aiqbench analysis
This research quantifies how Large Language Models deviate from ideal Bayesian updates when processing evidence, revealing that heuristic methods sometimes outperform optimal information processing in downstream tasks. The study provides critical diagnostics for identifying inconsistencies in LLM-powered inferential systems used in high-stakes fields like medicine and law. By treating models as information processing rules, the work exposes fundamental misspecifications in how these systems represent probabilistic beliefs about the world.
LLMs Are Not (Consistently) Bayesian: Quantifying Internal (In)consistencies of LLMs’ Probabilistic Beliefs

Modern AI systems are being deployed in complex domains such as medicine, science, and law, where there is often not a single correct answer given the observed evidence. Such systems must be able to represent and update uncertain beliefs about the world as new evidence arrives to make rational decisions. We introduce the novel technique of studying LLMs as information processing rules and utilize the information processing gap—the deviation from Bayes updates—to study the internal (in)consistencies of how LLMs update their probabilistic beliefs from evidence. Our extensive experiments evaluate…
Modern AI systems are being deployed in complex domains such as medicine, science, and law, where there is often not a single correct answer given the observed evidence. Such systems must be able to represent and update uncertain beliefs about the world as new evidence arrives to make rational decisions. We introduce the novel technique of studying LLMs as information processing rules and utilize the information processing gap—the deviation from Bayes updates—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, thus optimally processing evidence; others use a learned heuristic. Surprisingly, the non-Bayesian heuristic updates often outperform exact Bayesian updates (optimal information processing) 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 readings and updates.
As the adoption of language models advances, so does the need to better represent individual users to the model. Are there aspects of an individual’s belief system that a language model can utilize for improved alignment? Following prior research, we investigate this question in the domain of opinion prediction by developing PrimeX, a dataset of public opinion survey data from 858 US residents with two additional sources of belief information:…
Large Language Models (LLMs) are regularly updated to enhance performance, typically through changes in data or architecture. Within the update process, developers often prioritize improving overall performance metrics, paying less attention to maintaining compatibility with earlier model versions. Instance-level degradation (instance regression) of performance from one model version to the next can interfere with a user’s mental model of the…
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 295 words
Related coverage
Book Review: On What Matters, volume 3
LessWrong · Aug 3, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · Aug 27, 2026

Thousand-dimensional structure
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 30, 2026