arXiv (All)
open access
Repairs for Whom? Evaluator-Executor Mismatch in Selecting Repairs for Failed LLM Agents
When an LLM agent fails, repair methods choose which action to replace and what to put in its place. They often score candidate repairs with greedy replay, a stronger model, an environment oracle, or a judge that reads the failed log. We ask whether these evaluators pick repairs that help the agent
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Repairs for Whom? Evaluator-Executor Mismatch in Selecting Repairs for Failed LLM Agents#1483083
- Who Broke Me? Execution-Guided Repair of Behavioral Dependency Breaks#1233306
- Who Broke Me? Execution-Guided Repair of Behavioral Dependency Breaks#1227413
- Validation Evidence in LLM Repair Agents: How Much of What Passes Actually Tests the Bug?#422333
- 15 U.S.C. § 202 — Repairs to standards#566936
Record · ID 1489680
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive