mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

How LLMs Detect and Correct Their Own Errors: The Role of Internal Confidence Signals

arXiv 2604.22271 ↗First posted 24 Apr 2026cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models can detect their own errors and sometimes correct them without external feedback, but the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. We investigate this through the lens of second-order models of confidence from decision neuroscience. In a first-order system, confidence derives from the generation signal itself and is therefore maximal for the chosen response, precluding error detection. Second-order models posit a partially independent evaluative signal that can disagree with the committed response, providing the basis for error detection. Kumaran et al. (2026) showed that LLMs cache a confidence representation at a token immediately following the answer (i.e. post-answer newline: PANL) -- that causally drives verbal confidence and dissociates from log-probabilities. Here we test whether this PANL signal extends beyond confidence to support error detection and self-correction. Here we test whether this signal supports error detection and self-correction, deriving predictions from the second-order framework. Using a verify-then-correct paradigm, we show that: (i) verbal confidence predicts error detection far beyond token log-probabilities, ruling out a first-order account; (ii) PANL activations predict error detection beyond verbal confidence itself; and (iii) PANL predicts which errors the model can correct -- where all behavioural signals fail. Causal interventions confirm that PANL signals rescue error detection behavior when answer information is corrupted. All findings replicate across models (Gemma 3 27B and Qwen 2.5 7B) and tasks (TriviaQA and MNLI). These results reveal that LLMs naturally implement a second-order confidence architecture whose internal evaluative signal encodes not only whether an answer is likely wrong but whether the model has the knowledge to fix it.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 39 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 2026.

Builds on

39 of 51 references.

References · 39

  1. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
  2. 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,895
  3. 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
  4. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
  5. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
  6. 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,686
  7. 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
  8. 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,130
  9. 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,009
  10. 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
  11. 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 946
  12. 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 824
27 more
  1. 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 788
  2. 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 733
  3. 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 644
  4. 2025Cognitive Behaviors that Enable Self-Improving Reasoners, or, Four Habits of Highly Effective STaRscited by 373
  5. 2023Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methodscited by 328
  6. 2022Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verificationcited by 304
  7. 2024When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMscited by 230
  8. 2024LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinationscited by 230
  9. 2024How to use and interpret activation patchingcited by 191
  10. 2024Improving Instruction-Following in Language Models through Activation Steeringcited by 149
  11. 2024What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Knowcited by 109
  12. 2024Truth is Universal: Robust Detection of Lies in LLMscited by 78
  13. 2025Reasoning Models Better Express Their Confidencecited by 63
  14. 2025SETS: Leveraging Self-Verification and Self-Correction for Improved Test-Time Scalingcited by 54
  15. 2024Confidence Matters: Revisiting Intrinsic Self-Correction Capabilities of Large Language Modelscited by 47
  16. 2024Large Language Models have Intrinsic Self-Correction Abilitycited by 45
  17. 2024Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs' Intrinsic Self-Correctioncited by 42
  18. 2025Steering Evaluation-Aware Language Models to Act Like They Are Deployedcited by 30
  19. 2024Confidence v.s. Critique: A Decomposition of Self-Correction Capability for LLMscited by 28
  20. 2025Step Back to Leap Forward: Self-Backtracking for Boosting Reasoning of Language Modelscited by 27
  21. 2025Base Models Know How to Reason, Thinking Models Learn Whencited by 25
  22. 2025Reasoning-Finetuning Repurposes Latent Representations in Base Modelscited by 23
  23. 2026How do LLMs Compute Verbal Confidencecited by 23
  24. 2025LLM Microscope: What Model Internals Reveal About Answer Correctness and Context Utilizationcited by 11
  25. 2025The Validation Gap: A Mechanistic Analysis of How Language Models Compute Arithmetic but Fail to Validate Itcited by 10
  26. 2026Know When You're Wrong: Aligning Confidence with Correctness for LLM Error Detectioncited by 8
  27. 2025A Unified Representation Underlying the Judgment of Large Language Modelscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.