Belief Propagation in LLM World Models: Measuring Strategic Information Bias with Prediction Markets

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20441v1
• Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 09:22:45 GMT
• Title: Belief Propagation in LLM World Models: Measuring Strategic Information Bias with Prediction Markets
• Abstract summary: We find that English news context systematically biases territorial predictions, wrong 64 to 72 percent of the time.<n>A contaminated model that knows actual outcomes shows the same error rate, indicating that the bias originates primarily in the text.<n>We show that the distortion originates primarily in the sources, not the models.
• Score: 0.5999408856514375
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Every information ecosystem produces beliefs that shape strategic decisions. Both human analysts and AI systems inherit the blind spots of their information sources. We show that LLMs, combined with prediction markets, function as a calibrated instrument for measuring how far ecosystem-induced beliefs deviate from an external reference: LLMs extract the beliefs a text corpus implies, and prediction market price trajectories, anchored at resolution by realised outcomes, provide the calibration reference against which to quantify the deviation. We isolate the bias contribution of specific text through ablation: varying information context while holding the model fixed, with a contaminated model that knows actual outcomes as control. Applied to 111 Ukraine-related prediction markets, comprising approximately 93,000 predictions across four models, we find that English news context systematically biases territorial predictions, wrong 64 to 72 percent of the time when it pushes predictions toward territorial capture. A contaminated model that knows actual outcomes shows the same error rate, indicating that the bias originates primarily in the text. Supplementing with Ukrainian military-analytical sources reduces the bias for all clean models, while absolute-error gains are partial and model-dependent. We show that the distortion originates primarily in the sources, not the models. Consistent across four architectures, it will persist in any system that processes them and propagate into downstream decisions.

Related papers

• LLM-based Agents for Forecasting and Prediction: Methods, Training, Evaluation, and Applications [76.41731220830714]
  Large language models (LLMs) now support forecasting systems that combine language-based reasoning with temporal data, evidence retrieval, external tools, and iterative prediction.<n>We examine applications in finance, weather, health, energy, and operations, and we summarize the benchmarks and datasets used for evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T10:02:39Z)
• Orthogonal JEPA: Factorized Predictive States for Latent World Models [95.20158869896393]
  We introduce method, a latent world-modeling framework based on predictive factorization.<n>We show that method can allocate redundant capacity to dominant signals while providing weak or conflicting gradients to less dominant predictive structure.<n>Experiments on controlled vision, single-cell transcriptomics, longitudinal health records, continuous control, and molecular dynamics evaluate representation quality, forecasting, planning, and long-horizon stability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T13:59:57Z)
• SIGNPOST-Bench: Benchmarking Text-Vision Conflict Resolution in Multimodal Large Language Models [9.496555964908188]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) make grounded predictions in real-world scenes by combining visual and textual cues.<n>We introduce SIGNPOST-Bench, a controlled counterfactual benchmark for evaluating text-vision conflict resolution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T21:55:47Z)
• Proxy-Guided Measurement Calibration [7.842603902533572]
  We study the problem of outcome miscalibration and propose a framework guided by proxy variables for estimating and correcting the systematic errors.<n>We model the data-generating process using a causal graph that separates latent content variables driving the true outcome from the latent bias variables that induce systematic errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T07:15:02Z)
• Explaining News Bias Detection: A Comparative SHAP Analysis of Transformer Model Decision Mechanisms [0.2538209532048867]
  We present a comparative interpretability study of two bias detection models: a bias detector fine-tuned on the BABE dataset and a domain-adapted pre-trained RoBERTa model fine-tuned on the BABE dataset.<n>We analyze word-level attributions across correct and incorrect predictions to characterize how different model architectures operationalize linguistic bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T19:58:11Z)
• Scaling Truth: The Confidence Paradox in AI Fact-Checking [0.8201655885319955]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold promise in automating fact verification, yet their effectiveness across global contexts remains uncertain.<n>We systematically evaluate nine established LLMs across multiple categories using 5,000 claims previously assessed by 174 professional fact-checking organizations across 47 languages.<n>Findings reveal a concerning pattern resembling the Dunning-Kruger effect: smaller, models show high confidence despite lower accuracy, while larger models demonstrate higher accuracy but lower confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T17:36:25Z)
• Your AI, Not Your View: The Bias of LLMs in Investment Analysis [62.388554963415906]
  In finance, Large Language Models (LLMs) face frequent knowledge conflicts arising from discrepancies between their pre-trained parametric knowledge and real-time market data.<n>These conflicts are especially problematic in real-world investment services, where a model's inherent biases can misalign with institutional objectives.<n>We propose an experimental framework to investigate emergent behaviors in such conflict scenarios, offering a quantitative analysis of bias in investment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T16:09:38Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Learning for Counterfactual Fairness from Observational Data [62.43249746968616]
  Fairness-aware machine learning aims to eliminate biases of learning models against certain subgroups described by certain protected (sensitive) attributes such as race, gender, and age. A prerequisite for existing methods to achieve counterfactual fairness is the prior human knowledge of the causal model for the data. In this work, we address the problem of counterfactually fair prediction from observational data without given causal models by proposing a novel framework CLAIRE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T04:08:29Z)
• Confidence and Dispersity Speak: Characterising Prediction Matrix for Unsupervised Accuracy Estimation [51.809741427975105]
  This work aims to assess how well a model performs under distribution shifts without using labels. We use the nuclear norm that has been shown to be effective in characterizing both properties. We show that the nuclear norm is more accurate and robust in accuracy than existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-02T13:30:48Z)

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.