arxiv-2310-01798 · paperLarge Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet
Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, et al.
Created: 2023 · Ingested: 2026-09-02
This source: Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning YetHow much the field cites it — very heavily cited in the last 12 months503 in the last 12 months · 1164 totalpublished 2023checked 2026-09-04503 citations in the last 12 months · 1164 total · checked 2026-09-04
https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01798(opens in a new tab)In brief
Asking a model to review and revise its own reasoning, with no external feedback, makes it worse, not better. The gains reported in earlier self-correction work come from oracle answer labels deciding when to stop.
The setup: GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4, GPT-4-Turbo and Llama-2-70b-chat on GSM8K (1,319 problems), CommonSenseQA (1,221 dev questions) and HotpotQA (100 questions, closed book), with up to 2 rounds of self-correction using prompts taken from RCI and Reflexion.
With oracle labels GPT-3.5 goes 75.9 to 84.3 on GSM8K and 75.8 to 89.7 on CommonSenseQA. Without them, every model drops: GPT-3.5 to 74.7 and 41.8 after 2 rounds, GPT-4 from 95.5 to 89.0 on GSM8K, Llama-2 from 62.0 to 36.5. 3 different feedback prompts were tried; all lose. Multi-agent debate at 9 responses scores 83.0 on GSM8K versus 88.2 for self-consistency at the same 9 responses. On CommonGen-Hard, writing the constraint into the initial prompt gives 81.8 coverage, above the 67.0 that Self-Refine reports after 7 calls.
The design isolates the cause well: oracle vs no-oracle, matched response budgets, and matched prompt effort, with replication of prior setups. Only reasoning tasks are covered; style and safety self-correction may differ.
Treat any self-correction gain as suspect until the label source and token budget are stated.
Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-05, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.
Referenced by
Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.
- supportsIn an agent's verify-and-fix loop, deterministic checks — tests, linters, schema validators — should be exhausted before any model-based judge is added, because they are free, fast and give the same verdict every time, while an LLM-as-judge costs tokens per run, returns non-deterministic verdicts, and so belongs only on properties no rule can express, and even then as an advisory signal until measured against human review.
- supportsReflect-and-retry raises task success when the feedback in the loop is a genuine external signal — a failing test, a compiler error, an environment outcome — but not when the "feedback" is the model's own unaided critique. The grounding, not the reflection step, is what does the work.
- supportsWithout an external, ground-truth signal — a failing test, a compiler error, a verifier's output — a model's own critique of its reasoning is not a reliable improvement signal, and asking it to review and revise a correct answer often turns it into a wrong one.
- contestsPrompting a model to generate its own feedback on a draft output and revise accordingly improves quality on open-ended generation tasks (dialogue, code, review-writing) over a single-shot attempt.
- supportsThe agent that produced an artifact is a biased judge of it — it holds the context and the incentives that skew its assessment — so verification belongs with a deterministic sensor or a separate verifier that reports failures back rather than rewriting the output, and in a multi-agent system the verifier is the one component no agent may override.