Pseudo-Deliberation in Language Models: When Reasoning Fails to Align Values and Actions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09893v1
• Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 02:32:53 GMT
• Title: Pseudo-Deliberation in Language Models: When Reasoning Fails to Align Values and Actions
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are often evaluated based on their stated values, yet these do not reliably translate into their actions.<n>In this work, we argue that this gap persists even under explicit reasoning, revealing a deeper failure mode we call "Pseudo-Deliberation"<n>We introduce VALDI, a framework for measuring alignment between stated values and generated dialogue.
• Score: 9.09574893699647
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are often evaluated based on their stated values, yet these do not reliably translate into their actions, a discrepancy termed "value-action gap." In this work, we argue that this gap persists even under explicit reasoning, revealing a deeper failure mode we call "Pseudo-Deliberation": the appearance of principled reasoning without corresponding behavioral alignment. To study this systematically, we introduce VALDI, a framework for measuring alignment between stated values and generated dialogue. VALDI includes 4,941 human-centered scenarios across five domains, three tasks that elicit value articulation, reasoning, and action, and five metrics for quantifying value adherence. Across both proprietary and open-source LLMs, we observe consistent misalignment between expressed values and downstream dialogues. To investigate intervention strategies, we propose VIVALDI, a multi-agent value auditor that intervenes at different stages of generation.

Related papers

• Do LLMs Have Values? A Quantitative Analysis and Alignment Framework for Values in Large Language Models [49.45276299939287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly handle complex subjective tasks.<n>LLMs fluctuate unpredictably under minor wording changes.<n> resolving this duality is critical for reliable AI alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T03:35:04Z)
• Evaluating Interactive Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Hierarchical Benchmark with Executable Games [20.896576101848655]
  We introduce a multi-turn interactive framework for reasoning evaluation that treats reasoning as active evidence acquisition and belief updating.<n>We instantiate the framework as a benchmark of 474 executable games, each evaluated under five fixed configuration search spaces corresponding to five difficulty levels.<n>Results show that the benchmark is highly discriminative, exposing large differences not only in success rate but also in interaction efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T09:12:30Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• VAL-Bench: Measuring Value Alignment in Language Models [10.745372809345412]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks where outputs shape human decisions.<n>Existing benchmarks mostly track refusals or predefined safety violations but do not reveal whether a model upholds a coherent value system.<n>We introduce the Value ALignment Benchmark (VAL-Bench), which evaluates whether models maintain a stable value stance across paired that frame opposing sides of public debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T23:55:48Z)
• Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Large Language Models for Automated Assessment of Student Essays in Higher Education [0.30158609733245967]
  Five advanced Large Language Models (LLMs), Claude 3.5, DeepSeek v2, Gemini 2.5, GPT-4, and Mistral 24B, were investigated for automated essay scoring in a higher education context.<n>A total of 67 Italian-language student essays were evaluated using a four-criterion rubric.<n>Human-LLM agreement was consistently low and non-significant, and within-model reliability across replications was similarly weak.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T14:02:12Z)
• Hidden in Plain Sight: Reasoning in Underspecified and Misspecified Scenarios for Multimodal LLMs [28.913007638707427]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in open-ended, real-world environments.<n>This paper presents a systematic analysis of how current MLLMs handle implicit reasoning scenarios.<n>We find that models frequently fail to surface hidden issues, even when they possess the necessary perceptual and reasoning skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T21:47:28Z)
• Seeing is Believing, but How Much? A Comprehensive Analysis of Verbalized Calibration in Vision-Language Models [15.158475816860427]
  Uncertainty is essential for assessing the reliability and trustworthiness of modern AI systems.<n> verbalized uncertainty, where models express their confidence through natural language, has emerged as a lightweight and interpretable solution.<n>However, its effectiveness in vision-language models (VLMs) remains insufficiently studied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T17:16:36Z)
• Large Language Models Often Say One Thing and Do Another [49.22262396351797]
  We develop a novel evaluation benchmark called the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT)<n>The benchmark establishes a strict correspondence between word-based and deed-based questions across different domains.<n>The evaluation results reveal a widespread inconsistency between words and deeds across different LLMs and domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T07:34:54Z)
• Benchmarking Gaslighting Negation Attacks Against Multimodal Large Language Models [45.63440666848143]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have exhibited remarkable advancements in integrating different modalities.<n>Despite their success, MLLMs remain vulnerable to conversational adversarial inputs.<n>We study gaslighting negation attacks: a phenomenon where models, despite initially providing correct answers, are persuaded by user-provided negations to reverse their outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T10:37:48Z)
• Value Compass Benchmarks: A Platform for Fundamental and Validated Evaluation of LLMs Values [76.70893269183684]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve remarkable breakthroughs.<n> aligning their values with humans has become imperative for their responsible development.<n>There still lack evaluations of LLMs values that fulfill three desirable goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T05:53:56Z)
• Uncertainty in Language Models: Assessment through Rank-Calibration [65.10149293133846]
  Language Models (LMs) have shown promising performance in natural language generation. It is crucial to correctly quantify their uncertainty in responding to given inputs. We develop a novel and practical framework, termed $Rank$-$Calibration$, to assess uncertainty and confidence measures for LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T02:31:05Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• ValueDCG: Measuring Comprehensive Human Value Understanding Ability of Language Models [10.989615390700113]
  We argue that truly understanding values in Large Language Models (LLMs) requires both "know what" and "know why" We present a comprehensive evaluation metric, ValueDCG, to quantitatively assess the two aspects with an engineering implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-30T13:47:55Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

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.