When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01297v1
• Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:05:46 GMT
• Title: When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs
• Authors: Ryo Kamoi, Yusen Zhang, Nan Zhang, Jiawei Han, Rui Zhang,
• Abstract summary: Self-correction is an approach to improving responses from large language models (LLMs) by refining the responses using LLMs during inference. Prior work has proposed various self-correction frameworks using different sources of feedback, including self-evaluation and external feedback. We critically survey broad papers and discuss the conditions required for successful self-correction.
• Score: 29.295135832861522
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Self-correction is an approach to improving responses from large language models (LLMs) by refining the responses using LLMs during inference. Prior work has proposed various self-correction frameworks using different sources of feedback, including self-evaluation and external feedback. However, there is still no consensus on the question of when LLMs can correct their own mistakes, as recent studies also report negative results. In this work, we critically survey broad papers and discuss the conditions required for successful self-correction. We first find that prior studies often do not define their research questions in detail and involve impractical frameworks or unfair evaluations that over-evaluate self-correction. To tackle these issues, we categorize research questions in self-correction research and provide a checklist for designing appropriate experiments. Our critical survey based on the newly categorized research questions shows that (1) no prior work demonstrates successful self-correction with feedback from prompted LLMs in general tasks, (2) self-correction works well in tasks that can use reliable external feedback, and (3) large-scale fine-tuning enables self-correction.

Related papers

• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• Large Language Models have Intrinsic Self-Correction Ability [16.831123666582755]
  Large language models suffer from hallucinations that will cause performance degradation. One promising solution to improve the LLMs' performance is to ask LLMs to revise their answer after generation. In intrinsic self-correction is considered a promising direction because it does not utilize external knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T22:29:40Z)
• A Theoretical Understanding of Self-Correction through In-context Alignment [51.622068973630796]
  Large language models (LLMs) are capable of improving their abilities purely by self-correction. We show that when LLMs give relatively accurate self-examinations as rewards, they are capable of refining responses in an in-context way. Inspired by these findings, we also illustrate applications of self-correction, such as defending against LLM jailbreaks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:33:02Z)
• Small Language Models Need Strong Verifiers to Self-Correct Reasoning [69.94251699982388]
  Self-correction has emerged as a promising solution to boost the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs) This work explores whether small (= 13B) language models (LMs) have the ability of self-correction on reasoning tasks with minimal inputs from stronger LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-26T03:41:28Z)
• Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection [90.71323430635593]
  We propose a novel self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers. It thoroughly compares the trustability of multiple candidate answers to mitigate the over-trust in LLM-generated incorrect answers. This framework can be seamlessly integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:38:26Z)
• Self-Contrast: Better Reflection Through Inconsistent Solving Perspectives [45.87069217634753]
  Research indicates without external feedback, Large Language Model's intrinsic reflection is unstable. Our investigation unveils that the key bottleneck is the quality of the self-evaluated feedback. We advocate Self-Contrast: It adaptively explores diverse solving perspectives tailored to the request, contrasts the differences, and summarizes these discrepancies into a checklist which could be used to re-examine and eliminate discrepancies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T00:32:33Z)
• You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
  We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z)
• The ART of LLM Refinement: Ask, Refine, and Trust [85.75059530612882]
  We propose a reasoning with refinement objective called ART: Ask, Refine, and Trust. It asks necessary questions to decide when an LLM should refine its output. It achieves a performance gain of +5 points over self-refinement baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:26:32Z)
• GPT-4 Doesn't Know It's Wrong: An Analysis of Iterative Prompting for Reasoning Problems [16.284360949127723]
  We present a principled empirical study of the performance of GPT4 in solving graph coloring instances or verifying the correctness of candidate colorings. We show that the observed increase in effectiveness is largely due to the correct solution being fortuitously present in the top-k completions of the prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T00:56:37Z)
• Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet [78.16697476530994]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a groundbreaking technology with their unparalleled text generation capabilities. Concerns persist regarding the accuracy and appropriateness of their generated content. A contemporary methodology, self-correction, has been proposed as a remedy to these issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T04:56:12Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.