# More Yap Less Meaning: Uncovering Self-Improvement Behavior in SLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08471 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08471/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Synthetic reasoning data and bootstrapping, one of 13 directions in Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs.
- Builds on 24 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs / [Synthetic reasoning data and bootstrapping](https://mlsanity.com/synth/synthetic-reasoning-data-and-bootstrapping/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [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)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.07461/) (2018)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [MiniLM: Deep Self-Attention Distillation for Task-Agnostic Compression of Pre-Trained Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.10957/) (2020)
- [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)
- [Large Language Models Can Self-Improve](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.11610/) (2022)
- [Program Induction by Rationale Generation : Learning to Solve and Explain Algebraic Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.04146/) (2017)
- [A Diverse Corpus for Evaluating and Developing English Math Word Problem Solvers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.15772/) (2021)
- [Generating Sequences by Learning to Self-Correct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.00053/) (2022)
- [Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11822/) (2022)
- [SelfCheck: Using LLMs to Zero-Shot Check Their Own Step-by-Step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00436/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Really Improve by Self-critiquing Their Own Plans?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08118/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-R1 Thoughtology: Let's think about LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07128/) (2025)
- [Improving Language Models via Plug-and-Play Retrieval Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14002/) (2023)
- [A Survey of GPT-3 Family Large Language Models Including ChatGPT and GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12321/) (2023)
- [A New Era in Software Security: Towards Self-Healing Software via Large Language Models and Formal Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14752/) (2023)
- [Context is Key(NMF): Modelling Topical Information Dynamics in Chinese Diaspora Media](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12791/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recently, language models have made rapid progress across various domains and applications. However, their capability for self-improvement, i.e., whether they are adept at recognising and correcting flaws in their own reasoning, remains dubious. In this study, we address this question by constructing a sufficiency test to rigorously examine the self-correction capabilities of small language models (SLMs). We propose a minimal three-step self-correction pipeline that collects initial SLM answers, prompts the same model to generate hints for its incorrect responses given the ground truth, and feeds the model the same question with its own feedback to refine the initial answer. We evaluate a variety of instruction-tuned and reasoning SLMs in this experimental setup on arithmetic and logical reasoning benchmarks. Our findings show that SLMs with injected hint sentences yield only a 4.4 percent gain over initial question-answering accuracy. Even though the correct answer was provided alongside the model's incorrect reasoning, the evaluated SLMs fail to understand what was missing in their reasoning and show minimal semantic difference between hints that lead to corrections and ones that do not. Furthermore, our experiments show that longer hints are positively correlated with incorrect final answers, suggesting that longer deliberation on problems can hinder the reasoning process, meaning that SLMs do not necessarily scale in performance with a larger compute budget.