← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1860 · 记录 #1
Assessing the Belief Consistency of Large Language Models on the Logical Conversation Process
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:48
摘要
To reliably interpret the evolving context of an LLM as a reasoning trace, the underlying belief of the LLM needs to transition consistently with the progression of the context.We focus on evaluating whether the beliefs held by a model remain consistent before and after the extension of the context.Previous research on consistency evaluation typically uses datasets with ground-truth answers, which is problematic because task-solving ability acts as a confounding factor, obscuring the direct evaluation of consistency.Furthermore, evaluating cases where inconsistency stems from multiple errors poses difficulties.We propose a new evaluation method to assess the consistency of LLMs in a multiple-choice question answering format, designed so that any option chosen is correct, allowing for the evaluation of the proposed belief consistency.It also supports isolation of errors such as reasoning failures and biases.We reveal that the belief consistency does not improve solely with model size scaling,whereas continual pre-training on code and mathematics text improves it.Furthermore, models trained on code and mathematics text show a seemingly contradictory result of increased logical failures, indicating that belief consistency and superficial consistency are not necessarily directly linked.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Assessing the Belief Consistency of Large Language Models on the Logical Conversation Process
To reliably interpret the evolving context of an LLM as a reasoning trace, the underlying belief of the LLM needs to transition consistently with the progression of the context.We focus on evaluating whether the beliefs held by a model remain consistent before and after the extension of the context.Previous research on consistency evaluation typically uses datasets with ground-truth answers, which is problematic because task-solving ability acts as a confounding factor, obscuring the direct evaluation of consistency.Furthermore, evaluating cases where inconsistency stems from multiple errors poses difficulties.We propose a new evaluation method to assess the consistency of LLMs in a multiple-choice question answering format, designed so that any option chosen is correct, allowing for the evaluation of the proposed belief consistency.It also supports isolation of errors such as reasoning failures and biases.We reveal that the belief consistency does not improve solely with model size scaling,whereas continual pre-training on code and mathematics text improves it.Furthermore, models trained on code and mathematics text show a seemingly contradictory result of increased logical failures, indicating that belief consistency and superficial consistency are not necessarily directly linked.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗