arXiv (All)
open access
When Should LLMs Trust Their Own Revisions? A Risk-Aware Study of Intrinsic Self-Correction
Intrinsic self-correction asks a language model to revise its own answer without receiving new external evidence. A second pass can recover mistakes, but it can also overturn answers that were already correct. We study this trade-off across 29 open-weight LLMs on BoolQ, GSM8K, and Corr2Cause by trac
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Exact Feedback Is Not Control: Evaluating Text-based Closed-Loop Revision in LLMs#1064694
- Transparency in the retraction process: The honesty and self-correction spirit of scientists#87036
- Under-Correction of Biased Information Results in Distorted Beliefs#31092
- Transparency in the retraction process The honesty and self-correction spirit of scientists#696669
- When Does LLM Self-Correction Help? A Control-Theoretic Markov Diagnostic and Verify-First Intervention#134599
Record · ID 1130674
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive