Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Standards for Belief Representations in LLMs

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 2405.21030 v2 pith:OLUPIRTJ submitted 2024-05-31 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords beliefllmscriteriameasurementrepresentationrepresentationstheoreticalvarious
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As large language models (LLMs) continue to demonstrate remarkable abilities across various domains, computer scientists are developing methods to understand their cognitive processes, particularly concerning how (and if) LLMs internally represent their beliefs about the world. However, this field currently lacks a unified theoretical foundation to underpin the study of belief in LLMs. This article begins filling this gap by proposing adequacy conditions for a representation in an LLM to count as belief-like. We argue that, while the project of belief measurement in LLMs shares striking features with belief measurement as carried out in decision theory and formal epistemology, it also differs in ways that should change how we measure belief. Thus, drawing from insights in philosophy and contemporary practices of machine learning, we establish four criteria that balance theoretical considerations with practical constraints. Our proposed criteria include accuracy, coherence, uniformity, and use, which together help lay the groundwork for a comprehensive understanding of belief representation in LLMs. We draw on empirical work showing the limitations of using various criteria in isolation to identify belief representations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Propositional Interpretability in Artificial Intelligence

    cs.AI 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Chalmers proposes propositional interpretability, interpreting AI in terms of beliefs, desires, and credences, and sets the challenge of thought logging all such attitudes over time.

  2. A Benchmark for the Detection of Metalinguistic Disagreements between LLMs and Knowledge Graphs

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Metalinguistic disagreements, where the dispute is over word meaning rather than facts, appear in LLM fact-checking against knowledge graphs, based on a 250-triple pilot study.

Pith tools