Correction and Corruption: A Two-Rate View of Error Flow in LLM Protocols

Fernando Reitich

cs.LGApr 20, 2026

Correction and Corruption: A Two-Rate View of Error Flow in LLM Protocols

Authors: Fernando Reitich

Organizations: Imens, LLC · Weston, Florida, USA

Abstract

Large language models are increasingly deployed as protocols: structured multi-call procedures that spend additional computation to transform a baseline answer into a final one. These protocols are evaluated only by end-to-end accuracy, giving limited insight into when they help, when they hurt, and whether their behavior transfers under distribution shift or composition. We propose a paired-outcome measurement interface for auditing a single protocol step on exact-match tasks. For each instance, the interface records a baseline correctness bit $E_0\in\{0,1\}$ and a post-step correctness bit $E_1\in\{0,1\}$ , separating correction ( $E_0=0\to E_1=1$ ) from corruption ( $E_0=1\to E_1=0$ ) through two rates: $c=\Pr(E_1=1\mid E_0=0)$ and $γ=\Pr(E_1=0\mid E_0=1)$ . These rates predict accuracy changes and define a reusable empirical interface testable across seeds, mixtures, and pipelines. We identify three failure mechanisms. Under mixture shift, pooled estimates of $(c,γ)$ become biased when calibration and deployment mixtures differ; conditioning on a difficulty proxy restores stability without additional model calls. Under presentation contamination, selection protocols alter the interface through stable presentation artifacts when candidate content is fixed. Under state insufficiency, the correctness bit may not carry enough history for multi-step pipelines to compose predictably; a Markov factorization test identifies when composition is valid and where additional state is needed. When a protocol step passes these diagnostics, it becomes an auditable module: gated by estimated gain, conditioned on a difficulty proxy to correct mixture bias, and composed into multi-step pipelines with predictable accuracy. We demonstrate these ideas on synthetic mathematical tasks and on GSM8K, where the calibrated interface correctly predicts when protocol steps should be activated or suppressed.

Explore similar work

May 1, 2026cs.CL

When LLMs Stop Following Steps: A Diagnostic Study of Procedural Execution in Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) often achieve strong performance on reasoning benchmarks, but final-answer accuracy alone does not show whether they faithfully execute the procedure specified in a prompt. We introduce a controlled diagnostic benchmark for procedural execution, where models are given a step-wise arithmetic procedure and two numeric inputs, and must return the final computed value. Complexity is varied through procedure length and look-back dependencies over intermediate variables. Average first-answer accuracy drops from 63% on 5-step procedures to 20% on 95-step procedures. Generation-level analysis shows that failures often involve missing answers, premature answers, self-correction after an initial error and under-executed traces. These findings suggest that apparent reasoning ability can mask substantial weaknesses in faithful long-horizon procedural execution.

Sailesh Panda, Pritam Kadasi, Abhishek Upperwal +1

Large Language Models Fail Reasoning Benchmark

Ask PDF

May 26, 2026cs.MA

Detection Without Correction: A Two-Parameter Decomposition of Multi-Stage LLM Pipelines

Multi-stage LLM pipelines that perform multi-agent debate, intrinsic self-correction, or retrieval-augmented verification exhibit puzzling aggregate behaviors: accuracy plateaus and reversals across rounds, non-replication of debate gains on contemporary frontier models, intrinsic self-correction degradation, and qualitative cross-provider divergence in debate dynamics. Downstream agent response can be operationalized as two coupled decisions: detection (whether to treat upstream content as authoritative) and conditional generation (what to produce if not). This decomposition yields four observable response regimes, of which detection-without-correction is the load-bearing failure mode. Across a nine-cell empirical grid spanning four model families, four benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH-500, GPQA-Diamond, AIME), and two methods (multi-agent debate, intrinsic self-correction), we find that the conditional miscorrection rate is consistently dominant (53-94% across cohorts) while detection rate varies contextually by more than an order of magnitude. The framework unifies the four phenomena above as signatures of a common mechanism and characterizes detection threshold as a stable model/protocol-level regularity that persists across methods at matched benchmark difficulty.

Prashanti Nilayam, Kiran Ramanna, Prashil Tumbade

Self-Correction Multi-Agent Debate Large Language Models Fail Large Language Model Pipelines

Ask PDF

May 7, 2026cs.LG

Knowing but Not Correcting: Routine Task Requests Suppress Factual Correction in LLMs

LLMs reliably correct false claims when presented in isolation, yet when the same claims are embedded in task-oriented requests, they often comply rather than correct. We term this failure mode \emph{correction suppression} and construct a benchmark of 300 false premises to systematically evaluate it across eight models. Suppression rates range from 19% to 90%, with four models exceeding 80%, establishing correction suppression as a prevalent and severe phenomenon. Mechanistic analysis reveals that suppression is not a knowledge failure: the model registers the error internally but task context diverts early-layer attention from the false claim as output intent crystallizes toward compliance at middle layers. We characterize this as \emph{knowing but not correcting} -- suppression occurs at response selection rather than knowledge encoding. Guided by this mechanism, we propose two training-free interventions. Correction Direction Steering (CDS) estimates a correction-compliance direction from matched pairs and injects it at middle layers before output intent crystallizes. Dynamic Payload Amplification (DPA) localizes payload tokens via attention divergence between early and late layers and amplifies their representation at the final layer, requiring no calibration data. Experiments on Qwen3.5-9B and LLaMA3.1-8B show both methods substantially improve factual strictness. CDS achieves the highest correction rate on Qwen3.5-9B (0%

\to

58.2%). DPA is the only method that preserves or improves reasoning capability on both models. These findings introduce \emph{factual strictness} -- the willingness to uphold accuracy against contextual pressures -- as a new dimension of model reliability.

Zixuan Chen, Hao Lin, Zizhe Chen +6

Reasoning Errors

Ask PDF