Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Do Language Models Have Beliefs? Methods for Detecting, Updating, and Visualizing Model Beliefs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2111.13654 v1 pith:6WZP4GZ7 submitted 2021-11-26 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords beliefsmethodsmodelmodelsoptimizerslanguagelearnedbelief
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Do language models have beliefs about the world? Dennett (1995) famously argues that even thermostats have beliefs, on the view that a belief is simply an informational state decoupled from any motivational state. In this paper, we discuss approaches to detecting when models have beliefs about the world, and we improve on methods for updating model beliefs to be more truthful, with a focus on methods based on learned optimizers or hypernetworks. Our main contributions include: (1) new metrics for evaluating belief-updating methods that focus on the logical consistency of beliefs, (2) a training objective for Sequential, Local, and Generalizing model updates (SLAG) that improves the performance of learned optimizers, and (3) the introduction of the belief graph, which is a new form of interface with language models that shows the interdependencies between model beliefs. Our experiments suggest that models possess belief-like qualities to only a limited extent, but update methods can both fix incorrect model beliefs and greatly improve their consistency. Although off-the-shelf optimizers are surprisingly strong belief-updating baselines, our learned optimizers can outperform them in more difficult settings than have been considered in past work. Code is available at https://github.com/peterbhase/SLAG-Belief-Updating

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 15 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. The Pluralistic Moral Gap: Understanding Judgment and Value Differences between Humans and Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs align with human moral judgments only under high consensus, concentrate on a narrow set of moral values, and the profile-based prompting method's reported improvement is evaluated in-sample.

  2. What Should LLMs Forget? Quantifying Personal Data in LLMs for Right-to-Be-Forgotten Requests

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    WikiMem, a Wikidata-derived canary dataset and a calibrated NLL-ranking metric, identifies which human-fact associations an LLM has memorized, with higher rates for famous people and larger models.

  3. ChatGPT is not A Man but Das Man: Representativeness and Structural Consistency of Silicon Samples Generated by Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ChatGPT and Llama personas show severe opinion homogenization and inconsistent distributions across demographic levels compared to real ANES 2020 survey data.

Pith tools