LLM Self-Correction

While defenses for structured PII are mature, Large Language Models (LLMs) pose a new threat: Semantic Sensitive Information (SemSI), where models infer sensitive identity attributes, generate reputation-harmful content, or hallucinate potentially wrong information. The capacity of LLMs to self-regulate these complex, context-dependent sensitive information leaks without destroying utility remains an open scientific question. To address this, we introduce SemSIEdit, an inference-time framework where an agentic "Editor" iteratively critiques and rewrites sensitive spans to preserve narrative flow rather than simply refusing to answer. Our analysis reveals a Privacy-Utility Pareto Frontier, where this agentic rewriting reduces leakage by 34.6% across all three SemSI categories while incurring a marginal utility loss of 9.8%. We also uncover a Scale-Dependent Safety Divergence: large reasoning models (e.g., GPT-5) achieve safety through constructive expansion (adding nuance), whereas capacity-constrained models revert to destructive truncation (deleting text). Finally, we identify a Reasoning Paradox: while inference-time reasoning increases baseline risk by enabling the model to make deeper sensitive inferences, it simultaneously empowers the defense to execute safe rewrites.

Large language models (LLMs) offer substantial promise for automating clinical text summarization, yet maintaining factual consistency remains challenging due to the length, noise, and heterogeneity of clinical documentation. We present AgenticSum, an inference-time, agentic framework that separates context selection, generation, verification, and targeted correction to reduce hallucinated content. The framework decomposes summarization into coordinated stages that compress task-relevant context, generate an initial draft, identify weakly supported spans using internal attention grounding signals, and selectively revise flagged content under supervisory control. We evaluate AgenticSum on two public datasets, using reference-based metrics, LLM-as-a-judge assessment, and human evaluation. Across various measures, AgenticSum demonstrates consistent improvements compared to vanilla LLMs and other strong baselines. Our results indicate that structured, agentic design with targeted correction offers an effective inference time solution to improve clinical note summarization using LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning performance, yet their ability to reliably monitor, diagnose, and correct their own errors remains limited. We introduce a psychologically grounded metacognitive framework that operationalizes Ann Brown's regulatory cycle (Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation) as a structured prompting architecture, and study its integration within a lightweight dual-process MetaController for adaptive effort allocation. Across diverse reasoning and diagnostic benchmarks (GSM8K, CRUXEval, MBPP, AIME, CorrectBench, and TruthfulQA) using Llama-3 and Qwen-3 (8B), explicit regulatory structuring substantially improves error diagnosis and yields a threefold increase in successful self-correction. Blinded human evaluations over 580 query pairs show an 84% aggregate preference for trustworthiness and metacognitive self-awareness over standard and Chain-of-Thought baselines. Grounding LLM reasoning in established cognitive theory offers a principled path toward more transparent and diagnostically robust AI systems.

Computer-use agents (CUAs) have made tremendous progress in the past year, yet they still frequently produce misaligned actions that deviate from the user's original intent. Such misaligned actions may arise from external attacks (e.g., indirect prompt injection) or from internal limitations (e.g., erroneous reasoning). They not only expose CUAs to safety risks, but also degrade task efficiency and reliability. This work makes the first effort to define and study misaligned action detection in CUAs, with comprehensive coverage of both externally induced and internally arising misaligned actions. We further identify three common categories in real-world CUA deployment and construct MisActBench, a benchmark of realistic trajectories with human-annotated, action-level alignment labels. Moreover, we propose DeAction, a practical and universal guardrail that detects misaligned actions before execution and iteratively corrects them through structured feedback. DeAction outperforms all existing baselines across offline and online evaluations with moderate latency overhead: (1) On MisActBench, it outperforms baselines by over 15% absolute in F1 score; (2) In online evaluation, it reduces attack success rate by over 90% under adversarial settings while preserving or even improving task success rate in benign environments.

Commercial insurance underwriting is a labor-intensive process that requires manual review of extensive documentation to assess risk and determine policy pricing. While AI offers substantial efficiency improvements, existing solutions lack comprehensive reasoning and internal mechanisms to ensure reliability in regulated, high-stakes environments. Full automation remains impractical and inadvisable when human judgment and accountability are critical. This study presents a decision-negative, human-in-the-loop agentic system that incorporates an adversarial self-critique mechanism as a bounded safety architecture for regulated underwriting workflows. In this system, a critic agent challenges the primary agent's conclusions prior to submitting recommendations to human reviewers. This internal system of checks and balances addresses a critical gap in AI safety for regulated workflows. Additionally, the research develops a formal taxonomy of failure modes to characterize potential errors by decision-negative agents. This taxonomy provides a structured framework for risk identification and management in high-stakes applications. Experimental evaluation using 500 expert-validated underwriting cases demonstrates that the adversarial critique mechanism reduces AI hallucination rates from 11.3% to 3.8% and increases decision accuracy from 92% to 96%. At the same time, the framework enforces strict human authority over all binding decisions by design. These findings indicate that adversarial self-critique supports safer AI deployment in regulated domains and offers a model for responsible integration where human oversight is indispensable.

Human beings solve complex problems through critical thinking, where reasoning and evaluation are intertwined to converge toward correct solutions. However, most existing large language models (LLMs) treat the reasoning and verification as separate processes: they either generate reasoning without explicit self-checking or rely on external verifiers to detect errors post hoc. The former lacks immediate feedback, while the latter increases system complexity and hinders synchronized learning. Motivated by human critical thinking, we propose Stepwise Think-Critique (STC), an end-to-end trainable framework in which a single LLM emits a structured, step-level critique inline with each reasoning step. STC is trained with reinforcement learning that complements reasoning rewards with a critique-consistency reward derived from final-answer correctness, jointly optimizing reasoning correctness and critique reliability. On five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, STC improves Pass@1 by 7.2% over the 1.5B base model and attains 67.4% step-level critique F1, surpassing seven external process reward models evaluated at their per-dataset oracle thresholds---a step toward LLMs with built-in critical thinking.

Motivated by the observed human-like behaviours in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), this paper introduces a comprehensive taxonomy to characterise atomic reasoning steps and analyse the reasoning behaviours of LRMs. Grounded in human cognitive processes, we propose a taxonomy comprising five groups and seventeen categories. Through this taxonomy, we conduct an in-depth analysis of contemporary LRMs and distil four actionable takeaways for model optimisation. Most notably, we reveal that prevailing post-answer ``doublechecks'' are largely superficial and rarely yield substantive revisions. A targeted intervention further shows that explicitly eliciting richer reflection processes can substantially improve failed self-correction. To support this largescale study, we propose CAPO, an automated annotation method used to construct a dataset of 277,534 reasoning steps with strong agreement with human expert annotations. We further validate the main behavioural patterns on a newer reasoning model and a coding domain, demonstrating the broader applicability of the proposed taxonomy. All source code and data are available at https://github.com/hehepig4/psyche.

Large language models (LLMs) reason fluently but do not regulate their reasoning: they apply uniform scrutiny to every input, which leaves them vulnerable to adversarial and counterfactual prompts, while indiscriminate critique over-corrects answers that were already sound. We propose MetaCrit, a multi-agent framework grounded in Nelson and Narens' metacognitive regulation theory that calibrates how much critique each task receives. MetaCrit separates regulation into four agents: an object-level generator, a monitoring agent that assesses response validity, a control agent that critiques logical soundness, and a meta-level synthesizer that reconciles their signals into a regulated response. Adaptivity here is input-conditioned intervention strength within a fixed pipeline: all four agents run on every input and what varies is the direction and magnitude of the correction they produce, not which stages execute. Across reasoning, safety, and bias benchmarks, MetaCrit improves truthfulness and logical soundness and reaches zero toxicity on BOLD and HONEST without a reasoning trade-off, whereas the same critique applied indiscriminately degrades performance. The cost is four calls per query, about one sixth of the cost of a dedicated reasoning model of similar accuracy. A writing study shows that MetaCrit is preferred for critical-thinking support, and its agents transfer to existing frameworks without architectural change. Code is available at https://github.com/Paparare/EduThink4AI.

Large Language Models with chain-of-thought prompting, such as OpenAI-o1, have shown impressive capabilities in natural language inference tasks. However, Multi-hop Question Answering (MHQA) remains challenging for many existing models due to issues like hallucination, error propagation, and limited context length. To address these challenges and enhance LLMs' performance on MHQA, we propose the Self-Guiding prompting Finite State Machine (SG-FSM), designed to strengthen multi-hop reasoning abilities. Unlike traditional chain-of-thought methods, SG-FSM tackles MHQA by iteratively breaking down complex questions into sub-questions, correcting itself to improve accuracy. It processes one sub-question at a time, dynamically deciding the next step based on the current context and results, functioning much like an automaton. Experiments across various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, outperforming strong baselines on challenging datasets such as Musique. SG-FSM reduces hallucination, enabling recovery of the correct final answer despite intermediate errors. It also improves adherence to specified output formats, simplifying evaluation significantly.