# Self-Correction as Feedback Control: Error Dynamics, Stability Thresholds, and Prompt Interventions in LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22273 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.22273/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 18 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.05802/) (2022)
- [Generating Sequences by Learning to Self-Correct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.00053/) (2022)
- [When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01297/) (2024)
- [On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08115/) (2024)
- [MAgICoRe: Multi-Agent, Iterative, Coarse-to-Fine Refinement for Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12147/) (2024)
- [Learning Iterative Reasoning through Energy Minimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.15448/) (2022)
- [A Probabilistic Inference Scaling Theory for LLM Self-Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.16456/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Delayed Verification Destabilizes Multi-Agent LLM Belief: Instability Thresholds and Optimal Corrector Placement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.27409/) (2026)
- [Onnes: A Physics-Grounded Multi-Agent LLM Simulator for Cryogenic Fault Diagnosis in Quantum Computing Infrastructure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.05805/) (2026)
- [Exact Feedback Is Not Control: Evaluating Text-based Closed-Loop Revision in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.28150/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Iterative self-correction is increasingly deployed in agentic LLM systems, yet whether repeated refinement improves or degrades performance remains inconsistent across models. We recast self-correction as a closed-loop feedback-control problem in which the same model is both controller and plant, and analyze its error dynamics via a two-state Markov model over {Correct, Incorrect}, parameterized by the Error Introduction Rate (EIR) and Error Correction Rate (ECR). The model yields a directly measurable stability threshold -- iterate only when ECR/EIR > Acc/(1-Acc) -- in which EIR acts as a stability margin and prompting becomes lightweight controller design. Empirically, across 7 models and 3 datasets (GSM8K, MATH, StrategyQA), a sharp near-zero EIR boundary (< 0.5%) cleanly separates beneficial from harmful self-correction: only o3-mini (+3.4 pp), Claude Opus 4.6 (+0.6 pp), and o4-mini (+/-0 pp) stay non-degrading, while GPT-5 and four others lose accuracy. A verify-first prompt intervention then provides causal evidence: it drives GPT-4o-mini's EIR from 2% to 0% and converts a -6.2 pp degradation into +0.2 pp (paired McNemar, p<10^{-4}), with negligible change on already-sub-threshold models -- exactly as the diagnostic predicts. A complementary analysis of adaptive self-consistency (ASC) shows it halts harmful refinement at a 3.8 pp confidence-elicitation cost, exposing a two-tier capability structure: prompt-level EIR suppression prevents degradation, whereas ECR enhancement -- plausibly training-level -- is required for genuine gains. Self-correction should thus be treated not as a default behavior but as a control decision governed by measurable error dynamics.