Semantic Bayesian World Models (SBWMs) propose a shift from static knowledge graphs to a dynamic, probabilistic fabric of beliefs that can be updated via Bayesian conditioning and influenced by actions. The approach aims to bridge the gap between crisp factual assertions and the probabilistic reasoning of foundation models and autonomous agents, enabling richer inference in scenarios such as home‑security decisions, actuarial estimates, and planning tasks. Realizing SBWMs requires new tools for belief annotation, probabilistic entailment, semantic calibration, and protocols for belief exchange among agents.
arXiv:2609.00455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are being used as policies for autonomous decision-making and planning in many domains. Despite their strong reasoning cap...
arXiv:2606. 15246v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Provenance-enhanced statements of the form "according to $X$, $\varphi$" are pervasive in contemporary knowledge graphs, especially in domains where graph content primarily represents claims, interpretations, and hypotheses (\emph{capta}) rather than observer-independent facts (\emph{data}).
The paper investigates how Large Language Models can be used to approximate domain expert priors for Bayesian Networks by extracting probabilistic knowledge about real‑world events. Experiments on eighty publicly available networks across domains such as healthcare and finance show that LLM‑derived conditional probabilities outperform random, uniform, and next‑token baselines. The authors also demonstrate that these LLM‑generated priors can refine data‑driven distributions, especially when data is scarce, and provide the first comprehensive baseline for evaluating LLM performance in probabilistic knowledge extraction.
Knowledge graphs can guide large language models (LLMs) reasoning, but the graph seen by a system is usually a retrieved, linked, temporally scoped, and incomplete evidence state rather than a complete account of truth. We develop a theoretical perspective on grounding observable LLM trajectories under such incomplete graph evidence.
arXiv:2609.26610v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Despite their outstanding performance on many NLP tasks, LLMs face serious challenges related to semantic abstraction. In this study, we are interested...
The paper investigates how different types of ontologies—curated, LLM-generated, and data-derived—serve as checkers for large language model agents answering questions over knowledge graphs. By evaluating these ontologies as prompt context, as checkers, or both, across both open-weight and proprietary agents on public and a large private graph, the study quantifies the trade-offs between errors caught and false alarms. It finds that curated ontologies can flag more correct answers than other sources but are only marginally more precise than random, and that combining sources or providing specific feedback offers limited benefits.
arXiv:2608.22974v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents rely heavily on knowledge encoded in model parameters or presented as unstructured context. In domain-specific tasks,...
The paper introduces the Belief-State Engine (BSE), an inference module that supplies a large language model (LLM) with a Bayesian posterior over hidden states in a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP). By keeping the raw action‑observation log hidden from the LLM, the BSE ensures the agent behaves as a sound Markov policy on the belief MDP, thereby inheriting classical POMDP optimality guarantees. Experiments on the Tiger POMDP and a red‑team attack‑graph task show that BSE‑augmented agents outperform six baselines in task return, belief calibration, and decision consistency.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can perform principled Bayesian inference when updating beliefs in context. By creating an evaluation framework that includes qualitative epistemological tests, quantitative benchmarks, and analyses of downstream impacts, the authors find that LLMs typically violate Bayes' rule but that their performance improves dramatically when equipped with advanced reasoning and code‑execution tools, allowing them to approximate analytically intractable posteriors. The study suggests that appropriately tool‑augmented LLMs could already be leveraged to accelerate scientific discovery through complex belief updates.
The paper introduces GRACE, a framework that breaks down large language model (LLM) responses into atomic claims and grounds them against trusted knowledge priors using a weighted bipartite graph. Edge weights enable weighted centrality analysis to classify claims as Grounded, Refuted, or Boundary, identifying hallucinations and frontier knowledge. An objective called Return on Attention (RoA) prioritizes expert review only for high‑uncertainty claims, and verified claims become new evidence anchors, creating a loop that expands the knowledge base across iterations.
arXiv:2608.30413v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Defeasible reasoning is a type of reasoning where inferences are drawn from plausible current evidence, but can be retracted upon the introduction of n...
arXiv:2605.12718v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multi-agent debate has emerged as a promising approach for improving LLM reasoning on ground-truth tasks, yet current methodologies face certain st...