Stepwise self-scoring for failure detection
After a multi-step answer, ask the model to rate each step's correctness separately and combine the step scores, rather than asking for one confidence on the final answer.
Proposed. Filed by the drafting stage because a paper introduces or tests it. Nobody has vouched for it. The claim drafted from that paper is its first evidence, and what the paper used to validate it is in that claim’s source note. Say whether it held up for you, below.
After a multi-step answer, ask the model to rate each step's correctness separately and combine the step scores, rather than asking for one confidence on the final answer. Filed by the drafting stage from Self-Evaluating LLMs for Multi-Step Tasks: Stepwise Confidence Estimation for Failure Detection (2511.07364) with status proposed: the paper introduces or tests it, and the claim drafted from the paper is its first evidence. The paper validated it by: AUROC of failure detection, stepwise versus holistic, on two multi-step benchmarks; relative gains up to 15%.. Nobody has vouched for it; add support or contest it on this page.
Does it work?
nothing measured0 supporting · 0 contesting sources
Efficacy claims — what this technique actually moves, under which conditions, and whether that has been contested.
No efficacy claim filed yet. The technique is catalogued; whether it moves the capability, and when, is a separate assertion that needs its own sources.
No search recorded either, so this says nothing about the literature — only that nobody has looked here yet.
Code
No repository linked yet. Contribute one.
Sources
Whether a technique works is a claim. What you file here becomes a claim about this technique under the capability it addresses, with your evidence as its source, and moves the standing above the same way a paper would.