Skip to content
← Back to explorer

REPOT: Recoverable Program-of-Thought via Checkpoint Repair

Parsa Mazaheri · May 28, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

One-shot Program-of-Thought (PoT) emits a Python program that prints a primitive-action plan; a single invalid action silently invalidates the trajectory. We introduce RePoT (Recoverable PoT): a deterministic verified replay that walks the plan through the environment to its first invalid transition, then one LLM call that resumes from the verified prefix. RePoT costs at most one extra LLM call on the ~14% of problems where PoT fails. RePoT beats PoT by +3 to +11pp across four closed-model configurations on PuzzleZoo-775 and peaks at 96.9% vs 86.3% on gpt-5.4-mini-medium; against the matched-budget PoT-retry baseline, RePoT wins decisively on Gemini (+3.8pp, 95% CI [+2.2,+5.4]), is within sampling noise on GPT-medium and Claude, and loses on GPT-mini -- a capability-scaling pattern we begin to address with Adaptive RePoT, a rule-based dispatcher that routes between suffix repair and a fresh PoT retry based on verified-prefix length (preliminary). We replicate on PlanBench Blocksworld (+1.1 to +11.4pp) and on four open-weights models (+3.3 to +20.0pp on three of four). On Derail-550, our controlled recovery benchmark, every condition with access to checkpoint information clears >=30% on GPT-medium and >=70% on Gemini, vs <=3.1% for error-only feedback -- showing that checkpoint information, not the specific verified-prefix tail, is the load-bearing recovery signal.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 25%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"One-shot Program-of-Thought (PoT) emits a Python program that prints a primitive-action plan; a single invalid action silently invalidates the trajectory."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"One-shot Program-of-Thought (PoT) emits a Python program that prints a primitive-action plan; a single invalid action silently invalidates the trajectory."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"One-shot Program-of-Thought (PoT) emits a Python program that prints a primitive-action plan; a single invalid action silently invalidates the trajectory."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

Planbench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"We replicate on PlanBench Blocksworld (+1.1 to +11.4pp) and on four open-weights models (+3.3 to +20.0pp on three of four)."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"One-shot Program-of-Thought (PoT) emits a Python program that prints a primitive-action plan; a single invalid action silently invalidates the trajectory."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Trajectory (inferred)
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Planbench

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

One-shot Program-of-Thought (PoT) emits a Python program that prints a primitive-action plan; a single invalid action silently invalidates the trajectory.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • One-shot Program-of-Thought (PoT) emits a Python program that prints a primitive-action plan; a single invalid action silently invalidates the trajectory.
  • We introduce RePoT (Recoverable PoT): a deterministic verified replay that walks the plan through the environment to its first invalid transition, then one LLM call that resumes from the verified prefix.
  • RePoT costs at most one extra LLM call on the ~14% of problems where PoT fails.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Simulation environment) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We introduce RePoT (Recoverable PoT): a deterministic verified replay that walks the plan through the environment to its first invalid transition, then one LLM call that resumes from the verified prefix.
  • RePoT costs at most one extra LLM call on the ~14% of problems where PoT fails.
  • On Derail-550, our controlled recovery benchmark, every condition with access to checkpoint information clears >=30% on GPT-medium and >=70% on Gemini, vs <=3.1% for error-only feedback -- showing that checkpoint information, not the…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • On Derail-550, our controlled recovery benchmark, every condition with access to checkpoint information clears >=30% on GPT-medium and >=70% on Gemini, vs <=3.1% for error-only feedback -- showing that checkpoint information, not the…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Planbench

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.