TextBandit: Evaluating Probabilistic Reasoning in LLMs Through Language-Only Decision Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13878v1
• Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 19:44:48 GMT
• Title: TextBandit: Evaluating Probabilistic Reasoning in LLMs Through Language-Only Decision Tasks
• Authors: Jimin Lim, Arjun Damerla, Arthur Jiang, Nam Le,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have shown to be increasingly capable of performing reasoning tasks.<n>But their ability to make sequential decisions under uncertainty only using natural language remains underexplored.<n>We introduce a novel benchmark in which LLMs interact with multi-armed bandit environments using purely textual feedback.
• Score: 0.3546535332022512
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown to be increasingly capable of performing reasoning tasks, but their ability to make sequential decisions under uncertainty only using natural language remains underexplored. We introduce a novel benchmark in which LLMs interact with multi-armed bandit environments using purely textual feedback, "you earned a token", without access to numerical cues or explicit probabilities, resulting in the model to infer latent reward structures purely off linguistic cues and to adapt accordingly. We evaluated the performance of four open-source LLMs and compare their performance to standard decision-making algorithms such as Thompson Sampling, Epsilon Greedy, Upper Confidence Bound (UCB), and random choice. While most of the LLMs underperformed compared to the baselines, Qwen3-4B, achieved the best-arm selection rate of 89.2% , which significantly outperformed both the larger LLMs and traditional methods. Our findings suggest that probabilistic reasoning is able to emerge from language alone, and we present this benchmark as a step towards evaluating decision-making capabilities in naturalistic, non-numeric contexts.

Related papers

• FORESTLLM: Large Language Models Make Random Forest Great on Few-shot Tabular Learning [20.27406245916013]
  We propose a novel framework that unifies the structural inductive biases of decision forests with the semantic reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method is two-fold. First, we introduce a semantic splitting criterion in which the LLM evaluates candidate partitions based on their coherence over both labeled and unlabeled data, enabling the induction of more robust and generalizable tree structures under few-shot supervision.<n>Second, we propose a one-time in-context inference mechanism for leaf node stabilization, where the LLM distills the decision path and its supporting examples into a concise, deterministic prediction, replacing noisy empirical estimates with semantically informed outputs
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T14:08:51Z)
• Can Large Language Models Express Uncertainty Like Human? [71.27418419522884]
  We release the first diverse, large-scale dataset of hedging expressions with human-annotated confidence scores.<n>We conduct the first systematic study of linguistic confidence across modern large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T02:34:30Z)
• IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis [60.32962597618861]
  IDA-Bench is a novel benchmark evaluating large language models in multi-round interactive scenarios.<n>Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline.<n>Even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T09:37:52Z)
• UBench: Benchmarking Uncertainty in Large Language Models with Multiple Choice Questions [10.28688988951815]
  We introduce UBench, a new benchmark for evaluating the uncertainty of large language models (LLMs)<n>Unlike other benchmarks, UBench is based on confidence intervals. It encompasses 11,978 multiple-choice questions spanning knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning capabilities.<n>Our analysis reveals several crucial insights: 1) Our confidence interval-based methods are highly effective for uncertainty quantification; 2) Regarding uncertainty, outstanding open-source models show competitive performance versus closed-source models; 3) CoT and RP prompts present potential ways to improve model reliability, while the influence of temperature changes follows no universal rule.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T16:50:38Z)
• 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)
• CSS: Contrastive Semantic Similarity for Uncertainty Quantification of LLMs [1.515687944002438]
  We propose Contrastive Semantic Similarity, a module to obtain similarity features for measuring uncertainty for text pairs. We conduct extensive experiments with three large language models (LLMs) on several benchmark question-answering datasets. Results show that our proposed method performs better in estimating reliable responses of LLMs than comparable baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T11:35:44Z)
• 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)
• Log Probabilities Are a Reliable Estimate of Semantic Plausibility in Base and Instruction-Tuned Language Models [50.15455336684986]
  We evaluate the effectiveness of LogProbs and basic prompting to measure semantic plausibility. We find that LogProbs offers a more reliable measure of semantic plausibility than direct zero-shot prompting. We conclude that, even in the era of prompt-based evaluations, LogProbs constitute a useful metric of semantic plausibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T22:08:44Z)
• Analyzing and Adapting Large Language Models for Few-Shot Multilingual NLU: Are We There Yet? [82.02076369811402]
  Supervised fine-tuning (SFT), supervised instruction tuning (SIT) and in-context learning (ICL) are three alternative, de facto standard approaches to few-shot learning. We present an extensive and systematic comparison of the three approaches, testing them on 6 high- and low-resource languages, three different NLU tasks, and a myriad of language and domain setups. Our observations show that supervised instruction tuning has the best trade-off between performance and resource requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T10:48:13Z)
• Self-Augmented In-Context Learning for Unsupervised Word Translation [23.495503962839337]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong word translation or bilingual lexicon induction (BLI) capabilities in few-shot setups. We propose self-augmented in-context learning (SAIL) for unsupervised BLI. Our method shows substantial gains over zero-shot prompting of LLMs on two established BLI benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T15:43:05Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Improve Robustness of In-context Learning [35.18010811754959]
  Large language models (LLMs) can excel in many tasks via in-context learning (ICL) We investigate whether augmenting ICL with natural language explanations (NLEs) improves the robustness of LLMs on adversarial datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T18:49:13Z)
• Let Models Speak Ciphers: Multiagent Debate through Embeddings [84.20336971784495]
  We introduce CIPHER (Communicative Inter-Model Protocol Through Embedding Representation) to address this issue. By deviating from natural language, CIPHER offers an advantage of encoding a broader spectrum of information without any modification to the model weights. This showcases the superiority and robustness of embeddings as an alternative "language" for communication among LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T03:06:38Z)
• 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.