Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research identifies a critical failure mode in emerging AI agents: their inability to distinguish between solvable and unsolvable preference reasoning tasks due to inherent indeterminacy. By formalizing both epistemic and structural gaps, the study highlights that current models are miscalibrated when facing incomplete information or non-existent solutions, posing significant risks for real-world decision-making systems.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Preference Reasoning under Indeterminacy in Large Language Models

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2608.18631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language models evolve into decision-making agents, the ability to reason over preferences becomes fundamental to alignment, coordination, and collective intelligence. Yet, unlike standard benchmarks, real-world preference reasoning is inherently indeterminate: information may be incomplete, and valid solutions may not exist. We argue that indeterminacy, rather than correctness alone, is a central challenge for AI reasoning. We formalize this challenge along two axes, (i) epistemic indeterminacy, arising from incomplete, partial, or expressive preferences, and (ii) structural indeterminacy, arising from the non-existence of solutions under standard social choice concepts. Across a hierarchy of tasks, we show that state-of-the-art language models systematically fail to distinguish between determined and undetermined instances, exhibiting miscalibrated reasoning even in verification settings.

Abstract:As large language models evolve into decision-making agents, the ability to reason over preferences becomes fundamental to alignment, coordination, and collective intelligence. Yet, unlike standard benchmarks, real-world preference reasoning is inherently indeterminate: information may be incomplete, and valid solutions may not exist. We argue that indeterminacy, rather than correctness alone, is a central challenge for AI reasoning. We formalize this challenge along two axes, (i) epistemic indeterminacy, arising from incomplete, partial, or expressive preferences, and (ii) structural indeterminacy, arising from the non-existence of solutions under standard social choice concepts. Across a hierarchy of tasks, we show that state-of-the-art language models systematically fail to distinguish between determined and undetermined instances, exhibiting miscalibrated reasoning even in verification settings.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2608.18631 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2608.18631v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.18631 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 219 words

Related coverage