CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 315Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech and dialogue systems

Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback

Open access
Madaan, Aman, Tandon, Niket, Gupta, Prakhar, Hallinan, Skyler, Gao, Luyu, Wiegreffe, Sarah, Alon, Uri, Dziri, Nouha +8 more·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2303.17651arXiv 2303.17651
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Like humans, large language models (LLMs) do not always generate the best output on their first try. Motivated by how humans refine their written text, we introduce Self-Refine, an approach for improving initial outputs from LLMs through iterative feedback and refinement. The main idea is to generate an initial output using an LLMs; then, the same LLMs provides feedback for its output and uses it to refine itself, iteratively. Self-Refine does not require any supervised training data, additional training, or reinforcement learning, and instead uses a single LLM as the generator, refiner, and feedback provider. We evaluate Self-Refine across 7 diverse tasks, ranging from dialog response generation to mathematical reasoning, using state-of-the-art (GPT-3.5, ChatGPT, and GPT-4) LLMs. Across all evaluated tasks, outputs generated with Self-Refine are preferred by humans and automatic metrics over those generated with the same LLM using conventional one-step generation, improving by ~20% absolute on average in task performance. Our work demonstrates that even state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 can be further improved at test time using our simple, standalone approach.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

SELF-REFINE improves large language model outputs by iteratively generating self-feedback and refining the same model’s output without supervised training, additional training, or reinforcement learning. Across 7 diverse tasks, it improves over one-step generation by ∼20% absolute on average, with especially large gains on preference-based tasks.

Key findings

  • SELF-REFINE consistently improved GPT-3.5, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 across all evaluated tasks. Examples include GPT-4 Dialogue Response Generation improving from 25.4 to 74.6 (+49.2), GPT-4 Code Optimization from 27.3 to 36.0 (+8.7), and GPT-4 Constrained Generation from 15.0 to 45.0 (+30.0).
  • Feedback quality matters: in Code Optimization, SELF-REFINE feedback scored 27.5 vs. 26.0 for generic feedback and 24.8 for no feedback; in Sentiment Reversal, 43.2 vs. 31.2 vs. 0; in Acronym Generation, 56.4 vs. 54.0 vs. 48.0.
  • Iterative refinement generally improves outputs, with diminishing returns: Code Optimization rose from 22.0 at y0 to 28.8 at y3; Sentiment Reversal from 33.9 to 36.8; Constrained Generation from 29.0 to 49.7.
  • Math Reasoning gains were modest: GPT-3.5 64.1 to 64.1 (0), ChatGPT 74.8 to 75.0 (+0.2), GPT-4 92.9 to 93.1 (+0.2). With oracle feedback, GPT-3 improved by 4.8% and GPT-4 by 0.7%.

Methods

  • SELF-REFINE alternates between FEEDBACK and REFINE using the same model M: initial output y0 = M(pgen ∥ x); feedback fbt = M(pfb ∥ x ∥ yt); refinement yt+1 = M(prefine ∥ x ∥ y0 ∥ fb0 ∥ … ∥ yt ∥ fbt). It iterates until a stopping condition or up to a maximum of 4 iterations, using few-shot prompts and no supervised training, additional training, or reinforcement learning.
  • Evaluation covered 7 tasks: Dialogue Response Generation, Code Optimization, Code Readability Improvement, Math Reasoning, Sentiment Reversal, Acronym Generation, and Constrained Generation (CommonGen-Hard). Base LLMs were GPT-3.5 (text-davinci-003), ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo), GPT-4, and CODEX for code tasks. Metrics included task-specific metrics, human preference, and GPT-4 preference.
  • Analysis included ablations on feedback quality and iteration count, comparison against generating multiple outputs, testing Vicuna-13B, and a qualitative error analysis of 70 samples for Code Optimization and Math Reasoning.

Limitations

  • Stated: the base models need sufficient few-shot modeling or instruction-following abilities to provide feedback and refine in-context; Vicuna-13B struggled to generate feedback in the required format and often failed to refine properly.
  • Stated: experiments used non-open-sourced models (GPT-3.5, ChatGPT, GPT-4, CODEX), whose pretraining corpus, sizes, and biases are not fully described, and which are not free to use; datasets were exclusively English; the approach does not explicitly guard against bad actors steering models toward toxic or harmful text.
  • Evident from the text: human A/B evaluations were conducted by the authors, and GPT-4 was used as a proxy for human preference with reported correlations of 82% for Sentiment Reversal, 68% for Acronym Generation, and 71% for Dialogue Response Generation. The paper also notes Math Reasoning gains are limited by the model’s inability to accurately identify errors, with ChatGPT feedback being “everything looks good” for 94% of instances.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2303.17651

Cites

44 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 6 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

10 of 19 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingcitation

    SELF-REFINE improves initial code generation by up to 13% absolute when applied to strong code models such as Codex.

    “In code-generation tasks, SELF-REFINE improves the initial generation by up to absolute 13% when applied to strong code models such as Codex (code-davinci-002; Chen et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al., 2021 source
  • Premisecitation

    Reinforcement learning methods require updating the model's parameters, unlike SELF-REFINE.

    “Second, these reinforcement learning methods require updating the model's parameters, unlike SELF-REFINE.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Stiennon et al., 2020 source
    • cites Lu et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Le et al., 2022a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingown data

    Using Oracle Feedback, which only progresses to REFINE if the current answer is incorrect, notably enhanced performance in Math Reasoning, with GPT-3 improving by 4.8% and GPT-4 by 0.7%.

    “This adjustment notably enhanced performance in the Math Reasoning task, with GPT-3 improving by 4.8% and GPT-4 by 0.7% Table 9.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Welleck et al., 2022 source

      Section 3.5 (pp. 8–9) reports that correcting only incorrect outputs and adding explicit feedback improve results in math program synthesis. It does not report the claimed 4.8% GPT-3 or 0.7% GPT-4 gains; its math results use different models and figures. The cited paper’s Table 9 concerns E2E hyperparameters, not those gains. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisereasoning

    Reinforcement learning approaches differ from SELF-REFINE in that the model cannot access feedback on an intermediate generation.

    “These methods differ from SELF-REFINE (and more generally, refinement-based approaches) in that the model cannot access feedback on an intermediate generation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Stiennon et al., 2020 source

      The Introduction (p. 2) says this paper’s RL policy is updated using a reward for the entire generated summary, and a note on p. 6 explicitly says the reward model gives no rewards at intermediate time steps. That supports the distinction for this method, but not the broader claim that reinforcement-learning approaches generally cannot access feedback on intermediate generations. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Lu et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Le et al., 2022a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingreasoning

    Constrained Generation is one of the tasks in which SELF-REFINE shows the highest gains compared to base models.

    “One of the tasks in which we observe the highest gains compared to the base models is Constrained Generation, where the model is asked to generate a sentence containing up to 30 given concepts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • May combine two claims. 35
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 5

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    CommonGen-Hard requires models to generate coherent sentences incorporating 20-30 concepts, rather than only the 3-5 related concepts given in CommonGen.

    “CommonGen-Hard requires models to generate coherent sentences incorporating 20-30 concepts, rather than only the 3-5 related concepts given in CommonGen.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lin et al., 2020 source

      Section 3.1 says CommonGen uses concept sets of three to five concepts, and Section 2 says the output should be a grammatical sentence using all given concepts. Our copy does not mention CommonGen-Hard or a requirement to incorporate 20–30 concepts (searched for “CommonGen-Hard” and “20-30 concepts”), so that part is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On GSM8K with the same base model GPT-3 and same settings, Self-Correction achieved 45.9% accuracy while SELF-REFINE achieved 55.7% (an improvement of 9.8 percentage points).

    “Empirically, we evaluated SELF-REFINE using the same base model of GPT-3 as Self-Correction, and with the same settings on the GSM8K benchmark.Self-Correction achieved 45.9% accuracy while SELF-REFINE (this work) achieved 55.7% (↑9.8).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Welleck et al., 2022 source

      Section 3.4 (p. 8) reports 45.92% accuracy on GSM with a GPT-3 Instruct generator and self-corrector, supporting the rounded 45.9% figure. The paper does not report SELF-REFINE’s 55.7% result or establish that the two methods used the same settings, so it does not substantiate the 9.8-point comparison. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Self-Correction trains a separate refiner for each task, whereas SELF-REFINE uses instructions and few-shot prompting and does not require training a separate refiner for each task.

    “Self-Correction trains a separate refiner (or”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Welleck et al., 2022 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room?

    Few-shot prompting provides a model with a prompt consisting of k in-context examples of the target task, each in the form of input-output pairs.

    “Few-shot prompting (also referred to as”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brown et al., 2020 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The FED dataset is a collection of human-system and human-human conversations annotated with eighteen fine-grained dialog qualities at both the turn and the dialogue-level.

    “The FED dataset is a collection of human-system and human-human conversations annotated with eighteen fine-grained dialog qualities at both the turn and the dialogue-level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The FED dataset was created to evaluate interactive dialog systems without relying on reference responses or training data.

    “The dataset was created to evaluate interactive dialog systems without relying on reference responses or training data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mehri and Eskenazi, 2020 source

      The Introduction says the FED dataset was collected for fine-grained evaluation of interactive dialog and contains no training data. It also says the dataset is intended to benchmark automatic metrics against human judgments; the absence of reference responses is a property of the FED metric, not a stated purpose or property of the dataset. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Sentiment Transfer, changing from SELF-REFINE feedback to generic feedback leads to a significant performance drop (43.2 to 31.2), and the task fails without feedback.

    “This effect is more pronounced in tasks like Sentiment Transfer, where changing from our feedback to generic feedback leads to a significant performance drop (43.2 to 31.2), and the task fails without feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Code Optimization, performance slightly dips from 27.5 with SELF-REFINE feedback to 26.0 with generic feedback, and further to 24.8 with no feedback.

    “In Code Optimization, performance slightly dips from 27.5 (SELF-REFINE feedback) to 26.0 (generic feedback), and further to 24.8 (no feedback).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    GPT-4+SELF-REFINE performs better than GPT-3.5+SELF-REFINE and ChatGPT+SELF-REFINE across all tasks, even in tasks where the initial base results of GPT-4 were lower than GPT-3.5 or ChatGPT.

    “Generally, GPT-4+SELF-REFINE performs better than GPT-3.5+SELF-REFINEand ChatGPT+SELF-REFINE across all tasks, even in tasks where the initial base results of GPT-4 were lower than GPT-3.5 or ChatGPT.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    SELF-REFINE's feedback generates explicit numerical scores to capture different aspects of output quality, allowing for a more balanced evaluation and selection of the most appropriate output.

    “To address this, SELF-REFINE's feedback generates explicit numerical scores to capture the different aspects of output quality.This allows for a more balanced evaluation of outputs and the selection of the most appropriate one.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Vicuna-13b consistently followed the task initialization prompt but struggled to follow the prompts intended for feedback and refinement, often producing outputs that resembled assistant-like responses.

    “Vicuna-13b was able to consistently follow the task initialization prompt.However, it struggled to follow the prompts intended for feedback and refinement.This often led to outputs that resembled assistant-like responses, a representative example of which can be found in Appendix G.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the refinement stage of SELF-REFINE for Dialogue Response Generation, errors included not being robust (10%), ignoring feedback (25%), and introducing a new problem (20%).

    “Table 12 breaks down errors found in the refinement stage of SELF-REFINE.Errors include: not being robust (10%), ignoring feedback (25%), and introducing a new problem (20%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Nearly all of GPT-4 gains are statistically significant, ChatGPT gains are significant for 4 out of 7 datasets, and GPT-3.5 gains are significant for 3 out of 7 datasets.

    “We find that nearly all of GPT-4 gains are statistically significant, ChatGPT gains are significant for 4 out of 7 datasets, and GPT-3.5 gains are significant for 3 out of 7 datasets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: GPT-4 is capable of assessing and providing reasoning for complex tasks.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    SELF-REFINE demonstrates iterative feedback and refinement capabilities in website layout generation, where ChatGPT initially produces a rudimentary layout and then uses FEEDBACK to suggest specific, actionable improvements.

    “SELF-REFINE demonstrates its iterative feedback and refinement capabilities in the context of website layout generation.ChatGPT initially produces a rudimentary layout for a given topic, and then uses the FEEDBACK to suggest specific, actionable improvements, as demonstrated in Figures 7 and 9.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Starting from a rudimentary initial design, SELF-REFINE refines HTML, CSS, and JS to evolve the website in terms of both usability and aesthetics.

    “Starting from a rudimentary initial design, SELF-REFINE refines HTML, CSS, and JS to evolve the website in terms of both usability and aesthetics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On the Dialogue Response Generation task, SELF-REFINE can ignore good feedback but in a majority of cases it is robust to bad feedback and ignores bad feedback.

    “On the Dialogue Response Generation task, SELF-REFINE can ignore good feedback but in a majority of cases, it is robust to bad feedback and ignores bad feedback.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    SELF-REFINE achieves superior performance on the PIE dataset while using only 4 samples at most, significantly fewer than the 16 and 32 samples employed by other models.

    “Notably, SELF-REFINE achieves superior performance while using only 4 samples at most, significantly fewer than the 16 and 32 samples employed by other models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Performance may not always monotonically increase with iterations; in multi-aspect feedback tasks like Acronym Generation, output quality can vary during iteration with improvement in one aspect but decline in another aspect.

    “The performance may not always monotonically increase with iterations: in multi-aspect feedback tasks like Acronym Generation, where the output quality can vary during iteration with improvement in one aspect but decline in another aspect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the sample analyzed for Dialogue Response Generation, the occurrence of errors in feedback was: Incorrect Feedback 25%, Generic Feedback 30%, and Incorrect Scoring 10%.

    “Table 11 reports the occurrence of different types of errors in our sample, which includes Incorrect Feedback (25%), Generic Feedback (30%), and Incorrect Scoring (10%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For Math Reasoning and Sentiment Reversal, output quality increases monotonically with iterations.

    “A similar selection is possible for other tasks like Math Reasoning and Sentiment Reversal, while we observe that output quality increases monotonically with iterations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Manual analysis shows that outputs generated by SELF-REFINE are more engaging, interesting, and generally more elaborate than outputs generated by INIT.

    “Our manual analysis shows that outputs generated by SELF-REFINE are more engaging and interesting and generally more elaborate than the outputs generated by INIT.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room?

    SELF-REFINE with GPT-3 achieves 55.7% on GSM-8k math reasoning, outperforming Self-Correct with GPT-3 (45.9%).

    “SELF-REFINE w/ GPT-3 | 55.7”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    CommonGen-Hard requires models to generate coherent and grammatically correct sentences incorporating 20-30 concepts, as opposed to the original task which presents a set of 3-5 related concepts.

    “CommonGen-Hard requires models to generate coherent and grammatically correct sentences incorporating 20-30 concepts, as opposed to the original task which presents a set of 3-5 related concepts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room?

    In human evaluation for dialogue response generation, SELF-REFINE wins over INIT for GPT-3.5 (36% vs 23%), ChatGPT (48% vs 18%), and GPT-4 (54% vs 16%).

    “SELF-REFINE wins | 36.0 | 48.0 | 54.0”
    • Also stated in: § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room? · plain
      “INIT wins | 23.0 | 18.0 | 16.0”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room?

    SELF-REFINE with GPT-4 achieves 94.5% on GSM-8k math reasoning, outperforming PaL with GPT-4 (93.3%).

    “SELF-REFINE w/ GPT-4 | 94.5”
    • Also stated in: § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room? · plain
      “PaL w/ GPT-4 | 93.3”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

    Findingown data
    § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room?

    SELF-REFINE without feedback achieves a lower percentage of optimized code than SELF-REFINE with feedback.

    “SELF-REFINE -feedback | 1 | 10.1 | 62.15 | 3.03”
    • Also stated in: § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room? · plain
      “SELF-REFINE | 1 | 15.3 | 59.64 | 2.90”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room?

    Prompting to generate generic feedback or having the model generate no feedback leads to reduced scores.

    “Prompting to generate generic feedback (or having the model generate no feedback at all) leads to reduced scores, indicating the importance of the FEEDBACK step of SELF-REFINE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    For dramatic response evaluation, the preference rate for SELF-REFINE outputs went down to 58.92% with generic feedback, from 80.09% with informative feedback.

    “For dramatic response evaluation, we found that the preference rate went down drastically to 58.92%, from 80.09%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    SELF-REFINE outperforms both the direct method and the simplified feedback approach in code optimization.

    “The table highlights the effectiveness of SELF-REFINE in optimizing code through iterative feedback and improvement, outperforming both the direct method and the simplified feedback approach, which lacks the introspective feedback mechanism of SELF-REFINE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room?

    SELF-REFINE with 2 iterations achieves 15.6% optimized code and 3.74x speedup, outperforming the direct method (9.7% optimized, 3.09x speedup).

    “Direct | - | 9.7 | 62.29 | 3.09”
    • Also stated in: § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room? · plain
      “SELF-REFINE | 2 | 15.6 | 65.60 | 3.74”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room?

    SELF-REFINE with ChatGPT achieves 75.1% on GSM-8k math reasoning, outperforming PaL with ChatGPT (74.2%).

    “PaL w/ ChatGPT | 74.2”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room?

    In A/B evaluations, SELF-REFINE outputs were preferred over baseline in sentiment transfer (75.00%), acronym generation (44.59%), and response generation (47.58%).

    “Sentiment Transfer | 75.00 | 21.43 | 3.57”
    • Also stated in: § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room? · plain
      “Acronym Generation | 44.59 | 12.16 | 43.24”
    • Also stated in: § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room? · plain
      “Response Generation | 47.58 | 19.66 | 32.76”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    SELF-REFINE beats INIT by a wide margin on both automatic and human evaluation for dialogue response generation.

    “Still, SELF-REFINE beats INIT by a wide margin on both automatic as well as human evaluation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At T=0.0, SELF-REFINE produces less meaningful variables, less comments per line but even more function units compared to human annotators.

    “At T = 0.0, SELF-REFINE produces less meaningful variables, less comments per line but even more function units.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    In many cases, the feedback explicitly points out the reasons why a response scores low on some qualitative aspect.

    “In many cases, the feedback explicitly points out the reasons why a response scores low on some qualitative aspect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At T=0.7, SELF-REFINE produces more meaningful variables, more function units and slightly more comments compared to the human annotators on average.

    “At T = 0.7, SELF-REFINE produces more meaning variables, more function units and slightly more comments compared to the human annotators on average.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Constrained Generation has an extremely large number of reasonable outputs, and thus SELF-REFINE allows better exploration of the space of possible outputs.

    “Further, this task has an extremely large number of reasonable outputs, and thus SELF-REFINE allows to better explore the space of possible outputs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Constrained Generation benefits significantly from SELF-REFINE because there are more opportunities to miss some of the concepts on the first attempt, and thus SELF-REFINE allows the model to fix these mistakes subsequently.

    “We believe that this task benefits significantly from SELF-REFINE because there are more opportunities to miss some of the concepts on the first attempt, and thus SELF-REFINE allows the model to fix these mistakes subsequently.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The experiments in this work were performed with language models that are not open-sourced, namely GPT-3.5, ChatGPT, GPT-4, and CODEX.

    “Further, the experiments in this work were performed with language models that are not open-sourced, namely GPT-3.5, ChatGPT, GPT-4, and CODEX.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The authors exclusively experiment with datasets in English.

    “Another limitation of our work is that we exclusively experiment with datasets in English.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    SELF-REFINE focuses on iterative creation with introspective feedback, making it suitable for evaluating the effectiveness of language models on the CommonGen-Hard task.

    “SELF-REFINE focuses on iterative creation with introspective feedback, making it suitable for evaluating the effectiveness of language models on the CommonGen-Hard task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    SELF-REFINE has potential in real-world, complex, and creative tasks.

    “This demonstrates the potential of SELF-REFINE in real-world, complex, and creative tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Compared to Reflexion (Shinn et al., 2023), SELF-REFINE involves correction using feedback, whereas Reflexion involves finding the next best solution in planning using ReAct.

    “Compared to a concurrent work, Reflexion (Shinn et al., 2023), our approach involves correction using feedback, whereas their setup involves finding the next best solution in planning using ReAct.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shinn et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    Vicuna-13b may require more extensive prompt-engineering for optimal performance.

    “However, the limited performance of Vicuna-13b suggests that this model may require more extensive prompt-engineering for optimal performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Existing literature does not fully describe the details of these models, such as the pretraining corpus, model sizes, and model biases.

    “Existing literature (Ouyang et al., 2022) does not fully describe the details of these models, such as the pretraining corpus, model sizes, and model biases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ouyang et al., 2022 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The authors release their code and model outputs to ensure the reproducibility of their work.

    “Nonetheless, we release our code and model outputs to ensure the reproducibility of our work.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    In other languages, the current models may not provide the same benefits.

    “In other languages, the current models may not provide the same benefits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Having multiple FEEDBACK-REFINE iterations significantly enhances the quality of the output, although the marginal improvement naturally decreases with more iterations.

    “Overall, having multiple FEEDBACK-REFINE iterations significantly enhances the quality of the output, although the marginal improvement naturally decreases with more iterations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    SELF-REFINE's more granular and structured feedback allows it to offer more precise and actionable feedback, making it suitable for a wider range of natural language generation tasks, including open-ended dialogue generation.

    “This distinction allows our method to offer more precise and actionable feedback, making it suitable for a wider range of natural language generation tasks, including those that may not necessarily involve step-by-step planning such as open-ended dialogue generation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Since Vicuna-13B was trained on conversations, it does not generalize as well as instruction-based models to test-time few-shot tasks.

    “We thus hypothesize that since Vicuna-13B was trained on conversations, it does not generalize as well as instruction-based models to test-time few-shot tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chiang et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The A/B human evaluation in the study was blind: judges did not know which outputs were generated by which method.

    “The setup was blind, i.e., the judges did not know which outputs were generated by which method.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The increased complexity of the CommonGen-Hard task makes it an ideal testbed for evaluating the effectiveness of SELF-REFINE.

    “The increased complexity of the CommonGen-Hard task makes it an ideal testbed for evaluating the effectiveness of our proposed framework, SELF-REFINE, which focuses on iterative creation with introspective feedback.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Q: There were nine computers in the server room.Five more computers were installed each day, from monday to thursday.How many computers are now in the server room?

    In A/B evaluations, judges were not aware of the method that generated each sample.

    “The judges were not aware of the method that generated each sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Acronym generation is a natural testbed for SELF-REFINE.

    “Thus, acronym generation is a natural method testbed for our approach.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Acronym generation requires an iterative refinement process to achieve a concise and memorable representation of a complex term or phrase.
    • Rests on an assumption: Acronyms often involve tradeoffs between length, ease of pronunciation, and relevance to the original term or phrase.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The primary objective of PIE is to optimize a given program by implementing algorithmic modifications that lead to improved runtime performance.

    “The primary objective of PIE is to optimize a given program by implementing algorithmic modifications that lead to improved runtime performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Madaan et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Through iterative creation and self-reflection, SELF-REFINE empowers language models to progressively enhance the quality of their output, closely mimicking the human creative process and demonstrating its ability to improve generated text on complex and demanding natural language generation tasks like CommonGen-Hard.

    “Through iterative creation and self-reflection, the SELF-REFINE framework empowers language models to progressively enhance the quality of their output, closely mimicking the human creative process and demonstrating its ability to improve generated text on complex and demanding natural language generation tasks like CommonGen-Hard (Figure 15).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Initial outputs from language models may not always meet the desired level of quality, coherence, or sensibility.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Performance-Improving Code Edits (PIE) focuses on enhancing the efficiency of functionally correct programs.

    “Performance-Improving Code Edits or PIE (Madaan et al., 2023) focuses on enhancing the efficiency of functionally correct programs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Madaan et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The significant increase in the number of concepts tests the model's ability to perform advanced commonsense reasoning, contextual understanding, and creative problem-solving.

    “This significant increase in the number of concepts tests the model's ability to perform advanced commonsense reasoning, contextual understanding, and creative problem-solving, as it must generate meaningful sentences that encompass a broader range of ideas.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
58 of 58

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Large language models often fall short in addressing intricate requirements.

    “Although large language models (LLMs) can generate coherent outputs, they often fall short in addressing intricate requirements.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Math errors can be nuanced and sometimes limited to a single line or incorrect operation.

    “In math, errors can be nuanced and sometimes limited to a single line or incorrect operation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    GPT-4 is capable of assessing and providing reasoning for complex tasks.

    “In light of the impressive achievements of GPT-4 in assessing and providing reasoning for complex tasks, we leverage its abilities for evaluation in SELF-REFINE.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Code readability may significantly affect the usability, upgradability, and ease of maintenance of an entire codebase.

    “though not related to the execution results of the code, code readability may significantly affect the usability, upgradability, and ease of maintenance of an entire codebase.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Acronym generation requires an iterative refinement process to create concise and memorable representations of complex terms or phrases, involving tradeoffs between length, ease of pronunciation, and relevance.

    “Acronym generation requires an iterative refinement process to create concise and memorable representations of complex terms or phrases, involving tradeoffs between length, ease of pronunciation, and relevance, and thus serves as a natural testbed for our approach.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Automated metrics may not provide an accurate assessment of text generation tasks.

    “However, we acknowledge that automated metrics may not provide an accurate assessment of text generation tasks and rely on human evaluation instead.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Open-domain dialogue response generation is a complex task that requires a system to generate human-like responses to a wide range of topics.

    “Open-domain dialogue response generation is a complex task that requires a system to generate human-like responses to a wide range of topics.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    text-davinci-003 is capable of generating human-like responses of great quality for a wide range of dialogue contexts, making GPT-3.5 a strong baseline.

    “text-davinci-003 is capable of generating human-like responses of great quality for a wide range of dialogue contexts and hence GPT-3.5 is a strong baseline.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Acronym generation requires an iterative refinement process to achieve a concise and memorable representation of a complex term or phrase.

    “Like in email writing, acronym generation also requires an iterative refinement process to achieve a concise and memorable representation of a complex term or phrase.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Acronyms often involve tradeoffs between length, ease of pronunciation, and relevance to the original term or phrase.

    “Acronyms often involve tradeoffs between length, ease of pronunciation, and relevance to the original term or phrase.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some acronym quality criteria are difficult to quantify and are a matter of human preference.

    “Some of these criteria are difficult to quantify, and are a matter of human preference.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Modern LLMs have superior instruction following capabilities.

    “As with other modules, we leverage the superior instruction following capabilities of modern LLMs to instead provide a few demonstrations of each task.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Initial outputs from language models may not always meet the desired level of quality, coherence, or sensibility.

    “Given that initial outputs from language models may not always meet the desired level of quality, coherence, or sensibility”
13 of 13

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Self-Refine is effective but is limited to single-generation reasoning tasks.

    “Self-Refine is effective but is limited to single-generation reasoning tasks.”

    From Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Abstract reports improved performance across seven tasks, supporting the effectiveness claim. But Section 3 lists dialogue generation, code tasks, and math reasoning, while the Abstract describes iterative refinement. The paper therefore does not limit Self-Refine to single-generation reasoning tasks. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Madaan et al. (2023)'s approach is suboptimal as it lacks problem-specific modeling, that is it does not recognize the constraints to be followed, and only prompts the model to evaluate and improve its responses without clear guidance on what to focus on.

    “However, this approach is suboptimal as it lacks problem-specific modeling, that is it does not recognize the constraints to be followed, and only prompts the model to evaluate and improve its responses without clear guidance on what to focus on.”

    From LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraints (2024) · cites this paper as Madaan et al. (2023)

    The Algorithm 1 section specifies task-specific prompts for generating outputs and feedback, contrary to the claim that the method lacks problem-specific guidance. The Constrained Generation feedback prompt (Figure 25) explicitly asks which required concepts are missing and whether the sentence makes sense. The paper does not establish the citing author's judgment that the approach is suboptimal. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Retry-based refinement methods often discard the entire context and regenerate from scratch, losing correct intermediate work.

    “Retry-based refinement methods Madaan et al. [2023], Gou et al. [2024] often discard the entire context and regenerate from scratch, losing correct intermediate work.”

    From Reason Popper-ly: Patching In-Context Reasoning with Inductive Logic Programming (2026) · cites this paper as Madaan et al. [2023]

    The SELF-REFINE algorithm section says the method retains previous feedback and outputs in the prompt to inform each refinement. That is contrary to the claim that this method discards the entire context and regenerates from scratch. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Self-Check with 3-shot CoT and zero-shot CoT have shown to been effective on various tasks including dialogue response, math reasoning, and code generation.

    “We evaluate FACTOOL against two baselines that use LLMs to check their own inputs: Self-Check with 3-shot CoT and zero-shot CoT, which have shown to been effective on various tasks including dialogue response, math reasoning, and code generation (Madaan et al., 2023;Chen et al., 2023).”

    From FacTool: Factuality Detection in Generative AI - A Tool Augmented Framework for Multi-Task and Multi-Domain Scenarios (2023) · cites this paper as Madaan et al., 2023

    Section 3.1, Table 1 reports improvements with SELF-REFINE on dialogue response and code-optimization tasks, but negligible gains on math reasoning. The paper does not identify or test the cited Self-Check 3-shot CoT and zero-shot CoT baselines, so its results do not establish that those specific baselines were effective across the listed tasks. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The original prompt in Madaan et al. (2023) does not clearly specify that the LLM needs to include all concepts in the prompt.

    “The original prompt in Madaan et al. (2023) (Figure 7) does not clearly specify that the LLM needs to include all concepts in the prompt”

    From Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet (2023) · cites this paper as Madaan et al. (2023)

    The initial constrained-generation prompt shown in Figure 24 lists concepts alongside example sentences but does not explicitly instruct the LLM to include every concept. The cited figure number is wrong: Figure 7 shows an initial web layout, not that prompt. Our copy provides no page number for either passage. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Math-reasoning results differ between Tables 1 and 7

    Major

    For the same named SELF-REFINE models on Math Reasoning, Table 7 reports GPT-3.5 at 62.4 and GPT-4 at 94.5, whereas Table 1 reports 64.1 and 93.1, respectively.

  • ChatGPT dialogue human-evaluation percentages total 116%

    Major

    Table 15 presents SELF-REFINE wins, INIT wins, and ties as the outcomes of an A/B evaluation. Its ChatGPT percentages are 48%, 18%, and 50%, which sum to 116% rather than 100%.

    Reported 100 · recomputed 116

  • CSCLE acronym score is one point too low

    Minor

    The five listed scores for CSCLE are 4, 5, 5, 5, and 5. They sum to 24, not the reported 23.

    Reported 23 · recomputed 24

  • Maximum of four iterations conflicts with code-readability setup

    Minor

    The general evaluation setup states a maximum of four FEEDBACK-REFINE iterations, but the Code Readability experiments say SELF-REFINE was run for five iterations.

  • Reported confidence level changes from 95% to 99%

    Minor

    The caption describes Table 13's Wilson intervals as 95% confidence intervals, while the accompanying text calls the same table's intervals 99% confidence intervals.

  • Universal decoding-temperature statement conflicts with code-readability setup

    Minor

    The main setup says all setups use a temperature of 0.7, whereas the Code Readability setup uses temperatures of 0.0 for some critiques and for every code-editor generation.

  • Claim that GPT-4+SELF-REFINE leads on every task conflicts with Table 1

    Minor

    Table 1 shows GPT-4+SELF-REFINE below ChatGPT+SELF-REFINE on Sentiment Reversal (36.2 versus 43.2), Code Readability (56.2 versus 63.1), and Constrained Generation (45.0 versus 67.0). It is also below GPT-3.5+SELF-REFINE on Acronym Generation (56.0 versus 56.4).

  • Stated 5-40-point improvement range excludes reported results

    Minor

    The stated range of absolute improvements does not encompass Table 1's 49.2-point improvement for GPT-4 Dialogue Response or its zero-point improvement for GPT-3.5 Math Reasoning.

  • CSCE acronym score is one point too low

    Minor

    The five listed scores for CSCE are 4, 5, 5, 5, and 2. They sum to 21, not the reported 20.

    Reported 20 · recomputed 21

9 of 9

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Sanjoy Dasgupta, Daniel Hsu, Stefanos Poulis, and Xiaojin Zhu. 2019. Teaching a black-box learner. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1547-1555. PMLR.
  2. William Saunders, Catherine Yeh, Jeff Wu, Steven Bills, Long Ouyang, Jonathan Ward, and Jan Leike. 2022a. Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators.
  3. Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Zhengbao Jiang, Fabio Petroni, Patrick Lewis, Gautier Izacard, Qingfei You, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Edouard Grave, and Sebastian Riedel. 2022a. Peer: A collaborative language model. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., Gupta, S., Majumder, B. P., Hermann, K., Welleck, S., Yazdanbakhsh, A., & Clark, P.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2303.17651
arXiv
2303.17651
OpenAlex
W4362508231
Cited by
219
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 61
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
iterative refinement, self-feedback, large language models, mathematical reasoning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review