# Detection Without Correction: A Two-Parameter Decomposition of Multi-Stage LLM Pipelines

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27559 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.27559/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers 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.

## Placed in

- Retrieval-augmented generation / [Agentic RAG, agents and memory](https://mlsanity.com/rag/agentic-rag-agents-and-memory/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [How Language Model Hallucinations Can Snowball](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13534/) (2023)
- [Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.08296/) (2025)
- [Agent Drift: Quantifying Behavioral Degradation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems Over Extended Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04170/) (2026)
- [When Stress Becomes Signal: Detecting Antifragility-Compatible Regimes in Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.02463/) (2026)
- [QUIVER: A Formal Framework for Quantifying Perturbation Propagation and Bifurcation in Compound AI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.23956/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Reviewer Capability Governs Rejection Targeting, Not Repair Skill: Evidence from LLM Execute-Review-Revise Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.04270/) (2026)

## 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.