Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Key Condition Verification (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods to correct reasoning without external feedback have not been used in large language models. |
| Approach: | They propose an iterative verify-then-correct framework to progressively identify and correct (probably) false responses, named ProCo. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves the accuracy of LLMs on three reasoning tasks. |
Similar Papers
Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods to solve complex natural language processing tasks require multiple steps to verify the answers. |
| Approach: | They propose to use chain of thought prompting to solve reasoning tasks with large language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can improve reasoning performance on arithmetic, commonsense, and logical reasoning datasets. |
ProgCo: Program Helps Self-Correction of Large Language Models (2025.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing LLMs fail to self-correct and generate correct feedback, leading to misleading refinement and failure of self-refinement. |
| Approach: | They propose a program-driven self-correction approach that uses program-based verification to self-refine initial responses without external feedback. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves self-correction and can be further enhanced when combined with real program tools. |
Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs by Stepwise Correction (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing Best-of-N decoding methods often lead to incorrect solutions . a novel method is proposed to help large language models identify and revise incorrect steps in their generated reasoning paths. |
| Approach: | They propose a method that helps large language models identify and revise incorrect steps in their generated reasoning paths. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art Best-ofN decoding method by +2.4 and reduces token consumption by 77.8%. |
Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs’ Intrinsic Self-Correction (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Qingjie Zhang, Di Wang, Haoting Qian, Yiming Li, Tianwei Zhang, Minlie Huang, Ke Xu, Hewu Li, Liu Yan, Han Qiu
| Challenge: | Recent studies show that LLMs’ intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback. |
| Approach: | They propose to use one simple task and three complex tasks with state-of-the-art LLMs like ChatGPT, Llama, and DeepSeek to interpret LLM's intrinsic self-correction. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods reveal the dark side of LLMs’ intrinsic self-correction for different tasks, especially for those failure cases. |
Small Language Models Need Strong Verifiers to Self-Correct Reasoning (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Yunxiang Zhang, Muhammad Khalifa, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Jaekyeom Kim, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, Lu Wang
| Challenge: | Existing studies show that large language models can self-correct their outputs by generating a critique and revising it based on the critique. |
| Approach: | They propose a pipeline that prompts small language models to collect self-correction data that supports the training of self-refinement abilities. |
| Outcome: | The proposed pipeline improves the self-correction abilities of two models on five datasets spanning math and commonsense reasoning. |
Large Language Models Can Self-Improve (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have excellent performance in various tasks, but fine-tuning requires extensive supervision. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a pre-trained Large Language Model to generate rationale-augmented answers for unlabeled questions and fine-tune the LLM using those self-generated solutions as target outputs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach improves the general reasoning ability of a 540B-parameter LLM without any ground truth label. |
A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning (2024.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models of large language models struggle with complex logical reasoning problems. |
| Approach: | They propose to use large language models to identify their own errors to improve their models' performance. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models can identify logical fallacies accurately and improve by themselves. |
Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing approaches to self-detection only retrospectively evaluate LLM-generated answers, leading to over-trust in incorrectly generated answers. |
| Approach: | They propose a self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers to mitigate the over-trust in LLM generated incorrect answers. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework can be integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection. |
Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Focus on Error Identification and Correction (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations focus on problem-solving from examiner perspective, overlooking a dual perspective of examiner regarding error identification and correction. |
| Approach: | They propose to use an annotated dataset to evaluate large language models from the examiner perspective and to use diverse prompts to evaluate eleven representative LLMs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms all models while LLaMA-2-7B has comparable abilities to closed-source models GPT-3.5 and Gemini Pro. |
When Hindsight is Not 20/20: Testing Limits on Reflective Thinking in Large Language Models (2024.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies suggest that self-reflective prompting can significantly enhance the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). |
| Approach: | They propose guidelines for when to implement self-reflection in Large Language Models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach improves the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models under a more stringent evaluation setting, and reduces tendency toward majority voting. |