REVIEW 12 cited by
LLMs cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them given the error location
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
LLMs cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them given the error location
read the original abstract
While self-correction has shown promise in improving LLM outputs in terms of style and quality (e.g. Chen et al., 2023b; Madaan et al., 2023), recent attempts to self-correct logical or reasoning errors often cause correct answers to become incorrect, resulting in worse performances overall (Huang et al., 2023). In this paper, we show that poor self-correction performance stems from LLMs' inability to find logical mistakes, rather than their ability to correct a known mistake. Firstly, we benchmark several state-of-the-art LLMs on their mistake-finding ability and demonstrate that they generally struggle with the task, even in highly objective, unambiguous cases. Secondly, we test the correction abilities of LLMs -- separately from mistake finding -- using a backtracking setup that feeds ground truth mistake location information to the model. We show that this boosts downstream task performance across our 5 reasoning tasks, indicating that LLMs' correction abilities are robust. Finally, we show that it is possible to obtain mistake location information without ground truth labels or in-domain training data. We train a small classifier with out-of-domain data, which exhibits stronger mistake-finding performance than prompting a large model. We release our dataset of LLM-generated logical mistakes, BIG-Bench Mistake, to enable further research into locating LLM reasoning mistakes.
Forward citations
Cited by 12 Pith papers
-
DICE: Entropy-Regularized Equilibrium Selection for Stable Multi-Agent LLM Coordination
DICE formalizes multi-agent LLM coordination as discounted incomplete-information Markov games and introduces Heterogeneous Quantal Response Equilibrium (HQRE) to achieve unique stable equilibria with bounded regret, ...
-
DICE: Entropy-Regularized Equilibrium Selection for Stable Multi-Agent LLM Coordination
HQRE entropy regularization makes multi-agent LLM coordination well-posed, yielding unique equilibria, linear mirror convergence, bounded Bayesian regret, and DICE gains of 4.3–8.5 pp on reasoning/planning tasks.
-
Multi-Turn On-Policy Distillation with Prefix Replay
ReOPD offline-distills multi-turn agentic LLMs via teacher-prefix replay plus step-decay sampling, matching online OPD accuracy at ≥4× speed with zero tool calls.
-
ATTAIN: Automated Exploit Failure Analysis through Trace-Driven Diff Analysis
ATTAIN is a three-module trace-driven framework that combines exploit execution, LLM-guided diff search, and evidence-based judgment to identify affected library versions for CVEs, reporting 93.24% F1 on 224 CVEs acro...
-
The Self-Correction Illusion: LLMs Correct Others but Not Themselves
Relabeling an identical erroneous claim from the model's own thought role to an external chat role increases explicit correction rates by 23-93 percentage points across 13 model-domain cells, indicating a chat-templat...
-
Diagnosing Multi-step Reasoning Failures in Black-box LLMs via Stepwise Confidence Attribution
SCA framework applies Information Bottleneck to assign step-level confidence in black-box LLM reasoning traces, flagging errors and boosting self-correction success by up to 13.5% on math and QA tasks.
-
Diagnosing Multi-step Reasoning Failures in Black-box LLMs via Stepwise Confidence Attribution
SCA applies the Information Bottleneck principle via NIBS and GIBS methods to identify erroneous steps in black-box LLM reasoning and boosts self-correction success by up to 13.5%.
-
Formalizing Latent Thoughts: Four Axioms of Thought Representation in LLMs
Four axioms (Causality, Minimality, Separability, Stability) are formalized for latent thought representations; audits of open LLMs on 23 tasks show none satisfy all four and representations add little beyond input em...
-
LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code
LiveCodeBench collects 400 recent contest problems to create a contamination-free benchmark evaluating LLMs on code generation and related capabilities like self-repair and execution.
-
From Hallucination to Structure Snowballing: The Alignment Tax of Constrained Decoding in LLM Reflection
Enforcing structured reflection via Outlines-based constrained decoding on an 8B LLM triggers structure snowballing instead of better self-correction, producing near-perfect syntax but persistent semantic errors and r...
-
Gemma 3 Technical Report
Gemma 3 introduces multimodal open models with architectural changes for efficient long context, trained via distillation and a new post-training recipe that makes the 4B version competitive with prior 27B models and ...
-
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.