Detection Without Correction: A Two-Parameter Decomposition of Multi-Stage LLM Pipelines
On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → Agentic RAG, agents and memory
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Multi-stage LLM pipelines that perform multi-agent debate, intrinsic self-correction, or retrieval-augmented verification exhibit puzzling aggregate behaviors: accuracy plateaus and reversals across rounds, non-replication of debate gains on contemporary frontier models, intrinsic self-correction degradation, and qualitative cross-provider divergence in debate dynamics. Downstream agent response can be operationalized as two coupled decisions: detection (whether to treat upstream content as authoritative) and conditional generation (what to produce if not). This decomposition yields four observable response regimes, of which detection-without-correction is the load-bearing failure mode. Across a nine-cell empirical grid spanning four model families, four benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH-500, GPQA-Diamond, AIME), and two methods (multi-agent debate, intrinsic self-correction), we find that the conditional miscorrection rate is consistently dominant (53-94% across cohorts) while detection rate varies contextually by more than an order of magnitude. The framework unifies the four phenomena above as signatures of a common mechanism and characterizes detection threshold as a stable model/protocol-level regularity that persists across methods at matched benchmark difficulty.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agentic RAG, agents and memory, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 15 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2026.
Builds on
15 of 25 references.
References · 15
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,784
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 1,017
- 2023Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 1,011
- 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 832
- 2023How Language Model Hallucinations Can Snowballcited by 311
- 2025Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systemscited by 138
3 more
- 2026Agent Drift: Quantifying Behavioral Degradation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems Over Extended Interactionscited by 28
- 2026When Stress Becomes Signal: Detecting Antifragility-Compatible Regimes in Multi-Agent LLM Systemscited by 2
- 2026QUIVER: A Formal Framework for Quantifying Perturbation Propagation and Bifurcation in Compound AI Systemscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Beyond Single Models: Enhancing LLM Detection of Ambiguity in Requests through Debate
- 2026Measuring Collapse and Correction in Homogeneous-Panel LLM Debate
- 2026Sequential Consensus for Multi-Agent LLM Debates: A Wald-SPRT compute governor with calibration-based failure detection
- 2026The Confident Liar: Diagnosing Multi-Agent Debate with Log-Probabilities and LLM-as-Judge
- 2025Self-signals Driven Multi-LLM Debate for Efficient and Accurate Reasoning
- 2026Persistent Memory in Multi-Agent LLM Inference: What It Costs, What It Buys, and When You Can Tell
- 2026The Reasoning Trap: An Information-Theoretic Bound on Closed-System Multi-Step LLM Reasoning
- 2025From Belief Entrenchment to Robust Reasoning in LLM Agents