The ART of LLM Refinement: Ask, Refine, and Trust
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable generative abilities, but can they judge the quality of their own generations? A popular concept, referred to as self-refinement, postulates that LLMs can detect and correct the errors in their generations when asked to do so. However, recent empirical evidence points in the opposite direction, suggesting that LLMs often struggle to accurately identify errors when reasoning is involved. To address this, we propose a reasoning with refinement objective called ART: Ask, Refine, and Trust, which asks necessary questions to decide when an LLM should refine its output, and either affirm or withhold trust in its refinement by ranking the refinement and the initial prediction. On two multistep reasoning tasks of mathematical word problems (GSM8K) and question answering (StrategyQA), ART achieves a performance gain of +5 points over self-refinement baselines, while using a much smaller model as the decision maker. We also demonstrate the benefit of using smaller models to make refinement decisions as a cost-effective alternative to fine-tuning a larger model.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Many recent studies have demonstrated that LLMs possess the capability to correct and refine their outputs.
“many recent studies have investigated the potential of LLMs to correct and refine their outputs, demonstrating that they indeed possess those capabilities (Welleck et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023; Shridhar et al., 2023; Ganguli et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023b; Qi et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023).”
From ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Shridhar et al., 2023
The Introduction reports that self-refinement has shown potential on some tasks, and the Abstract reports gains from the paper’s ART refinement strategy. But the Introduction also finds that self-refinement did not reliably improve outputs on two multistep reasoning datasets and was detrimental in most cases. The source therefore supports a qualified ability to refine outputs, not the sentence’s unqualified implication that LLMs can reliably correct them. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs do not always generate optimal outputs on their first attempt.
“Similar to humans, LLMs do not always generate optimal outputs on their first attempt.”
From ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Shridhar et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Ma- teusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
- Chris Burges, Tal Shaked, Erin Renshaw, Ari Lazier, Matt Deeds, Nicole Hamilton, and Greg Hullender. 2005. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '05, page 89-96, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machin- ery. · DOI · Paper page
- Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Jason Weston. 2023. Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models. ArXiv, abs/2309.11495. · arXiv
- Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Did Aristo- tle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Bench- mark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies. Transac- tions of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics (TACL).
- Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Chun-Liang Li, Chih-Kuan Yeh, Hootan Nakhost, Yasuhisa Fujii, Alexander J. Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. 2023. Distilling step-by-step! outperforming larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes. ArXiv, abs/2305.02301. · arXiv
- Jie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Adams Wei Yu, Xiny- ing Song, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. ArXiv, abs/2310.01798. · arXiv
- Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, T. J. Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zachary Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran- Johnson, Scott Johnston, Sheer El-Showk, Andy Jones, Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Anna Chen, Yuntao Bai, Sam Bowman, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Danny Hernandez, Josh Jacobson, John Kernion, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Kamal Ndousse, Catherine Olsson, Sam Ringer, Dario Amodei, Tom B. Brown, Jack Clark, Nicholas Joseph, Benjamin Mann, Sam McCandlish, Christopher Olah, and Jared Kaplan. 2022. Language models (mostly) know what they know. ArXiv, abs/2207.05221. · arXiv
- Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang (Shane) Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, page 22199-22213.
- Kalpesh Krishna, Yapei Chang, John Wieting, and Mo- hit Iyyer. 2022. Rankgen: Improving text generation with large ranking models. ArXiv, abs/2205.09726. · arXiv
- Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Venkatesh Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. 2022. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with lan- guage models. ArXiv, abs/2206.14858. · arXiv
- QING LYU, Shreya Havaldar, Adam Stein, Li Zhang, Delip Rao, Eric Wong, Marianna Apidianaki, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2023. Faithful chain-of- thought reasoning. ArXiv, abs/2301.13379. · arXiv
- Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Sean Welleck, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Shashank Gupta, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Peter Clark. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self- feedback. Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 2023.
- Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2023. Teaching small language models to reason. In Pro- ceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1773-1781, Toronto, Canada. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Sewon Min, Victor Zhong, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Han- naneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Multi-hop reading compre- hension through question decomposition and rescor- ing. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6097-6109, Florence, Italy. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. · DOI · Paper page
- Debjit Paul, Mete Ismayilzada, Maxime Peyrard, Beat- riz Borges, Antoine Bosselut, Robert West, and Boi Faltings. 2023. Refiner: Reasoning feedback on in- termediate representations. ArXiv, abs/2304.01904. · arXiv
- Ansh Radhakrishnan, Karina Nguyen, Anna Chen, Carol Chen, Carson E. Denison, Danny Hernan- dez, Esin Durmus, Evan Hubinger, John Kernion, Kamil.e Lukovsiut.e, Newton Cheng, Nicholas Joseph, Nicholas Schiefer, Oliver Rausch, Sam Mc- Candlish, Sheer El Showk, Tamera Lanham, Tim Maxwell, Venkat Chandrasekaran, Zac Hatfield- Dodds, Jared Kaplan, Janina Brauner, Sam Bowman, and Ethan Perez. 2023. Question decomposition im- proves the faithfulness of model-generated reasoning. ArXiv, abs/2307.11768. · arXiv
- Kumar Shridhar, Harsh Jhamtani, Hao Fang, Ben- jamin Van Durme, Jason Eisner, and Patrick Xia. 2023a. Screws: A modular framework for reasoning with revisions. ArXiv, abs/2309.13075. · arXiv
- Kumar Shridhar, Jakub Macina, Mennatallah El-Assady, Tanmay Sinha, Manu Kapur, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2022. Automatic generation of socratic subquestions for teaching math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.
- Kumar Shridhar, Alessandro Stolfo, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2023b. Distilling reasoning capabilities into smaller language models. In Findings of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 7059-7073, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Al- bert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Daniel M. Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cris- tian Cantón Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony S. Hartshorn, Saghar Hos- seini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel M. Kloumann, A. V. Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, R. Subramanian, Xia Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zhengxu Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, An- gela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aure- lien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. ArXiv, abs/2307.09288. · arXiv
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Huai hsin Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022a. Self- Consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. ArXiv, abs/2203.11171. · arXiv
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompt- ing elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
- Sean Welleck, Ximing Lu, Peter West, Faeze Brahman, Tianxiao Shen, Daniel Khashabi, and Yejin Choi. Generating sequences by learning to self-correct. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
- Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ben Bogin, Uri Katz, Daniel Deutch, and Jonathan Berant. 2023. Answering questions by meta-reasoning over multiple chains of thought. ArXiv, abs/2304.13007. · arXiv
- Long Long Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T. Kwok, Zheng Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. 2023. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models. ArXiv, abs/2309.12284. · arXiv
- Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Cheng Li, Guanting Dong, Chuanqi Tan, and Chang Zhou. 2023. Scaling re- lationship on learning mathematical reasoning with large language models. ArXiv, abs/2308.01825. · arXiv
- Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alexan- der J. Smola. 2022. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. ArXiv, abs/2210.03493. · arXiv
- Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. 2023. Least-to-most prompting enables complex rea- soning in large language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2023.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Baek, J., Jauhar, S. K., Cucerzan, S., & Hwang, S. J. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.342 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Self-Contrast: Better Reflection Through Inconsistent Solving Perspectives
Zhang, W., Shen, Y., Wu, L., Peng, Q., Wang, J., Zhuang, Y., & Lu, W. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.197 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations
Panickssery, A., Bowman, S. R., & Feng, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.13076 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“…et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024), self-refinement (Saunders et al., 2022; Madaan et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2023; Shridhar et al., 2023), and constitutional AI (Bai et al., 2022), LLMs are increasingly used to provide assessment, supervision, and oversight for…”
Palmeira Ferraz, T., Mehta, K., Lin, Y.-H., Chang, H.-S., Oraby, S., Liu, S., Subramanian, V., Chung, T., Bansal, M., & Peng, N. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.458 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
MAgICoRe: Multi-Agent, Iterative, Coarse-to-Fine Refinement for Reasoning
Chen, J., Prasad, A., Saha, S., Stengel-Eskin, E., & Bansal, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1660 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
DSPy Assertions: Computational Constraints for Self-Refining Language Model Pipelines
Singhvi, A., Shetty, M., Tan, S., Potts, C., Sen, K., Zaharia, M., & Khattab, O. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.13382 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shridhar, K., Sinha, K., Cohen, A., Wang, T., Yu, P., Pasunuru, R., Sachan, M., Weston, J., & Celikyilmaz, A.
- Affiliations
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2311.07961
- OpenAlex
- W4388718076
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- large language models, self-refinement, mathematical word problems, question answering, GSM8K, StrategyQA
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.
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
