BEDA: Belief Estimation as Probabilistic Constraints for Performing Strategic Dialogue Acts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24885v1
• Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 14:26:55 GMT
• Title: BEDA: Belief Estimation as Probabilistic Constraints for Performing Strategic Dialogue Acts
• Authors: Hengli Li, Zhaoxin Yu, Qi Shen, Chenxi Li, Mengmeng Wang, Tinglang Wu, Yipeng Kang, Yuxuan Wang, Song-Chun Zhu, Zixia Jia, Zilong Zheng,
• Abstract summary: We formalize two core acts Adversarial and Alignment, and operationalize them via probabilistic constraints on what an agent may generate.<n>We instantiate this idea in BEDA, a framework that consists of the world set, the belief estimator for belief estimation, and the conditional generator that selects acts and realizes utterances consistent with the inferred beliefs.
• Score: 69.7477004390211
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Strategic dialogue requires agents to execute distinct dialogue acts, for which belief estimation is essential. While prior work often estimates beliefs accurately, it lacks a principled mechanism to use those beliefs during generation. We bridge this gap by first formalizing two core acts Adversarial and Alignment, and by operationalizing them via probabilistic constraints on what an agent may generate. We instantiate this idea in BEDA, a framework that consists of the world set, the belief estimator for belief estimation, and the conditional generator that selects acts and realizes utterances consistent with the inferred beliefs. Across three settings, Conditional Keeper Burglar (CKBG, adversarial), Mutual Friends (MF, cooperative), and CaSiNo (negotiation), BEDA consistently outperforms strong baselines: on CKBG it improves success rate by at least 5.0 points across backbones and by 20.6 points with GPT-4.1-nano; on Mutual Friends it achieves an average improvement of 9.3 points; and on CaSiNo it achieves the optimal deal relative to all baselines. These results indicate that casting belief estimation as constraints provides a simple, general mechanism for reliable strategic dialogue.

Related papers

• RFEval: Benchmarking Reasoning Faithfulness under Counterfactual Reasoning Intervention in Large Reasoning Models [5.733004743054914]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit strong performance, yet often produce rationales that sound plausible but fail to reflect their true decision process.<n>We introduce a formal framework for reasoning faithfulness, defined by two testable conditions.<n>We present RFEval, a benchmark of 7,186 instances that probes faithfulness via controlled, output-level counterfactual interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T03:49:37Z)
• Objective Decoupling in Social Reinforcement Learning: Recovering Ground Truth from Sycophantic Majorities [1.3428344011390776]
  We show that Dogma 4 of Reinforcement Learning fails in social settings where evaluators may be sycophantic, lazy, or adversarial.<n>We propose Epistemic Source Alignment (ESA) to resolve this problem.<n>ESA utilizes sparse safety axioms to judge the source of the feedback rather than the signal itself.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-08T19:23:02Z)
• Illusions of Confidence? Diagnosing LLM Truthfulness via Neighborhood Consistency [78.91846841708586]
  We show that even facts answered with perfect self-consistency can rapidly collapse under mild contextual interference.<n>We propose Neighbor-Consistency Belief (NCB), a structural measure of belief that evaluates response coherence across a conceptual neighborhood.<n>We also present Structure-Aware Training (SAT), which optimize context-invariant belief structure and reduces long-tail knowledge brittleness by approximately 30%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T16:23:21Z)
• The Silent Scholar Problem: A Probabilistic Framework for Breaking Epistemic Asymmetry in LLM Agents [0.6117371161379209]
  We propose a formal probabilistic framework that provides agents with a non-altruistic motive for bidirectional knowledge exchange.<n>We show how these accumulated belief states serve as verifiable reward signals for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and high-quality data filters for Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT)<n> Simulation results validate that this uncertainty-driven strategy significantly outperforms random baselines in heterogeneous environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T02:02:25Z)
• Towards Optimal Performance and Action Consistency Guarantees in Dec-POMDPs with Inconsistent Beliefs and Limited Communication [9.269394037577177]
  Multi-agent decision-making under uncertainty is fundamental for effective and safe autonomous operation.<n>Most existing approaches assume that all agents have identical beliefs at planning time, implying these beliefs are conditioned on the same data.<n>We introduce a novel decentralized framework for optimal joint action selection that explicitly accounts for belief inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T21:25:53Z)
• Belief-Calibrated Multi-Agent Consensus Seeking for Complex NLP Tasks [45.14284473132228]
  We provide a theoretical framework for selecting optimal collaborators that maximize consensus stability.<n>Based on the theorems, we propose the Belief-Calibrated Consensus Seeking (BCCS) framework to facilitate stable consensus.<n> Experimental results on the MATH and MMLU benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed BCCS framework outperforms the best existing results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T17:53:34Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• Information Bargaining: Bilateral Commitment in Bayesian Persuasion [60.3761154043329]
  We introduce a unified framework and a well-structured solution concept for long-term persuasion.<n>This perspective makes explicit the common knowledge of the game structure and grants the receiver comparable commitment capabilities.<n>The framework is validated through a two-stage validation-and-inference paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T08:42:34Z)
• Criticality and Safety Margins for Reinforcement Learning [53.10194953873209]
  We seek to define a criticality framework with both a quantifiable ground truth and a clear significance to users.<n>We introduce true criticality as the expected drop in reward when an agent deviates from its policy for n consecutive random actions.<n>We also introduce the concept of proxy criticality, a low-overhead metric that has a statistically monotonic relationship to true criticality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T21:00:45Z)
• CoCo: Controllable Counterfactuals for Evaluating Dialogue State Trackers [92.5628632009802]
  We propose controllable counterfactuals (CoCo) to bridge the gap and evaluate dialogue state tracking (DST) models on novel scenarios. CoCo generates novel conversation scenarios in two steps: (i) counterfactual goal generation at turn-level by dropping and adding slots followed by replacing slot values, and (ii) counterfactual conversation generation that is conditioned on (i) and consistent with the dialogue flow. Human evaluations show that COCO-generated conversations perfectly reflect the underlying user goal with more than 95% accuracy and are as human-like as the original conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T09:39:35Z)

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.