Incoherent Beliefs & Inconsistent Actions in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.13240v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 11:04:00 GMT
• Title: Incoherent Beliefs & Inconsistent Actions in Large Language Models
• Authors: Arka Pal, Teo Kitanovski, Arthur Liang, Akilesh Potti, Micah Goldblum,
• Abstract summary: Real-world tasks and environments exhibit differences from the static datasets that large language models (LLMs) are typically evaluated on.<n>We examine two critical components of LLM performance: the ability of LLMs to coherently update their beliefs, and the extent to which the actions they take are consistent with those beliefs.<n>Our results highlight the difficulties of predicting LLM behavior in complex real-world settings.
• Score: 33.54139088666698
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Real-world tasks and environments exhibit differences from the static datasets that large language models (LLMs) are typically evaluated on. Such tasks can involve sequential interaction, requiring coherent updating of beliefs in light of new evidence, and making appropriate decisions based on those beliefs. Predicting how LLMs will perform in such dynamic environments is important, but can be tricky to determine from measurements in static settings. In this work, we examine two critical components of LLM performance: the ability of LLMs to coherently update their beliefs, and the extent to which the actions they take are consistent with those beliefs. First, we find that LLMs are largely inconsistent in how they update their beliefs; models can exhibit up to a 30% average difference between the directly elicited posterior, and the correct update of their prior. Second, we find that LLMs also often take actions which are inconsistent with the beliefs they hold. On a betting market, for example, LLMs often do not even bet in the same direction as their internally held beliefs over the underlying outcomes. We also find they have moderate self-inconsistency in how they respond to challenges by users to given answers. Finally, we show that the above properties hold even for strong models that obtain high accuracy or that are well-calibrated on the tasks at hand. Our results highlight the difficulties of predicting LLM behavior in complex real-world settings.

Related papers

• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• Do Role-Playing Agents Practice What They Preach? Belief-Behavior Consistency in LLM-Based Simulations of Human Trust [32.044592572217475]
  We investigate how consistently role-playing agents' stated beliefs correspond to their actual behavior during role-play.<n>We find systematic inconsistencies between LLMs' stated beliefs and the outcomes of their role-playing simulation.<n>These findings highlight the need to identify how and when LLMs' stated beliefs align with their simulated behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T23:30:51Z)
• Alignment Revisited: Are Large Language Models Consistent in Stated and Revealed Preferences? [5.542420010310746]
  A critical, yet understudied, issue is the potential divergence between an LLM's stated preferences and its revealed preferences.<n>This work formally defines and proposes a method to measure this preference deviation.<n>Our study will be crucial for integrating LLMs into services, especially those that interact directly with humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T23:38:48Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models for Faithful Integrity Against Opposing Argument [71.33552795870544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks.<n>They can be easily misled by unfaithful arguments during conversations, even when their original statements are correct.<n>We propose a novel framework, named Alignment for Faithful Integrity with Confidence Estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T16:38:21Z)
• To Know or Not To Know? Analyzing Self-Consistency of Large Language Models under Ambiguity [27.10502683001428]
  This paper focuses on entity type ambiguity, analyzing the proficiency and consistency of state-of-the-art LLMs in applying factual knowledge when prompted with ambiguous entities. Experiments reveal that LLMs struggle with choosing the correct entity reading, achieving an average accuracy of only 85%, and as low as 75% with underspecified prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-24T09:48:48Z)
• Dissecting the Ullman Variations with a SCALPEL: Why do LLMs fail at Trivial Alterations to the False Belief Task? [1.4936946857731093]
  We introduce SCALPEL -- a technique to incrementally modify stimuli to test different hypotheses about why LLMs fail.<n>Our results suggest that LLMs often do poorly because they fail to make essential common-sense inferences.<n>We conclude that while modern LLMs go beyond mere pattern matching, they still fall short of robust human-like ToM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T21:02:30Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• Are Large Language Models Temporally Grounded? [38.481606493496514]
  We provide Large language models (LLMs) with textual narratives. We probe them with respect to their common-sense knowledge of the structure and duration of events. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs on three tasks reflecting these abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T18:57:15Z)
• The ART of LLM Refinement: Ask, Refine, and Trust [85.75059530612882]
  We propose a reasoning with refinement objective called ART: Ask, Refine, and Trust. It asks necessary questions to decide when an LLM should refine its output. It achieves a performance gain of +5 points over self-refinement baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:26:32Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)

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.