Visible but Not Avoided: State-Dependent Re-Proposal of Rejected Candidates in Catalog-Based LLM Optimization Loops

arXiv:2610.15738v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM optimization loops often show the proposer the candidates it has already tried and rejected, but leave it to the proposer to avoid them. We ask whether avoidance measured in a static probe predicts avoidance in the states an optimizer's own trajectory produces. In catalog-based loops where three open LLMs improve a GUI agent by naming one of 40 edits, a re-proposal is identified exactly by the edit's name. Clean base-state probes underpredict re-proposal in the proposers' own loops (macro-averaged loop-minus-probe rate 0.32 [0.27, 0.37]), and proposals of already evaluated harness-edit pairs consume 28-63% of valid proposer iterations. The two settings reject different edits: a probe's rejected edits are mostly ones the proposer did not choose, whereas a loop's are its own earlier choices, which remain preferred when the history is removed. Ordinary history lowers re-proposal for two proposers but raises it for the third, and the effects of failure evidence are model-specific. Stating the rejection status in one sentence lowers re-proposal in every model (-0.16 [-0.22, -0.09] relative to a neutral list of the same IDs). For catalog-based loops with exact edit identities, rejection avoidance should be measured on the rejected sets the loop produces.

Related

• Agentic Auto-Research is Fuzz Testing
• RecMem: Recurrence-based Memory Consolidation for Efficient and Effective Long-Running LLM Agents
• ConflictGuide: AutoResearch Improves When Competing Behaviors Are Made Visible
• Exploring Agentic Tool-Calling Decisions via Uncertainty-Aligned Reinforcement Learning

Source: arXiv cs.AI | 2026-10-15