aiqbench analysis
This research investigates the trade-offs between resampling and rerouting strategies when large language model verifiers produce false positives, quantifying the recoverable performance debt incurred by premature stopping. The study concludes that fixed-action rerouting currently outperforms outcome-blind controllers in recovering value from rejected episodes, suggesting that identifying optimal action selection remains an open identification problem rather than a solved optimization task.
Resample or Reroute? Recoverable Stopping Debt Without Identified Action Selection
arXiv:2607.08665v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: After a weak verifier accepts a large-language-model response, a second call may resample or reroute. Because correctness is hidden, action selection is an identification problem. We order three gates: recoverable stopping debt, two-sided FIT action support, and held-out value from an outcome-blind selector. In a pinned 152-query MBPP+ experiment, a Qwen2.5-14B Base-only false-positive stop leaves +2.592 percentage points of Qwen2.5-7B recovery (query-cluster 95% interval [+1.618, +3.664]). Separately, after 7B Base-test rejection, fixed escalation to 14B exceeds leave-one-out 7B resampling by +2.882 points [+0.931, +5.201]; this is fixed-action ranking, not conditional selection. An all-episode audit produces a +2.697-point realized-maximum gap, but for two actions this statistic equals (1/2)E|Delta| - (1/2)|E Delta| and contains no observable-history term. It lies inside an exact-fold exchangeable reference (mean +3.158; 95% interval [+2.434, +3.947]). The audit unconditionally acts on 1,520 episodes: 1,240 observable stops and 280 verifier rejections; 198 stops are evaluator-only false positives. Neither tested outcome-blind controller improves on fixed rerouting. A separate LiveCodeBench ladder has all-zero FIT action advantages despite exclusive TEST rescues. A preregistered BigCodeBench support gate then finds only 23/19 and 22/19 signed episodes/queries against minima of 25/20, so L1-L4, DEV, and TEST stay unopened. Stopping debt exists, but current evidence does not identify when to resample rather than reroute.
Abstract:After a weak verifier accepts a large-language-model response, a second call may resample or reroute. Because correctness is hidden, action selection is an identification problem. We order three gates: recoverable stopping debt, two-sided FIT action support, and held-out value from an outcome-blind selector. In a pinned 152-query MBPP+ experiment, a Qwen2.5-14B Base-only false-positive stop leaves +2.592 percentage points of Qwen2.5-7B recovery (query-cluster 95% interval [+1.618, +3.664]). Separately, after 7B Base-test rejection, fixed escalation to 14B exceeds leave-one-out 7B resampling by +2.882 points [+0.931, +5.201]; this is fixed-action ranking, not conditional selection. An all-episode audit produces a +2.697-point realized-maximum gap, but for two actions this statistic equals (1/2)E|Delta| - (1/2)|E Delta| and contains no observable-history term. It lies inside an exact-fold exchangeable reference (mean +3.158; 95% interval [+2.434, +3.947]). The audit unconditionally acts on 1,520 episodes: 1,240 observable stops and 280 verifier rejections; 198 stops are evaluator-only false positives. Neither tested outcome-blind controller improves on fixed rerouting. A separate LiveCodeBench ladder has all-zero FIT action advantages despite exclusive TEST rescues. A preregistered BigCodeBench support gate then finds only 23/19 and 22/19 signed episodes/queries against minima of 25/20, so L1-L4, DEV, and TEST stay unopened. Stopping debt exists, but current evidence does not identify when to resample rather than reroute.
33 pages (IEEEtran two-column) incl. 14-page supplement; 14 figures, 15 tables. v3: substantive methodological reconstruction of v1-v2. The budget-allocation, learned-router, cost-oracle and broad Pareto claims are not retained; replaced by a three-gate identification framework with fresh MBPP+, LiveCodeBench and preregistered BigCodeBench evidence. v2: corrected Phi-4 cost (14.7B)
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2607.08665 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2607.08665v3 [cs.LG] for this version)
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 266 words
Related coverage
Implementing and Evaluating a Basic Per-Action Monitor for Safer Evals
METR · Sep 27, 2026
Continual learning might make your blocking monitors nearly useless
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 24, 2026
Dr. Jill Lepore on why AI backlash is vital for the future
The Verge · Jul 20, 2026
Biomedical Imaging's Real Bottleneck Is the Data, Not the Model
Databricks · Oct 8, 2026