Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Language Models can perform Single-Utterance Self-Correction of Perturbed Reasoning

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

arxiv 2506.15894 v1 pith:O4CBYOB5 submitted 2025-06-18 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords modelsreasoningself-correctioncapabilitiesabilitycorrectionserrorsintrinsic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive mathematical reasoning capabilities, yet their performance remains brittle to minor variations in problem description and prompting strategy. Furthermore, reasoning is vulnerable to sampling-induced errors which autoregressive models must primarily address using self-correction via additionally-generated tokens. To better understand self-correction capabilities of recent models, we conduct experiments measuring models' ability to self-correct synthetic perturbations introduced into their Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning. We observe robust single-utterance intrinsic self-correction behavior across a range of open-weight models and datasets, ranging from subtle, implicit corrections to explicit acknowledgments and corrections of errors. Our findings suggest that LLMs, including those not finetuned for long CoT, may possess stronger intrinsic self-correction capabilities than commonly shown in the literature. The presence of this ability suggests that recent "reasoning" model work involves amplification of traits already meaningfully present in models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Horizon Gap: Planning, Memory, Execution, Training, and Evaluation for Long-Horizon LLM Agents

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A survey of 1,547 papers defines the 'horizon gap' and documents that long-horizon agent research is converging on trajectory-level process signals instead of outcome-only scores.

Pith tools