Do Large Language Models Exhibit Cognitive Dissonance? Studying the Difference Between Revealed Beliefs and Stated Answers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14986v3
• Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:36:53 GMT
• Title: Do Large Language Models Exhibit Cognitive Dissonance? Studying the Difference Between Revealed Beliefs and Stated Answers
• Authors: Manuel Mondal, Ljiljana Dolamic, Gérôme Bovet, Philippe Cudré-Mauroux, Julien Audiffren,
• Abstract summary: We introduce Revealed Belief, an evaluation framework that evaluates Large Language Models (LLMs) on tasks requiring reasoning under uncertainty.<n>Our findings suggest that while LLMs frequently state the correct answer, their Revealed Belief shows that they often allocate probability mass inconsistently, exhibit systematic biases, and often fail to update their beliefs appropriately when presented with new evidence.
• Score: 13.644277507363036
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) have become a commonly used approach to assess the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), due to their ease of manipulation and evaluation. The experimental appraisals of the LLMs' Stated Answer (their answer to MCQ) have pointed to their apparent ability to perform probabilistic reasoning or to grasp uncertainty. In this work, we investigate whether these aptitudes are measurable outside tailored prompting and MCQ by reformulating these issues as direct text-completion - the fundamental computational unit of LLMs. We introduce Revealed Belief, an evaluation framework that evaluates LLMs on tasks requiring reasoning under uncertainty, which complements MCQ scoring by analyzing text-completion probability distributions. Our findings suggest that while LLMs frequently state the correct answer, their Revealed Belief shows that they often allocate probability mass inconsistently, exhibit systematic biases, and often fail to update their beliefs appropriately when presented with new evidence, leading to strong potential impacts on downstream tasks. These results suggest that common evaluation methods may only provide a partial picture and that more research is needed to assess the extent and nature of their capabilities.

Related papers

• Right Answer, Wrong Score: Uncovering the Inconsistencies of LLM Evaluation in Multiple-Choice Question Answering [78.89231943329885]
  Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) is widely used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We show that multiple factors can significantly impact the reported performance of LLMs.<n>We analyze whether existing answer extraction methods are aligned with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T08:45:03Z)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established. This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt. We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Language Models can Evaluate Themselves via Probability Discrepancy [38.54454263880133]
  We propose a new self-evaluation method ProbDiff for assessing the efficacy of various Large Language Models (LLMs) It uniquely utilizes the LLMs being tested to compute the probability discrepancy between the initial response and its revised versions. Our findings reveal that ProbDiff achieves results on par with those obtained from evaluations based on GPT-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T03:50:28Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively used today across various sectors, including academia, research, business, and finance. Despite their widespread adoption, these models often produce incorrect and misleading information, exhibiting a tendency to hallucinate. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the consistency and reasoning capabilities of both public and proprietary LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T10:03:14Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) can estimate causal effects under interventions on different parts of a system. We conduct empirical analyses to evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention. We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types, and enable a study of intervention-based reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• FairBelief - Assessing Harmful Beliefs in Language Models [25.032952666134157]
  Language Models (LMs) have been shown to inherit undesired biases that might hurt minorities and underrepresented groups if such systems were integrated into real-world applications without careful fairness auditing. This paper proposes FairBelief, an analytical approach to capture and assess beliefs, i.e., propositions that an LM may embed with different degrees of confidence and that covertly influence its predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T10:31:00Z)
• Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
  Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact. We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for In-Context Learning of Large Language Models [52.891205009620364]
  In-context learning has emerged as a groundbreaking ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose a novel formulation and corresponding estimation method to quantify both types of uncertainties. The proposed method offers an unsupervised way to understand the prediction of in-context learning in a plug-and-play fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T18:46:24Z)
• Learning to Generate Explainable Stock Predictions using Self-Reflective Large Language Models [54.21695754082441]
  We propose a framework to teach Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate explainable stock predictions. A reflective agent learns how to explain past stock movements through self-reasoning, while the PPO trainer trains the model to generate the most likely explanations. Our framework can outperform both traditional deep-learning and LLM methods in prediction accuracy and Matthews correlation coefficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T03:18:58Z)
• You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
  We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Generating with Confidence: Uncertainty Quantification for Black-box Large Language Models [37.63939774027709]
  Large language models (LLMs) specializing in natural language generation (NLG) have recently started exhibiting promising capabilities. We propose and compare several confidence/uncertainty measures, applying them to *selective NLG* where unreliable results could either be ignored or yielded for further assessment. Results reveal that a simple measure for the semantic dispersion can be a reliable predictor of the quality of LLM responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T16:31:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.