PreprintCited by 6Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Small Language Models Need Strong Verifiers to Self-Correct Reasoning

Open access
Zhang, Yunxiang, Khalifa, Muhammad, Logeswaran, Lajanugen, Kim, Jaekyeom, Lee, Moontae, Lee, Honglak, Wang, Lu·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Self-correction has emerged as a promising solution to boost the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs), where LLMs refine their solutions using self-generated critiques that pinpoint the errors. This work explores whether small (<= 13B) language models (LMs) have the ability of self-correction on reasoning tasks with minimal inputs from stronger LMs. We propose a novel pipeline that prompts smaller LMs to collect self-correction data that supports the training of self-refinement abilities. First, we leverage correct solutions to guide the model in critiquing their incorrect responses. Second, the generated critiques, after filtering, are used for supervised fine-tuning of the self-correcting reasoner through solution refinement. Our experimental results show improved self-correction abilities of two models on five datasets spanning math and commonsense reasoning, with notable performance gains when paired with a strong GPT-4-based verifier, though limitations are identified when using a weak self-verifier for determining when to correct.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.17140

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • [240] introduces SCORE, a pipeline that generates self-correction data from SLMs and fine-tunes the model to function as a self-correcting reasoner.

    “while [240] introduces SCORE, a pipeline that generates self-correction data from SLMs and fine-tunes the model to function as a self-correcting reasoner.”

    From Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as [240]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, Y., Khalifa, M., Logeswaran, L., Kim, J., Lee, M., Lee, H., & Wang, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
15637-15653
OpenAlex
W4402669701
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • 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
self-correction, small language models, self-refinement, reasoning, solution refinement, mathematical reasoning, commonsense reasoning, GPT-4

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