Safe Error Correction for Language Models: Frozen-Base Adjustment with Capability Preservation

Gautam Kishore

cs.AISep 14, 2026

Safe Error Correction for Language Models: Frozen-Base Adjustment with Capability Preservation

Authors: Gautam Kishore

Organizations: Eulogik

Abstract

We study a practical question: can a small correction module fix errors in a frozen language model's outputs without degrading its base capabilities? We propose CRN v2, a lightweight logit-level correction module (~34M trainable parameters, 0.73% of the 4.65B text module) that sits atop a fully frozen Gemma 4 E2B model. The base model is never updated; only the correction module learns, via supervised fine-tuning followed by reference-free DPO on 83,400 error-correction pairs. On a 60-question domain exam (CEHRI: Certified Human-Robot Intelligence, covering facts, arithmetic, and implicit-goal reasoning), CRN v2 corrects 53.3% of base-model errors (reworded variant: 43.3%) while showing no degradation on tested capability benchmarks (MMLU/BoolQ N=200; car-wash N=8). A LoRA baseline at the matched CRN v1 budget (6.6M params, rank 19) achieves 83.3% correction but suffers 30-75% capability loss on the same benchmarks -- the correction-capability tradeoff. An ablation shows that the KL preservation term (lambda=0.1) is critical: lowering it to 0.01 degrades correction to 35.0%. A hidden-state injection variant at earlier layers (1.6M params, SFT-only) reaches 50.0%/55.8% but does not exceed logit correction; shallower injection (layer 4) drops to 30.0%/28.3%; multi-depth logit correction (~35M) reaches only 40%; and longer training (5,000 SFT + 2,000 DPO) stays at 53.3% -- none of the alternative configurations we tested exceeded the rank-128 logit result, consistent with a best-achieved result of ~53% rather than a floor. This is a study of a design principle (frozen base + logit correction + KL anchoring), not a claim of architectural novelty. All code, main-result weights, and evaluation scripts are released (deep variant as code only -- no trained deep checkpoints).

Explore similar work

May 13, 2026cs.CL

Edit-level Majority Voting Mitigates Over-Correction in LLM-based Grammatical Error Correction

Grammatical error correction using large language models often suffers from the over-correction issue. To mitigate this, we propose a training-free inference method that performs edit-level majority voting over multiple candidates generated by a single model, without requiring model modifications or additional training. Across nine benchmarks covering English, Czech, German, Ukrainian, Korean, Hindi, and Romanian, the proposed method outperforms both greedy and MBR decoding in most cases. Moreover, it yields stable correction quality regardless of the instruction prompts used. We release two repository supporting GEC datasets loading and LLM inference.

Takumi Goto, Yusuke Sakai, Taro Watanabe

Grammatical Error Correction Correction Training-Free Inference Framework

Ask PDF

Apr 20, 2026cs.LG

Latent Phase-Shift Rollback: Inference-Time Error Correction via Residual Stream Monitoring and KV-Cache Steering

Large language models frequently commit unrecoverable reasoning errors mid-generation: once a wrong step is taken, subsequent tokens compound the mistake rather than correct it. We introduce

\textbf{Latent Phase-Shift Rollback}

(LPSR): at each generation step, we monitor the residual stream at a critical layer lcrit, detect abrupt directional reversals (phase shifts) via a cosine-similarity

+

entropy dual gate, and respond by rolling back the KV-cache and injecting a pre-computed steering vector. No fine-tuning, gradient computation, or additional forward passes are required. LPSR achieves

\mathbf{44.0\%}

on MATH-500 with an 8B model versus

28.8\%

for standard AR (

+15.2

pp; McNemar

χ^2 = 66.96

p < 10^{-15}

). Critically, prompted self-correction, the most natural inference-time baseline, scores only

19.8\%

, below standard AR; LPSR exceeds it by

+24.2

pp (

χ^2 = 89.4

p \approx 0

). LPSR also outperforms Best-of-16 (

+7.8

pp) at

5.4\times

lower token cost, and surpasses a standard 70B model (

35.2\%

) with

8.75\times

fewer parameters at

{\sim}3\times

the token budget. A 32-layer sweep reveals a novel \textbf{detection-correction dissociation}: error-detection AUC peaks at layer~~14 ( $0.718$ ) but task accuracy peaks at layer~~16 (

44.0\%

vs.\

29.2\%

), demonstrating that optimal monitoring depth differs for detection and correction.

Manan Gupta, Dhruv Kumar

Error Correction Reasoning Errors Correction Residual Stream Kv-Cache Blocks Area Under The Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve

Ask PDF

May 17, 2026cs.AI

CyberCorrect: A Cybernetic Framework for Closed-Loop Self-Correction in Large Language Models

Large language model (LLM) self-correction -- the ability to detect and fix errors in generated outputs -- remains largely ad hoc, relying on generic prompts such as "please reconsider your answer" without systematic error analysis or convergence guarantees. We propose CyberCorrect, a framework that formalizes LLM self-correction as a closed-loop control system grounded in cybernetic theory. The framework models the LLM generator as the plant and introduces a tri-modal Error Detector (combining self-consistency, verbalized confidence, and logic-chain verification) as the sensor. A type-directed Correction Controller generates targeted repair instructions based on diagnosed error categories, while a Convergence Judge determines iteration termination using stability criteria adapted from control theory. We further introduce three control-theoretic evaluation metrics -- convergence rate, overshoot rate, and oscillation rate -- that capture correction dynamics beyond final accuracy. Experiments on our constructed CyberCorrect-Bench (440 reasoning tasks with annotated error types and correction paths) show that CyberCorrect achieves 79.8% final accuracy, improving upon the best existing self-correction method by 6.2 percentage points, while reducing overshoot (erroneous over-correction) by 41% through its convergence control mechanism.

Yuning Wu, Yingmin Liu, Yang Shu

Topic pending

Ask PDF