Bayesian and Motivated Reasoning in AI Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00339v1
• Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 23:02:58 GMT
• Title: Bayesian and Motivated Reasoning in AI Agents
• Abstract summary: We show that AI agents draw different conclusions from identical numerical data when the substantive framing changes.<n>We demonstrate this behavior in high-stakes domains in medicine, election forensics, and geopolitical forecasting.
• Score: 1.2691047660244335
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI agents increasingly perform open-ended tasks in settings where their conclusions can guide consequential decisions. We provide evidence that AI agents draw different conclusions from identical numerical data when the substantive framing changes. We demonstrate this behavior in high-stakes domains in medicine, election forensics, and geopolitical forecasting by holding the evidence fixed while changing the scenario in which the evidence appears. Across twelve agent-domain comparisons, agents' conclusions are strongly influenced by their prior beliefs. They are more likely to reach an affirmative conclusion when it is framed around a proposition they already regard as likely, while the reverse holds when the framing conflicts with their prior. The framing also changes how some agents work: they search more extensively, choose different analytical specifications, and evaluate the same evidence differently. These results identify a particular risk of delegating decision-making to AI agents, as their decisions may depend on prior beliefs that are neither specified in the task nor visible in the decision record.

Related papers

• Preventing Error Propagation in Multi-Agent AI through Runtime Monitoring [4.75542422590052]
  We study reliable multi-agent AI communication through reasoning exchange and runtime answer revision.<n>We develop a framework in which agents first answer multiple-choice questions independently, then share reasoning traces and revise their decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-27T17:44:24Z)
• Misinformation Propagation in Benign Multi-Agent Systems [11.967259729189388]
  Multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings such as medical diagnosis, legal analysis, and forensic decision-making.<n>Their reliability can be at risk when single agents reason from incorrect or misleading context.<n>This work studies this risk by injecting intent-based misinformation into benign single-agent and multi-agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T13:40:01Z)
• The Deliberative Illusion: Diagnosing Factual Attrition and Stance Homogenization in Multi-Agent LLM Deliberation [68.98390038721963]
  We show that multi-agent discussion erases up to 72% of issue-critical facts.<n>This loss is consequential: retained evidence can reconstruct the issue misleadingly, final stances remain anchored in base-model priors, and a single malicious agent can inject misinformation into the shrinking shared context.<n>We call for evaluations that measure which facts, uncertainties, and legitimate disagreements survive interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T02:15:40Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• The Why Behind the Action: Unveiling Internal Drivers via Agentic Attribution [63.61358761489141]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are widely used in real-world applications such as customer service, web navigation, and software engineering.<n>We propose a novel framework for textbfgeneral agentic attribution, designed to identify the internal factors driving agent actions regardless of the task outcome.<n>We validate our framework across a diverse suite of agentic scenarios, including standard tool use and subtle reliability risks like memory-induced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T15:22:21Z)
• Learning to Seek Evidence: A Verifiable Reasoning Agent with Causal Faithfulness Analysis [10.749786847079163]
  Explanations for AI models in high-stakes domains like medicine often lack verifiability, which can hinder trust.<n>We propose an interactive agent that produces explanations through an auditable sequence of actions.<n>This policy is optimized using reinforcement learning, resulting in a model that is both efficient and generalizable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-03T10:21:35Z)
• Can an Individual Manipulate the Collective Decisions of Multi-Agents? [53.01767232004823]
  M-Spoiler is a framework that simulates agent interactions within a multi-agent system to generate adversarial samples.<n>M-Spoiler introduces a stubborn agent that actively aids in optimizing adversarial samples.<n>Our findings confirm the risks posed by the knowledge of an individual agent in multi-agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T01:54:20Z)
• OAgents: An Empirical Study of Building Effective Agents [46.50371876218872]
  We study the impact of popular design choices in key agent components in a fair and rigorous manner.<n>Based on our findings, we build and open-source OAgents, a new foundation agent framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T17:59:02Z)
• Will Agents Replace Us? Perceptions of Autonomous Multi-Agent AI [0.0]
  This study analyzes responses from 130 participants to a survey on the capabilities, impact, and governance of AI agents.<n>We explore expected timelines for AI replacing programmers, identify perceived barriers to deployment, and examine beliefs about responsibility when agents make critical decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T11:02:52Z)
• Causal Influence in Federated Edge Inference [34.487472866247586]
  In this paper, we consider a setting where heterogeneous agents with connectivity are performing inference using unlabeled streaming data. In order to overcome the uncertainty, agents cooperate with each other by exchanging their local inferences with and through a fusion center. Various scenarios reflecting different agent participation patterns and fusion center policies are investigated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:06:50Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)

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.