← Back to all news
arXiv AI By Khurram Yamin, Jingjing Tang, Santiago Cortes-Gomez, Amit Sharma, Eric Horvitz, Bryan Wilder

When Agents Say One Thing and Do Another: Validating Elicited Beliefs from LLMs

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces a decision‑theoretic framework that elicits both probability judgments and decisions from large language models (LLMs) to test whether their reported beliefs are consistent with their actions. It shows that this framework yields empirically testable conditions without assuming a specific utility function. In clinical diagnosis simulations, the authors find that while LLMs’ reported beliefs are not perfect reflections of the information in their decisions, the discrepancies are small for the strongest models.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Related stories

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 10

Can Revealed Preferences Clarify LLM Alignment and Steering?

The paper proposes an empirical pipeline to estimate the preferences that a large language model (LLM) implicitly optimizes by combining the model’s probability distribution over unknowns with its chosen action, and fitting a discrete choice model to recover the underlying cost function. This revealed-preference framework enables rigorous assessment of whether LLMs act consistently toward a goal, can articulate objectives that align with their decision policy, and can be steered by prompting to follow a user-specified cost function. Experiments across four medical diagnosis domains and various frontier and open-source models show that while many LLMs exhibit internal coherence, they still struggle to accurately report or adopt preferences when guided by users.

By Khurram Yamin, Jingjing Tang, Eric Horvitz, Bryan Wilder
llmssafety
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 30

Diagnosing and Improving Probabilistic Reasoning in Large Language Models

The paper introduces a decision‑theoretic framework that splits a large language model’s decision loss into belief formation and action selection components. Using a synthetic benchmark, it evaluates how reinforcement‑learning interventions on beliefs, decisions, or both affect these components across three domains. The study finds that targeting a single component improves that part but may not transfer to others, while jointly targeting both improves both only when training and evaluation formats match.

By Huaman Sun, Dingcheng Wang, Jason Hartline, Jessica Hullman
llmsreinforcement-learningbenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Beliefs and Behavior in Language Models

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...

By Alex Smolin, Bryan Wilder
llms
More like this →