REVIEW 2 cited by
Confidence v.s. Critique: A Decomposition of Self-Correction Capability for LLMs
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) can correct their self-generated responses, but a decline in accuracy after self-correction is also witnessed. To have a deeper understanding of self-correction, we endeavor to decompose, evaluate, and analyze the self-correction behaviors of LLMs. By enumerating and analyzing answer correctness before and after self-correction, we decompose the self-correction capability into confidence (being confident to correct answers) and critique (turning wrong answers to correct) capabilities, and propose two metrics from a probabilistic perspective to measure these 2 capabilities, along with another metric for overall self-correction capability evaluation. Based on our decomposition and evaluation metrics, we conduct extensive experiments and draw some empirical conclusions. For example, we find different models can exhibit distinct behaviors: some models are confident while others are more critical. We also find the trade-off between the two capabilities (i.e. improving one can lead to a decline in the other) when manipulating model self-correction behavior by prompts or in-context learning. Further, we find a simple yet efficient strategy to improve self-correction capability by transforming Supervision Fine-Tuning (SFT) data format, and our strategy outperforms vanilla SFT in both capabilities and achieves much higher accuracy after self-correction. Our code will be publicly available on GitHub.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Precise but Uncoupled: Reviewer Precision Does Not Guarantee Critique Uptake in Multi-Agent Math Reasoning
Reviewer precision and critique uptake come apart: a more precise specialized reviewer can be less effective than a less precise shared-state discussion because correct critiques often do not change the next candidate.
-
Cognitive Load-Aware Inference: A Neuro-Symbolic Framework for Optimizing the Token Economy of Large Language Models
The paper claims that framing LLM inference as cognitive load management reduces token consumption without accuracy loss, but the evidence is under-powered and the 'emergent' decomposition is directly trained.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.