Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates how large language models (LLMs) handle user beliefs intertwined with factual information, revealing that the phrasing of belief expressions significantly influences model performance. By evaluating 10 LLMs across 18 different epistemic expressions, the authors found that the accuracy gap between factual and false information varied widely, with some expressions leading to a +50% accuracy boost while others resulted in a -14% drop. The results indicate that task confusion, where models prioritize fact-checking over belief acknowledgment, is a key factor affecting performance, highlighting the need for improved intervention methods in LLM design.
The phrasing of belief expressions can swing LLM accuracy from a +50% boost to a -14% drop, revealing a critical vulnerability in how models navigate user beliefs and facts.
Humans naturally form and express beliefs in daily communication, e.g.,"I think the answer is 3"or"I suppose that's right."Such beliefs inevitably intertwine with fact and knowledge, making the ability to handle them in tandem desirable for large language models (LLMs), as they are increasingly deployed in user-facing settings. Prior work showed that even capable LLMs exhibit a systemic weakness in acknowledging user beliefs grounded in incorrect information. We extend this evaluation to 10 LLMs across 18 epistemic expressions and find that the size and direction of the weakness depend on the verb used to express the belief, with the accuracy gap between factual and false information ranging from +50% on"I vaguely remember"to -14% on"I seriously doubt". We further show that the phenomenon stems from task confusion: models default to fact-checking the underlying claim, overriding the user's stated belief; chains of thought that explicitly fact-check show lower accuracy on false information than those that do not; and a single instruction can reverse the failure across verb families. Mechanistically, models attend more to false beliefs they fail to confirm, but suppressing this attention at decoding time recovers accuracy only partially and only in some models, calling for future work on intervention methods. Our findings clarify prior results and show how fact-checking, a generally desirable behavior, can interfere with belief tracking in LLMs. Our code is available at https://github.com/ngqm/belief-fact-phrasing.
