Pseudo-Deliberation in Language Models: When Reasoning Fails to Align Values and Actions

Significant progress has been made in aligning LLMs with target value functions. We argue that, even when an LLM has been well aligned in (post-)training, it may still fail to maximise the aligned value in reasoning. We mathematically formalise this gap as rational value risk: the utility discrepancy between a model's deployed reasoning strategy and its rational counterpart whose responses maximise utility in the steepest direction. The estimation error of rational value risk is further decomposed into three components from bounded prompts, bounded responses, and imperfect verifiers. Extensive experiments are conducted, covering models Llama-3.1, Qwen-2.5, Tülu-3 families (7B-72B), GPT-5.2, GPT-5.5, and DeepSeek-V4, and benchmarks UltraFeedback, AlpacaEval, GSM8K, MATH, HumanEval, and MathArena. The results validate that (1) rational value risk is widespread; (2) value alignment can reduce, but cannot avoid, it; (3) self-consistency can improve rationality; and (4) a longer chain of thought improves rationality but with diminishing returns. The code is at https://github.com/EVIEHub/LLM-Rationality

Wide applications of LLM-based agents require strong alignment with human social values. However, current works still exhibit deficiencies in self-cognition and dilemma decision, as well as self-emotions. To remedy this, we propose a novel value-based framework that employs GraphRAG to convert principles into value-based instructions and steer the agent to behave as expected by retrieving the suitable instruction upon a specific conversation context. To evaluate the ratio of expected behaviors, we define the expected behaviors from two famous theories, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Plutchik's Wheel of Emotion. By experimenting with our method on the benchmark of DAILYDILEMMAS, our method exhibits significant performance gains compared to prompt-based baselines, including ECoT, Plan-and-Solve, and Metacognitive prompting. Our method provides a basis for the emergence of self-emotion in AI systems.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can convincingly simulate personas in explicit self-reports, they often deviate in implicit behavioral decisions, revealing a substantial Knowledge-Decision Gap ($G_{\mathrm{KD}}$). Existing benchmarks struggle to measure this discrepancy due to limited construct validity, multidimensional entanglement, and distributional biases in LLM-based evaluation. To address these issues, we propose ActTraitBench, a human-grounded evaluation framework for measuring personality consistency in LLMs. Grounded in empirical human data, ActTraitBench establishes one-to-one mappings between psychometric facets and behavioral paradigms and applies Distributional Calibration via Quantile Mapping to reduce distributional mismatch between LLM-judge scores and human responses. Experiments on 14 mainstream LLMs reveal substantial knowledge-decision gaps and show that assigned personas are reflected more consistently in self-reports than in behavioral decisions for most evaluated models. To mitigate this gap, we further introduce the Chain of Cognitive Alignment (CoCA), an inference-time intervention that reduces $G_{\mathrm{KD}}$ for 12 of the 13 models with paired results. Code and resources are available at https://github.com/Selina233/ActTraitBench.