analiza aiqbench
This study investigates the "belief-action gap" in language model agents, revealing that failures often stem from inconsistencies between internal state representations and final behavioral outputs rather than missing information. The research demonstrates that while models reliably encode task-relevant beliefs and values, these do not always translate into corresponding actions, particularly near decision commitment points. These findings offer critical insights for improving agent reliability by distinguishing between information availability and the mechanisms governing action execution.
The belief-action gap in language model agents
arXiv:2610.17444v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language model (LM) agents can fail for different reasons, requiring different explanations and interventions. We study how state beliefs, action values, and action preferences interact as LM agents reason and commit to decisions in text-rendered grid worlds. We estimate task-relevant beliefs using report-based and representation-based probes, and action values using inverse reinforcement learning. We find that task-relevant state and value information is often represented more reliably than it is reflected in behaviour. Tracking action preferences throughout reasoning further shows that decisions sharpen around a commitment point and reported belief uncertainty decreases near commitment, although individual belief changes do not consistently explain shifts in action preference. Finally, forced actions follow reasoning prefixes from other decisions when transplanted, whereas the tested reasoning-window activation edits provide limited control over the action. Together, these results suggest that some failures arise not from missing task-relevant information, but from how available information is translated into action. Our measurements distinguish information availability from belief-action consistency without by themselves identifying the cause of each failure. Our code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/belief-action-gap-F745/
Abstract:Language model (LM) agents can fail for different reasons, requiring different explanations and interventions. We study how state beliefs, action values, and action preferences interact as LM agents reason and commit to decisions in text-rendered grid worlds. We estimate task-relevant beliefs using report-based and representation-based probes, and action values using inverse reinforcement learning. We find that task-relevant state and value information is often represented more reliably than it is reflected in behaviour. Tracking action preferences throughout reasoning further shows that decisions sharpen around a commitment point and reported belief uncertainty decreases near commitment, although individual belief changes do not consistently explain shifts in action preference. Finally, forced actions follow reasoning prefixes from other decisions when transplanted, whereas the tested reasoning-window activation edits provide limited control over the action. Together, these results suggest that some failures arise not from missing task-relevant information, but from how available information is translated into action. Our measurements distinguish information availability from belief-action consistency without by themselves identifying the cause of each failure. Our code is available at: this https URL
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.17444 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.17444v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.17444 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 276 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · 3 aug. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · 30 iul. 2026
From wantons to moral agents
AI Alignment Forum · 12 iul. 2026