Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

SELF-[IN]CORRECT: LLMs Struggle with Discriminating Self-Generated Responses

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 2404.04298 v3 pith:YYLIFSUQ submitted 2024-04-04 cs.AI cs.CLcs.LG

classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords llmsbetterdiscriminatingresponsesalternativesgeneratinginitialpreviously-generated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Can LLMs consistently improve their previous outputs for better results? For this to be true, LLMs would need to be better at discriminating among previously-generated alternatives, than generating initial responses. We explore the validity of this hypothesis in practice. We first formulate a unified framework that allows us to compare the generative and discriminative capability of any model on any task. In our resulting experimental analysis of several open-source and industrial LLMs, we observe that models are not reliably better at discriminating among previously-generated alternatives than generating initial responses. This finding challenges the notion that LLMs may be able to enhance their performance only through their own judgment.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Training Language Model to Critique for Better Refinement

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    RCO trains critic LLMs using refinement utility, the extent to which a critique improves a revised answer, as the reward, outperforming direct critique preference methods across five tasks.

  2. Judging Is Not Enumerating: Silent Omissions in LLM-Authored Acceptable Sets

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs under one-shot greedy decoding enumerate or materialize acceptable sets much worse than they judge membership, a gap that persists across scale, family, and generation and is dominated by omissions.

  3. Unlocking Recursive Thinking of LLMs: Alignment via Refinement

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An offline alignment pipeline using reward-filtered self-refinement data and long chain-of-thought SFT raises an 8B model's AlpacaEval 2 win rate from 25.0% to 51.0% with roughly 14k training examples.

Pith tools