LLMs are not (consistently) Bayesian: Quantifying internal (in)consistencies of LLMs' probabilistic beliefs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06915v1
• Date: Thu, 07 May 2026 20:25:02 GMT
• Title: LLMs are not (consistently) Bayesian: Quantifying internal (in)consistencies of LLMs' probabilistic beliefs
• Abstract summary: We introduce the novel technique of studying LLMs as information processing rules.<n>We use the information processing gap to study the internal (in)consistencies of how LLMs update their probabilistic beliefs from evidence.
• Score: 13.649992636657347
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Modern AI systems are being deployed in complex domains such as medicine, science, and law, where it is important that they not only produce correct answers, but also represent and update uncertain beliefs about the world as new evidence arrives. We introduce the novel technique of studying LLMs as information processing rules and utilize the information processing gap to study the internal (in)consistencies of how LLMs update their probabilistic beliefs from evidence. Our extensive experiments evaluate multiple approaches in which LLMs can incorporate evidence into their beliefs. Some of these approaches produce (nearly) Bayesian updates; others seem to use a learned heuristic. Surprisingly, the non-Bayesian heuristic updates often outperform exact Bayesian computation in terms of downstream task performance -- indicating the LLMs' probabilistic models of the world are misspecified. Lastly, we show how our measure can provide diagnostics to identify issues with LLM-powered inferential systems.

Related papers

• Incoherent Beliefs & Inconsistent Actions in Large Language Models [33.54139088666698]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T11:04:00Z)
• Bayesian Teaching Enables Probabilistic Reasoning in Large Language Models [54.38054999271322]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) don't update their beliefs as expected from the Bayesian framework.<n>We teach the LLMs to reason in a Bayesian manner by training them to mimic the predictions of the normative Bayesian model.<n>More generally, our results indicate that LLMs can effectively learn reasoning skills from examples and generalize those skills to new domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T20:13:04Z)
• Can LLMs faithfully generate their layperson-understandable 'self'?: A Case Study in High-Stakes Domains [2.8140639769111133]
  We introduce a novel notion of LLM explainability to laypersons, termed $textitReQuesting$, across three high-priority application domains -- law, health and finance.<n>The proposed notion exhibits faithful generation of explainable layman-understandable algorithms on multiple tasks through high degree of intrinsic reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T06:54:47Z)
• A Probabilistic Framework for LLM Hallucination Detection via Belief Tree Propagation [72.93327642336078]
  We propose Belief Tree Propagation (BTProp), a probabilistic framework for hallucination detection.<n>BTProp introduces a belief tree of logically related statements by decomposing a parent statement into child statements.<n>Our method improves baselines by 3%-9% (evaluated by AUROC and AUC-PR) on multiple hallucination detection benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T05:21:37Z)
• Small Models, Big Insights: Leveraging Slim Proxy Models To Decide When and What to Retrieve for LLMs [60.40396361115776]
  This paper introduces a novel collaborative approach, namely SlimPLM, that detects missing knowledge in large language models (LLMs) with a slim proxy model. We employ a proxy model which has far fewer parameters, and take its answers as answers. Heuristic answers are then utilized to predict the knowledge required to answer the user question, as well as the known and unknown knowledge within the LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T11:11:08Z)
• Knowing What LLMs DO NOT Know: A Simple Yet Effective Self-Detection Method [36.24876571343749]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Recent literature reveals that LLMs generate nonfactual responses intermittently. We propose a novel self-detection method to detect which questions that a LLM does not know that are prone to generate nonfactual results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T06:22:14Z)
• 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)
• Statistical Knowledge Assessment for Large Language Models [79.07989821512128]
  Given varying prompts regarding a factoid question, can a large language model (LLM) reliably generate factually correct answers? We propose KaRR, a statistical approach to assess factual knowledge for LLMs. Our results reveal that the knowledge in LLMs with the same backbone architecture adheres to the scaling law, while tuning on instruction-following data sometimes compromises the model's capability to generate factually correct text reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T18:54:37Z)

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.