Real-world tasks and environments exhibit differences from the static datasets that large language models (LLMs) are typically evaluated on. Such tasks can involve sequential interaction, requiring coherent updating of beliefs in light of new evidence, and making appropriate decisions based on those beliefs. Predicting how LLMs will perform in such dynamic environments is important, but can be tricky to determine from measurements in static settings. In this work, we examine two critical components of LLM performance: the ability of LLMs to coherently update their beliefs, and the extent to which the actions they take are consistent with those beliefs. First, we find that LLMs are largely inconsistent in how they update their beliefs; models can exhibit up to a 30% average difference between the directly elicited posterior, and the correct update of their prior. Second, we find that LLMs also often take actions which are inconsistent with the beliefs they hold. On a betting market, for example, LLMs often do not even bet in the same direction as their internally held beliefs over the underlying outcomes. We also find they have moderate self-inconsistency in how they respond to challenges by users to given answers. Finally, we show that the above properties hold even for strong models that obtain high accuracy or that are well-calibrated on the tasks at hand. Our results highlight the difficulties of predicting LLM behavior in complex real-world settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable progress through preference-based fine-tuning, which critically depends on the quality of the underlying training data. While human feedback is essential for improving data quality, it is costly and does not scale well. In this paper, we introduce Refine-n-Judge, an automated iterative approach that leverages a single LLM as both a refiner and a judge to enhance dataset quality. Unlike existing iterative refinement methods, Refine-n-Judge employs an LLM to both generate refinements and explicitly evaluate each improvement, ensuring that every iteration meaningfully enhances the dataset without requiring additional human annotation or a separate reward model. At each step, the LLM refines a response and judges whether the refinement is an improvement over the previous answer. This process continues until the LLM prefers the initial answer over the refinement, indicating no further improvements. This produces sequences of increasing quality, preference-labeled responses ideal for fine-tuning. We demonstrate the effectiveness of Refine-n-Judge across a range of public datasets spanning five corpora, targeting tasks such as coding, math, and conversation. Models (Llama 3.1-8B and Llama 3.3-70B) fine-tuned on Refine-n-Judge-enhanced datasets were preferred by LLM judges in over 74% of comparisons against models tuned on the original dataset by GPT-4. Additionally, we report performance gains: +5% on AlpacaEval and AlpacaEval 2.0, and +19% on MT-Bench. Our results indicate that Refine-n-Judge produces high-quality datasets and scalable model improvements.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance but often lack interpretable reasoning. This paper introduces the Multi-Agent Collaboration Framework for Diverse Thinking Modes (DiMo), which enhances both performance and interpretability by simulating a structured debate among four specialized LLM agents. Each agent embodies a distinct reasoning paradigm, allowing the framework to collaboratively explore diverse cognitive approaches. Through iterative debate, agents challenge and refine initial responses, yielding more robust conclusions and an explicit, auditable reasoning chain. Across six benchmarks and under a unified open-source setup, DiMo improves accuracy over widely used single-model and debate baselines, with the largest gains on math. We position DiMo as a semantics-aware, Web-native multi-agent framework: it models human-machine intelligence with LLM agents that produce semantically typed, URL-annotated evidence chains for explanations and user-friendly interactions. Although our experiments use standard reasoning benchmarks, the framework is designed to be instantiated over Web corpora and knowledge graphs, combining retrieval-augmented reasoning with structured justifications that downstream systems can inspect and reuse.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strikingly conflicting behaviors: they can appear steadfastly overconfident in their initial answers whilst at the same time being prone to excessive doubt when challenged. To investigate this apparent paradox, we developed a novel experimental paradigm, exploiting the unique ability to obtain confidence estimates from LLMs without creating memory of their initial judgments -- something impossible in human participants. We show that LLMs -- Gemma 3, GPT4o and o1-preview -- exhibit a pronounced choice-supportive bias that reinforces and boosts their estimate of confidence in their answer, resulting in a marked resistance to change their mind. We further demonstrate that LLMs markedly overweight inconsistent compared to consistent advice, in a fashion that deviates qualitatively from normative Bayesian updating. Finally, we demonstrate that these two mechanisms -- a drive to maintain consistency with prior commitments and hypersensitivity to contradictory feedback -- parsimoniously capture LLM behavior in a different domain. Together, these findings furnish a mechanistic account of LLM confidence that explains both their stubbornness and excessive sensitivity to criticism.

Although large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance across various tasks, they remain prone to errors. A key challenge is enabling them to self-correct. While prior research has relied on external tools or large proprietary models, this work explores self-correction in small language models (SLMs) through iterative fine-tuning using solely self-generated data. We introduce the Self-Taught Self-Correction (STaSC) algorithm, which incorporates multiple algorithmic design choices. Experimental results on a question-answering task demonstrate that STaSC effectively learns self-correction, leading to significant performance improvements. Our analysis further provides insights into the mechanisms of self-correction and the impact of different design choices on learning dynamics and overall performance. To support future research, we release our user-friendly codebase and lightweight models.

Effective conversational systems are expected to dynamically generate contextual follow-up questions to elicit new information while maintaining the conversation flow. While humans excel at asking diverse and informative questions by intuitively assessing both obtained and missing information, existing models often fall short of human performance on this task. To mitigate this, we propose a method that generates diverse and informative questions based on targeting unanswered information using a hypothetical LLM-generated "comprehensive answer". Our method is applied to augment an existing follow-up questions dataset. The experimental results demonstrate that language models fine-tuned on the augmented datasets produce follow-up questions of significantly higher quality and diversity. This promising approach could be effectively adopted to future work to augment information-seeking dialogues for reducing ambiguities and improving the accuracy of LLM answers.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have exhibited remarkable advancements in integrating different modalities, excelling in complex understanding and generation tasks. Despite their success, MLLMs remain vulnerable to conversational adversarial inputs, particularly negation arguments. This paper systematically evaluates state-of-the-art MLLMs across diverse benchmarks, revealing significant performance drops when negation arguments are introduced to initially correct responses. We show critical vulnerabilities in the reasoning and alignment mechanisms of these models. Proprietary models such as GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet demonstrate better resilience compared to open-source counterparts like Qwen2-VL and LLaVA. However, all evaluated MLLMs struggle to maintain logical consistency under negation arguments during conversation. This paper aims to offer valuable insights for improving the robustness of MLLMs against adversarial inputs, contributing to the development of more reliable and trustworthy multimodal AI systems.

There is a growing literature on reasoning by large language models (LLMs), but the discussion on the uncertainty in their responses is still lacking. Our aim is to assess the extent of confidence that LLMs have in their answers and how it correlates with accuracy. Confidence is measured (i) qualitatively in terms of persistence in keeping their answer when prompted to reconsider, and (ii) quantitatively in terms of self-reported confidence score. We investigate the performance of three LLMs -- GPT4o, GPT4-turbo and Mistral -- on two benchmark sets of questions on causal judgement and formal fallacies and a set of probability and statistical puzzles and paradoxes. Although the LLMs show significantly better performance than random guessing, there is a wide variability in their tendency to change their initial answers. There is a positive correlation between qualitative confidence and accuracy, but the overall accuracy for the second answer is often worse than for the first answer. There is a strong tendency to overstate the self-reported confidence score. Confidence is only partially explained by the underlying token-level probability. The material effects of prompting on qualitative confidence and the strong tendency for overconfidence indicate that current LLMs do not have any internally coherent sense of confidence.

Intrinsic self-correct was a method that instructed large language models (LLMs) to verify and correct their responses without external feedback. Unfortunately, the study concluded that the LLMs could not self-correct reasoning yet. We find that a simple yet effective verification method can unleash inherent capabilities of the LLMs. That is to mask a key condition in the question, add the current response to construct a verification question, and predict the condition to verify the response. The condition can be an entity in an open-domain question or a numeric value in a math question, which requires minimal effort (via prompting) to identify. We propose an iterative verify-then-correct framework to progressively identify and correct (probably) false responses, named ProCo. We conduct experiments on three reasoning tasks. On average, ProCo, with GPT-3.5-Turbo as the backend LLM, yields $+6.8$ exact match on four open-domain question answering datasets, $+14.1$ accuracy on three arithmetic reasoning datasets, and $+9.6$ accuracy on a commonsense reasoning dataset, compared to Self-Correct.

We present a Conversational Chain-of-Action (Conv-CoA) framework for Open-domain Conversational Question Answering (OCQA). Compared with literature, Conv-CoA addresses three major challenges: (i) unfaithful hallucination that is inconsistent with real-time or domain facts, (ii) weak reasoning performance in conversational scenarios, and (iii) unsatisfying performance in conversational information retrieval. Our key contribution is a dynamic reasoning-retrieval mechanism that extracts the intent of the question and decomposes it into a reasoning chain to be solved via systematic prompting, pre-designed actions, updating the Contextual Knowledge Set (CKS), and a novel Hopfield-based retriever. Methodologically, we propose a resource-efficiency Hopfield retriever to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of conversational information retrieval within our actions. Additionally, we propose a conversational-multi-reference faith score (Conv-MRFS) to verify and resolve conflicts between retrieved knowledge and answers in conversations. Empirically, we conduct comparisons between our framework and 23 state-of-the-art methods across five different research directions and two public benchmarks. These comparisons demonstrate that our Conv-CoA outperforms other methods in both the accuracy and efficiency dimensions.