retrieval on either benchmark, while Reflexion-style memory reaches $51.24\%$ on BIRD at substantially higher inference cost. Ablations show that negative memory contributes modestly, the value of type conditioning and lexical-dense ranking is dataset dependent, and schema-local experience provides the most consistent benefit. These results clarify when causal cross-query memory improves repair and when broader memory representations remain preferable. Our implementation is available here:

Large language model (LLM) code-repair systems fix faulty programs by repeatedly generating and testing revisions. Each revision is costly, making the choice of which repair to pursue important for efficiency. Existing search policies rely on test pass rates and search statistics, ignoring the details of test failures and proposed edits. We introduce CodeTriage, a learned policy that prioritizes edits before their revised programs are generated and tested. Its 0.6B-parameter model reads the test output, failure diagnosis, and proposed edit, then predicts a distribution over the number of repair steps needed to reach a fix through that edit. These predictions prioritize all pending edits across programs before generating and testing the revised code. On held-out repair tasks, CodeTriage finds fixes with 21% fewer program revisions and 12% fewer output tokens than the strongest baseline on each metric. Without retraining, it achieves the highest average success across search budgets for each of 11 unseen repair LLMs. Ablations show that both the failure context and edit text, as well as comparisons across programs, improve search. We also release a corpus of 12.2 million program versions from four LLMs, organized into repair trees with proposed edits and test results.

AI planning is concerned with finding a sequence of actions that achieves a specified goal. It relies on explicit models of the world, commonly represented in the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL). An active line of research investigates how errors in such models can be detected and repaired. For example, users may provide positive test plans that are solutions, and negative test plans that fail during execution. Automated repair methods then modify the PDDL model to satisfy these constraints. In this paper, we evaluate the ability of recent open-weight large language models to perform this repair task using an LLM-only approach. Our experiments show that the symbolic baseline achieves an $F_1$ score of $.49$, while the best-performing LLM reaches $.87$ with high reasoning effort, an absolute improvement of $.38$. However, that setting has a mean test pass rate of only $.82$, falling to $.06$ on the Thoughtful domain; even the best setting that includes the test traces reaches only $.92$. Thus, current open-weight models cannot guarantee satisfaction of the test constraints required for reliable automated model repair.