Do LLMs Act Like Rational Agents? Measuring Belief Coherence in Probabilistic Decision Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06286v1
• Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:50:33 GMT
• Title: Do LLMs Act Like Rational Agents? Measuring Belief Coherence in Probabilistic Decision Making
• Authors: Khurram Yamin, Jingjing Tang, Santiago Cortes-Gomez, Amit Sharma, Eric Horvitz, Bryan Wilder,
• Abstract summary: We study whether large language models (LLMs) are rational utility maximizers with coherent beliefs and stable preferences.<n>Our approach provides falsifiable conditions under which the reported probabilities emphcannot correspond to the true beliefs of any rational agent.
• Score: 28.256934953904317
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents in high-stakes domains where optimal actions depend on both uncertainty about the world and consideration of utilities of different outcomes, yet their decision logic remains difficult to interpret. We study whether LLMs are rational utility maximizers with coherent beliefs and stable preferences. We consider behaviors of models for diagnosis challenge problems. The results provide insights about the relationship of LLM inferences to ideal Bayesian utility maximization for elicited probabilities and observed actions. Our approach provides falsifiable conditions under which the reported probabilities \emph{cannot} correspond to the true beliefs of any rational agent. We apply this methodology to multiple medical diagnostic domains with evaluations across several LLMs. We discuss implications of the results and directions forward for uses of LLMs in guiding high-stakes decisions.

Related papers

• Reasoning with Confidence: Efficient Verification of LLM Reasoning Steps via Uncertainty Heads [104.9566359759396]
  We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores.<n>Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T03:38:29Z)
• How Good are Foundation Models in Step-by-Step Embodied Reasoning? [79.15268080287505]
  Embodied agents must make decisions that are safe, spatially coherent, and grounded in context.<n>Recent advances in large multimodal models have shown promising capabilities in visual understanding and language generation.<n>Our benchmark includes over 1.1k samples with detailed step-by-step reasoning across 10 tasks and 8 embodiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T17:56:30Z)
• AIM-Bench: Evaluating Decision-making Biases of Agentic LLM as Inventory Manager [9.21215885702746]
  AIM-Bench is a novel benchmark designed to assess the decision-making behaviour of large language models (LLMs) in uncertain supply chain management scenarios.<n>Our results reveal that different LLMs typically exhibit varying degrees of decision bias that are similar to those observed in human beings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-15T11:38:19Z)
• LLMs are Greedy Agents: Effects of RL Fine-tuning on Decision-Making Abilities [21.42711537107199]
  We study why Large Language Models (LLMs) perform sub-optimally in decision-making scenarios.<n>We propose mitigation of these shortcomings by fine-tuning via Reinforcement Learning (RL) on self-generated CoT rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T17:57:14Z)
• Embodied Agent Interface: Benchmarking LLMs for Embodied Decision Making [85.24399869971236]
  We aim to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) for embodied decision making.<n>Existing evaluations tend to rely solely on a final success rate.<n>We propose a generalized interface (Embodied Agent Interface) that supports the formalization of various types of tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:59:00Z)
• EVOLvE: Evaluating and Optimizing LLMs For In-Context Exploration [76.66831821738927]
  Large language models (LLMs) remain under-studied in scenarios requiring optimal decision-making under uncertainty.<n>We measure LLMs' (in)ability to make optimal decisions in bandits, a state-less reinforcement learning setting relevant to many applications.<n>Motivated by the existence of optimal exploration algorithms, we propose efficient ways to integrate this algorithmic knowledge into LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T17:54:03Z)
• Aligning with Logic: Measuring, Evaluating and Improving Logical Preference Consistency in Large Language Models [31.558429029429863]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to be predictable and trustworthy to support reliable decision-making systems.<n>This work examines logical preference consistency as a foundational requirement for building more dependable LLM systems.<n>We show that improving consistency leads to better performance in LLM-driven logic-based algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T04:34:04Z)
• Q*: Improving Multi-step Reasoning for LLMs with Deliberative Planning [53.6472920229013]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capability in many natural language tasks. LLMs are prone to produce errors, hallucinations and inconsistent statements when performing multi-step reasoning. We introduce Q*, a framework for guiding LLMs decoding process with deliberative planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T13:08:09Z)
• Decision-Making Behavior Evaluation Framework for LLMs under Uncertain Context [5.361970694197912]
  This paper proposes a framework, grounded in behavioral economics, to evaluate the decision-making behaviors of large language models (LLMs) We estimate the degree of risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion in a context-free setting for three commercial LLMs: ChatGPT-4.0-Turbo, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.0-pro. Our results reveal that LLMs generally exhibit patterns similar to humans, such as risk aversion and loss aversion, with a tendency to overweight small probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T02:14:19Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)

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.