Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Bar-Ilan University · Independent Researcher
Abstract
Intrinsic self-correction (SC) aims to improve large language model outputs by prompting a model to revisit its own initial answer without external feedback. Recent studies have questioned the reliability of this approach, showing that models often struggle to judge whether their initial responses are correct. In this work, we take a task-sensitive view of SC. Rather than asking whether it works in general, we examine settings where SC may operate through different mechanisms: verifying explicit constraints, revisiting a complex reasoning process, or providing a second opinion over competing strategies in word-game tasks. Across multiple benchmarks and models, we find that SC can yield consistent performance gains when the underlying task structure facilitates these modes of revision. These results suggest that SC is best understood as a task-dependent inference-time strategy whose usefulness depends on the role the revision stage can play in a given task, rather than as a uniformly reliable method for improving initial model outputs.
Recently, language models have made rapid progress across various domains and applications. However, their capability for self-improvement, i.e., whether they are adept at recognising and correcting flaws in their own reasoning, remains dubious. In this study, we address this question by constructing a sufficiency test to rigorously examine the self-correction capabilities of small language models (SLMs). We propose a minimal three-step self-correction pipeline that collects initial SLM answers, prompts the same model to generate hints for its incorrect responses given the ground truth, and feeds the model the same question with its own feedback to refine the initial answer. We evaluate a variety of instruction-tuned and reasoning SLMs in this experimental setup on arithmetic and logical reasoning benchmarks. Our findings show that SLMs with injected hint sentences yield only a 4.4 percent gain over initial question-answering accuracy. Even though the correct answer was provided alongside the model's incorrect reasoning, the evaluated SLMs fail to understand what was missing in their reasoning and show minimal semantic difference between hints that lead to corrections and ones that do not. Furthermore, our experiments show that longer hints are positively correlated with incorrect final answers, suggesting that longer deliberation on problems can hinder the reasoning process, meaning that SLMs do not necessarily scale in performance with a larger compute budget.
Iterative self-correction is increasingly deployed in agentic LLM systems, yet whether repeated refinement improves or degrades performance remains inconsistent across models. We recast self-correction as a closed-loop feedback-control problem in which the same model is both controller and plant, and analyze its error dynamics via a two-state Markov model over {Correct, Incorrect}, parameterized by the Error Introduction Rate (EIR) and Error Correction Rate (ECR). The model yields a directly measurable stability threshold -- iterate only when ECR/EIR > Acc/(1-Acc) -- in which EIR acts as a stability margin and prompting becomes lightweight controller design. Empirically, across 7 models and 3 datasets (GSM8K, MATH, StrategyQA), a sharp near-zero EIR boundary (< 0.5%) cleanly separates beneficial from harmful self-correction: only o3-mini (+3.4 pp), Claude Opus 4.6 (+0.6 pp), and o4-mini (+/-0 pp) stay non-degrading, while GPT-5 and four others lose accuracy. A verify-first prompt intervention then provides causal evidence: it drives GPT-4o-mini's EIR from 2% to 0% and converts a -6.2 pp degradation into +0.2 pp (paired McNemar, p<10^{-4}), with negligible change on already-sub-threshold models -- exactly as the diagnostic predicts. A complementary analysis of adaptive self-consistency (ASC) shows it halts harmful refinement at a 3.8 pp confidence-elicitation cost, exposing a two-tier capability structure: prompt-level EIR suppression prevents degradation, whereas ECR enhancement -- plausibly training-level -- is required for genuine gains. Self-correction should thus be treated not as a default behavior but as a control decision governed by measurable error dynamics.
Large language models produce fluent but often incorrect multi-step reasoning, and naive correction methods risk degrading already-correct answers. We introduce Denoising Iterative Self-Correction (DISC), a test-time procedure that treats verification question outputs as noisy measurements of where a solution may be corrupted. Using these signals, DISC progressively reduces errors across multiple verify-judge-correct passes, analogous to traditional iterative denoising. A binary judgment gate controls correction precision by blocking rewrites that would damage already-correct answers while the verifier and corrector together repair errors. We evaluate this trade-off using two paired diagnostics: an improvement-to-degradation ratio (precision) and a repair rate (recall). Across three benchmarks (BIG-Bench Mistake, HotpotQA, GPQA Diamond) and four models, DISC dominates Chain-of-Verification and Self-Refine on the precision-recall trade-off, reaching 81.6% accuracy with 13x more improvements per degradation than Chain-of-Verification and 5x more than Self-Refine on BIG-Bench Mistake (Sonnet~4.5). On GPQA Diamond, we identify a capability floor below which judges acknowledge contradictions in evidence but cannot translate that recognition into a correction. We further show that cross-model role allocation -- assigning verification and judgment to a model different from the generator -- mitigates self-confirmation bias.