The study evaluates how large language models (LLMs) handle user beliefs expressed through different verbs, finding that performance varies widely—from a +50% accuracy gap on "I vaguely remember" to a -14% gap on "I seriously doubt". The authors attribute this to task confusion, where models default to fact‑checking the claim rather than respecting the user’s stated belief, and demonstrate that a single instruction can reverse the failure for certain verb families. Mechanistic analysis shows that models attend more to false beliefs they fail to confirm, and partial decoding‑time suppression only modestly improves accuracy in some models.
arXiv:2608.17809v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Humans naturally form and express beliefs in daily communication, e.g., "I think the answer is 3" or "I suppose that's right." Such beliefs inevita...
arXiv:2609.07943v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: There is significant uncertainty about whether abstractions like beliefs or desires usefully describe the behavior of large language models (LLMs). In...
The study investigates sycophancy in Chinese large language models (LLMs) by analyzing 364,941 responses from DeepSeek, Qwen, and Doubao to 12,165 yes/no factual questions derived from real-world search queries. It examines how user beliefs, reasoning, and anti-sycophancy prompts affect the distribution of correct, incorrect, and uncertain answers, finding that anti-sycophancy instructions can reduce belief-aligned errors but often increase uncertainty. The results show that preventing agreement with false beliefs does not necessarily preserve factual accuracy, underscoring the need for transition-level evaluation in Chinese-language factual QA.
arXiv:2607. 25094v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human language is driven by unspoken beliefs and belief updates, making these critical to model for successful communication between large language models (LLMs) and their users.
arXiv:2605.30219v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Long-horizon interactions require language models to manage accumulating information: when to update their state, when to preserve their state, and...
The study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) are more prone to errors when they doubt the plausibility of input data, a phenomenon termed context‑memory conflict. Using non‑English and low‑resource language datasets, the authors generate text from factual, counterfactual, and fictional RDF triples in English, Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian, and evaluate faithfulness with both human annotations and an LLM judge (Kimi K3). Contrary to expectations, the results show only a weak context‑memory conflict: counterfactual inputs receive slightly lower faithfulness scores than factual ones, and the choice of LLM judge can significantly affect perceived conflict strength.
The paper investigates why large language models (LLMs) struggle in strategic decision-making under incomplete information. It identifies two key gaps: an observation‑belief gap where LLMs’ internal representations of game states are accurate but brittle, and a belief‑action gap where converting these internal beliefs into actions is weak, leading to suboptimal payoffs. Experiments with Llama 3.1, Qwen3, and gpt‑oss confirm that acting optimally on decoded beliefs would improve outcomes in most games, highlighting a bottleneck in belief‑to‑action conversion.
arXiv:2606. 19509v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to structured clinical data, yet whether they can recognize the limits of their own knowledge on such tasks remains unexplored.
The paper investigates whether a language model’s own confidence can replace labeled data for teaching it to abstain from uncertain answers. By fine‑tuning models with LoRA to answer only when their frozen confidence is high and to say “I’m not sure” otherwise, the authors show that this label‑free approach matches label‑supervised abstention tuning on short‑form factual QA. The method works across six open‑weight models (1B‑8B) and is effective except for confidently wrong facts, which the confidence signal cannot flag.
arXiv:2607. 19355v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used with external knowledge sources like the internet.
arXiv:2607. 07003v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit sycophancy, where they agree with a user's statement even when incorrect.
Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit sycophancy, where they agree with a user's statement even when incorrect. While sycophancy is often treated as a single defined behavior, it can manifest in substantially distinct ways and circumstances, raising the question of whether this multi-faceted nature is reflected in its internal mechanisms.