Belief

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems often rely on verifier and critic agents to suppress hallucinations, but verification is delayed. During this delay, false claims can propagate through the agent network. We model this process as delayed consensus on a graph with grounded corrector nodes. Spectral decomposition by the grounded Laplacian yields a closed-form stability threshold for the verification dose: correction that is too strong or too delayed can turn consensus into oscillation. The most unstable regime occurs when the communication and verification delays coincide; for delay two, the threshold is the inverse golden ratio. The same framework gives a supermodular placement objective and a greedy (1-1/e)-approximation rule for assigning a limited corrector budget to influential nodes. Experiments across five open models confirm the predicted dose-delay oscillations. By contrast, grounded factual answering makes truth an absorbing boundary and eliminates the effect, suggesting that the instability is specific to signed-belief tasks while grounded verification remains stabilizing

Learning effective policies for adaptive data acquisition remains challenging: posterior-based methods rely on surrogate models and posterior approximations that can be misspecified or biased, while direct policy-learning methods map from historical observations and fail to exploit available model representations, making learning harder. We introduce policy learning with belief representations (POLAR), based on the insight that optimal data acquisition depends on the observation history only through a sufficient belief state. Specifically, POLAR decouples representation learning from policy learning by leveraging pretrained predictive foundation models as belief-state encoders, training a policy head on top of their representations. This yields a simple, unified amortised policy learning framework for Bayesian experimental design, Bayesian optimisation, and active learning, differing only in the task-specific utility used to train the policy. Empirically, we find that POLAR outperforms state-of-the-art amortised methods across diverse tasks while requiring far fewer training samples, demonstrating a significant step in the scalability and efficiency of amortised data acquisition.

We investigate when belief-based memory actually improves large language model (LLM) agents. Our vehicle is Nous, a long-term memory architecture that represents each entity-attribute pair as a categorical probability distribution updated through closed-form Bayesian inference, with information-theoretic surprise driving belief revision and entropy-based forgetting. A controlled ablation on the LoCoMo benchmark shows that Bayesian belief updating alone provides little benefit over naive last-write-wins because existing conversational memory benchmarks rarely contain contradictory or differently reliable evidence. We then introduce reliability-conditioned updating, estimating per-observation reliability from epistemic language, and show on a controlled contradiction benchmark that belief updating substantially outperforms last-write-wins and raw-memory retrieval when observations differ in trustworthiness. Because content-derived reliability is itself vulnerable to manipulation, we further propose provenance-capped belief updating, where trust is bounded by source provenance rather than textual confidence. Under controlled memory-poisoning experiments, this approach resists volumetric poisoning attacks while revealing the utility costs and implementation requirements of provenance-aware memory. Finally, we quantify a 27.5-point discrepancy between strict token-F1 and LLM-as-judge evaluation on identical outputs, highlighting important reproducibility concerns for long-term memory benchmarks. Our results suggest that probabilistic belief-based memory is most beneficial in environments requiring reasoning over conflicting and differently trustworthy evidence, rather than conventional conversational recall alone.

Online planning in continuous partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) using $ω$-regular specifications requires handling continuous belief dynamics within the finite symbolic memory in order to track temporal progress. Existing methods based on either direct search in belief space or predefined discrete abstractions suffer from drawbacks, e.g., lack of symbolic memory for long-horizon logical progress or difficult to certify from noisy online beliefs. As such, obtaining reliable symbolic states online from continuous observations remains a challenge. To address this issue, we introduce the Revealed Belief Automaton (REBA), an event-driven framework that advances the research from global belief-space discretization to a fundamental new way of thinking, namely online certification of revelation events. Specifically, we propose an online revelation method that, through information-theoretic gates, can dynamically analyse and establish belief abstraction from the continuous belief space by discovering reliable anchors among noisy beliefs. We then develop an incremental topology adaptation mechanism over the certified anchors to realise the online finite Belief Automaton. By combining with the $ω$-regular specification, REBA is able to support formal parity policy synthesis without a predefined discrete abstraction, which in turn can guide the Monte Carlo Tree Search process to perform online search beyond its local horizon. In addition, we design an error decomposition analysis which can assess the effectiveness and reliability of this discrete guidance for the underlying continuous POMDP. Empirical evaluations in patrolling and navigation scenarios show that REBA matches or exceeds all evaluated baselines, with primary metric gains of +17.0% to +47.4% over state-of-the-art approaches.

A finite agent, a machine's digital twin or any bounded reasoner, infers a fixed and noisy world through finite sensors, so its coherent output is a belief: a probability density over states (the Bayes posterior). Such an agent stops short of certainty, and revising a belief carries a cost. We propose a framework for belief costs based on optimal transport, motivated by these facts. We pose two postulates. P0 (the arena): a revision cost is a scalar price on optimal transport, so beliefs live in Wasserstein space. P1 (uniform pricing): one nat of knowledge costs the same metric length everywhere, the eikonal condition. Among conceivable pricing rules we study this one. Under P0 and P1 the cost metric is optimal transport conformally reweighted by Fisher information, $\tilde g_{e,U}=2(e+U)\,g_{W_2}$, and the Fisher family is a characterization: among continuous reliefs, uniform pricing is equivalent to $U=cJ$. Two consequences follow on the conformal class. Certainty sits at infinite cost-distance once the relief dominates the Fisher information, so a well-posed inference has a cost floor diverging at certainty (necessity conjectural beyond power laws). On location-scale leaves the geometry is hyperbolic, and the Stam bound places the Gaussian as the most curved one (at $e=0$). The results are geometric, in nats, and hold up to units: a change of cost unit rescales all distances and preserves every conclusion (boundary, eikonal family, hyperbolicity, Gaussian extremum), a gauge theorem; a global change of state units at $e=0$ is an isometry; the content lies in signs, rankings and ratios. Via Landauer (one nat worth $k_BT$) the cost floor becomes an energy floor: revising toward certainty would demand unbounded energy. Physics anchors the unit and enters no theorem. Removing either postulate leaves the selection open.

Belief revision is a process in which an agent begins to believe in something she previously did not. I begin the paper by presenting, based on (Gärdenfors, 1998; Hansson, 1999), postulates for belief revision that constitute the basis of the AGM theory. I will then briefly show the semantics of a modal logic introduced in (van Ditmarsch, 2005), which I call $P$'. This logic formalizes static epistemic states and has greater expressive power than AGM in doing so because it captures the quantitative notion of "degrees of conviction". The third step is to introduce revision operators on $P$ and, mostly following (van Ditmarsch, 2005), obtain the Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) I call $P*$'. It models processes of belief revision in several ways. Original results are presented in the following two sections. The first one of these sections revolves around a formalization of AGM postulates within $P*$ by proving some theorems related to the satisfaction of those postulates by revisions defined in $P*$. The last section features an analysis of $P*$'s revisions that go beyond the mere satisfaction of postulates. I compare their formal behavior with respect to some philosophical criteria. At last, I conclude that the functions presented in (van Ditmarsch, 2005) are not good formalizations of the philosophical intuition behind AGM. Instead, it is captured by the function $*^0$ originally defined in this paper (but highly inspired by (van Benthem, 2007)). An implementation of this function is also provided.

Multi-agent LLM deliberation, where agents exchange and revise answers over several rounds, is increasingly used to improve reasoning and accuracy, yet how and why it works is rarely modelled. Such deliberation mirrors how humans reach decisions. As social animals we are pulled both by the group, the herd effect that classical opinion-dynamics models such as DeGroot and Friedkin--Johnsen capture, and by our own internal belief, which they do not. We model multi-agent deliberation as a closed-loop dynamical system in which each agent carries a hidden internal belief, its anchor, that continually pulls its opinion regardless of its neighbours. We show this anchor can be recovered from the deliberation alone, and that it explains a behaviour classical consensus rules forbid: an agent's confidence in the correct answer can climb past where any agent started, escaping the space (convexhull) formed by the initial beliefs. Checking whether the recovered anchor also predicts held-out runs (generalizes) gives a simple test for when a model is truly driven bysuch an anchor. Across three open-weight model families this is a spectrum, not all-or-nothing. All anchors' influence are about equally strongly, but they differ in where the anchor sits, and only when it sits far from the initial opinions does deliberation escape the hull and need the full closed-loop model.

We propose a rigorous and systematic mathematical framework for tracking the cognitive trajectories of a user, in the context of algorithmic sycophancy and AI-driven delusional spiraling. Using tools from dynamical systems theory and stochastic differential equations, we explore how individuals perceive, interpret, and update their beliefs as they interact with AI chatbots that possess hidden traits of sycophancy. We treat the evolving conviction as a continuous log-odds state variable, coupled into a stochastic differential equation, navigating a multi-valley potential energy landscape. Our analysis reveals several critical observations governing the stability and rigidity of belief dynamics. We demonstrate that the baseline prior perception of the individual is systematically enhanced by sycophantic feedback beyond a critical threshold. Here, the perceptual potential landscape undergoes a structural phase transition that severely deepens any incremental initial tilt present in the baseline state, transforming the landscape and giving rise to deep, highly resilient attractor basins that trap the individual in unshakeable, self-reinforcing, delusional convictions. Finally, we demonstrate that genuine external information can successfully challenge these rigid states. If this incoming evidence is strong and authentic enough to overcome the internal feedback barrier, it can correct the structural asymmetry caused by sycophancy, inducing a perception reversal that successfully restores the objective belief state.

Large language models (LLMs) are often hypothesized to perform implicit Bayesian inference, yet a key coherence condition, the martingale property of predictive beliefs, has been shown to fail in controlled synthetic in-context learning settings. We revisit this question in a more typical usage regime: generic multiple-choice question answering. Exploiting the discrete answer space, we compute exact predictive distributions and study belief dynamics induced by autoregressive answer resampling. We introduce prompted predictive resampling (PPR), where an LLM generates a sequence of answers to the same question. Empirically, PPR reveals early-stage belief drift, indicating martingale violations. However, after sufficient resampling steps, the belief process self-stabilizes and converges to a coherent predictive distribution. Based on this observation, we further propose (i) a seed-answer prompting strategy to accelerate stabilization, and (ii) a self-consistency loss that amortizes early-stage drift into the model via fine-tuning. Experiments on multiple-choice QA benchmarks show that our methods substantially reduce belief drift and improve predictive coherence without sacrificing accuracy.

Geosteering requires navigating a well trajectory through an unknown geological configuration, while sequentially updating decisions based on indirect measurements acquired during drilling. This work presents an uncertainty-aware geosteering framework that tightly integrates particle filtering for probabilistic subsurface interpretation with value-based reinforcement learning for sequential decision-making. Geological uncertainty ahead of the drill bit is represented explicitly through a particle filter (PF), enabling belief-informed control rather than deterministic trajectory correction. The framework couples PF belief updates with belief-informed decision policies and evaluates three decision-making options that operate under identical uncertainty representations: an interpretable Approximate Dynamic Programming (ADP) scheme, a Deep Q-learning baseline, and a Dual Deep Reinforcement Learning (Dual DRL) architecture trained with a target Q-network scheme for stability, using a dueling (value/advantage) decomposition for Q-value parameterization. Beyond final placement performance, we assess policy behavior using stability-oriented metrics that quantify steering smoothness over time, providing additional operational insight into how decision policies respond as uncertainty evolves. The framework is integrated with an API for validation within an industrial geosteering simulator under realistic measurement noise and drilling constraints. Using identical geological realizations, operational limits, and reward definitions across methods, the experiments provide a controlled and high-fidelity evaluation of how alternative decision policies behave throughout the drilling process, rather than evaluating performance solely from the final well trajectory.

Exploration and object search require robots to perceive their environment, identify regions of interest, and plan trajectories that improve target-detection likelihood or maximize information gain. Many IPP methods, especially in continuous environmental monitoring, rely on Gaussian-process belief models, while object-search settings often produce complex, multimodal belief maps from semantic or open-vocabulary perception. Global trajectory generation directly conditioned on such non-Gaussian belief maps remains comparatively underexplored. Although diffusion-based planners offer strong capabilities for modeling such distributions, their use in informative path planning remains limited. In this work, we propose DIFF-IPPO, a pipeline that integrates an open-vocabulary belief map generator with a diffusion-based planner for global trajectory generation over belief maps. The method generates trajectories that concentrate sensor coverage over high-belief regions, achieving normalized detection scores between 81.49% and 86.55% across different dataset scenarios. We validate the system in a simulated search-and-rescue scenario where the planner searches candidate building regions to locate a burning building. In this setting, a team of five drones using batched belief-map-conditioned trajectory generation achieves first detections in 3.5 minutes.

Robust lie detectors for language models could enable powerful techniques for auditing, monitoring, and post-hoc investigation of model behaviour, but evaluating them requires testbeds where models verifiably believe the opposite of what they say. We show that existing trained model organisms often fail this requirement, leaving prior positive and negative detection results difficult to interpret. We address this with 13 reasoning model organisms whose hidden beliefs are verified in chain-of-thought and shown to generalise to held-out tasks, alongside Varied Deception, a prompted-lying testbed covering a broad range of lie-inducing motivations. On these testbeds we evaluate four detectors: a chain-of-thought judge, a logprob classifier, and two activation probes, including Did-You-Lie (DYL), a new method for training follow-up probes. On prompted lying, across 31 open-weight models spanning 2B to 1T parameters, all four detectors show positive scaling with model capability. However, every activation- and logprob-based detector drops sharply on our trained model organisms, with DYL retaining the most signal; only the chain-of-thought judge remains strong, with 0.82 balanced accuracy, partly as an artefact of our verification process favouring CoT-readable beliefs. Current lie detectors therefore cannot support high-confidence claims about model beliefs, and we suggest research directions that may address some of their current limitations. We release our datasets, model organisms, and trained detectors.

Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning requires inferring agents' beliefs from partial and asymmetric observations, which remains an open challenge for LLMs. Existing prompting-based approaches improve ToM reasoning through observable-event filtering or temporal belief chains, without explicitly modeling nested beliefs. We introduce RecToM, an inference-time framework for ToM reasoning that models nested beliefs via recursive perspective construction. RecToM constructs each character perspective from the preceding character perspective along the character chain specified by the question, reducing higher-order belief questions to actual-world questions within the final constructed perspective. We further provide a KD45 analysis showing that RecToM's perspective construction induces a well-formed belief modality beyond simple event filtering. Experiments on ToM benchmarks, including Hi-ToM, Big-ToM, and FanToM, across multiple LLM backbones show that RecToM consistently outperforms recent advanced approaches, achieving state-of-the-art performance. Notably, RecToM reaches 100% accuracy on Hi-ToM with GPT-5.4 and Qwen3.5, a benchmark requiring higher-order ToM reasoning.

Understanding and predicting how social beliefs evolve in response to events -- from policy changes to scientific breakthroughs -- remains a fundamental challenge in social science. Given LLMs' commonsense knowledge and social intelligence, we ask: Can LLMs model the dynamics of social beliefs following social events? In this work, we introduce the concept of the Social World Model (SWM), a general framework designed to capture how social beliefs evolve in response to major events. SWM learns state-transition functions for social beliefs by mining temporal patterns in social data and optimizing the evidence lower bound, without the need for explicit human annotations linking events to belief shifts, or for expensive census data. To evaluate SWM, we introduce a benchmark, SWM-bench, derived from real-world prediction markets, specifically Kalshi and Polymarket. SWM-bench includes over 12k data points for social belief prediction tasks spanning diverse domains such as politics, finance, and cryptocurrency. Our experimental results show that SWM significantly outperforms time-series foundation models, achieving state-of-the-art results on Kalshi data and demonstrating competitive performance on Polymarket data, while offering interpretable insights into the underlying mechanisms of social belief dynamics.

We ask whether large language models (LLMs) merely imitate rationales when choosing between two options, or whether their choices reflect a systematic underlying decision structure. Using synthetic binary decision settings in which models choose between profiles defined by graded attributes, we compare the attribute a model says mattered most with the attribute that best explains its choice under a behavioural model fit to prior decisions. The behavioural model predicts held-out choices well, showing that model behaviour is systematically related to the visible attributes rather than being random. However, direct self-reports and a separate score-based judge recover the behaviourally inferred driver only partially. The resulting picture is neither one of arbitrary behaviour nor one of fully articulated belief - outputs are structured enough to support prediction, but explicit reasons track the recovered driver only imperfectly. This qualitative pattern persists across prompt-order and sampling perturbations, alternative behavioural models, targeted occlusion analyses, and structurally varied decision settings. We interpret this as evidence for ``superficial belief'' in LLM decision-making: models behave as if guided by probabilistic local priorities over attributes, while having only limited verbal access to the attributes that drive their decisions.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are increasingly used for active sensing and information gathering in spatially distributed environments. Their performance, however, is constrained by limited flight time, sensing uncertainty, and the trade-off between spatial coverage and observation accuracy. This paper presents a real-world validation of a multi-UAV active sensing framework for probabilistic binary terrain mapping, with precision agriculture used as the application case. The environment is represented as a probabilistic belief map, where spatial dependencies are modeled through a factor-graph formulation. UAV decision making is guided by Information Gain based Informative Path Planning (IGbIPP), and the approach is compared with Random Walk and Sweep coverage path planning baselines using both synthetic terrains and real UAV-derived agricultural imagery. The study also evaluates spatial correlation weights and several probabilistic belief-fusion rules for multi-UAV information sharing. Results show that IGbIPP reduces entropy and mapping error more effectively than the baselines, while a wider field of view improves real-world coverage and map accuracy. The results further show that simple equal or biased spatial weights can be more robust than adaptive weights, and that Bayesian, log-odds, and Dempster--Shafer fusion achieve the best cooperative mapping performance. These findings highlight the importance of uncertainty-driven planning, sensing geometry, spatial modeling, and probabilistic fusion for real-world UAV-based active sensing.

In equipment operation, the implementation of fault diagnosis is essential to ensure the continuity and safety of production equipment, improve operational efficiency and reduce maintenance costs. Since sensor readings are widely used for fault diagnosis, their reliability directly affects the results of fault diagnosis. A new fault diagnosis method is proposed to address the two problems of robustness assessment and robustness optimization of fault diagnosis models. For this purpose, a reliable fault diagnosis method based on a belief rule base (BRB) considering robustness analysis is proposed. Firstly, the robustness analysis of the BRB model is carried out systematically. Secondly, three robustness constraint strategies are proposed to optimize the robustness of the BRB fault diagnosis model. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed model is verified by taking the fault diagnosis of WD615 diesel engine and Case Western Reserve University bearings as an example, and the experiments show that the proposed model improves both accuracy and robustness.

Social Learning is a decentralized decision-making paradigm in which spatially dispersed agents collect streaming observations regulated by one of a finite number of models (the hypotheses). The agents are interested in assigning probability scores (the beliefs) to the possible hypotheses. To this end, the agents exchange their beliefs according to a certain communication graph. It has been shown that, under reasonable conditions on the identifiability of the decision model and the network connectivity, each agent ultimately places all the belief mass on the true hypothesis governing the data. However, several questions remain unanswered regarding the evaluation of the social learning performance. One recently adopted performance metric is the rejection rate, i.e., the rate at which the beliefs about the erroneous hypotheses vanish. One contribution of this work is to establish that the rejection rate leads to several paradoxes, which make it unsuitable as a valid performance measure. We then focus on studying the error probability measure. For a binary Gaussian problem, we derive an analytical formula characterizing the ratio between the individual agents' probabilities and the optimal Bayesian probability. The formula shows that this ratio is expressed by the product of two terms quantifying the effect of the network connectivity and the role of the prior information. As a result, an irreducible gap emerges between the decentralized and the centralized error probabilities, which is agent-dependent and does not disappear asymptotically.

Robots deployed in human-centric environments routinely receive natural-language descriptions of spatial information ("I left my backpack on the table") that reference parts of the world beyond their perceptual field of view. Traditional metric-semantic mapping ignores this signal, while off-the-shelf multimodal models remain limited in 3D spatial reasoning and are not directly amenable to fusion with other sensor modalities. To convert language observations into a calibrated spatial distribution, we train a Language Sensor Model (LSM) that maps each utterance and its scene-graph context to a multimodal distribution, with mixture weights encoding referential ambiguity (e.g., "which table") and component covariances encoding spatial uncertainty (e.g., where "on the table" the target lies). We then introduce VL-Map (Vision-Language Metric-Semantic Mapping), a probabilistic framework that treats these language predictions as stochastic observations and fuses them with onboard perception within a unified belief map. On the VLA-3D benchmark as well as on a real-world mobile robot, LSM is the only language predictor whose covariance estimates remain within the calibrated regime; fused into VL-Map, it leads to more accurate predictions of the target object location (~70% more probability mass on the true target compared to the strongest foundation-model baseline).

In this paper, we integrate the defeasible logic of Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (KLM) with the standpoint logic framework of Gómez Álvarez and Rudolph. This is done with the goal of formally expressing knowledge taking into account multiple (possibly contradicting) viewpoints, which in turn may hold defeasible beliefs. In doing so, we utilise Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logics (DRSL), introduced by Leisegang et al. Our work expands on previous work by providing a foundational representation result for DRSL semantics and systematically lifting several well-known entailment relations from the propositional case to the standpoint-enhanced setting. In particular, we characterise the semantics for DRSL through a set of KLM-style postulates adapted for the standpoints case. We furthermore provide a means to lift preferential entailment, and the class of entailment relations based on single ranking functions from the purely propositional to the standpoint-enhanced context, including rational and lexicographic closure. We show this can be done equivalently through semantic and algorithmic means. Furthermore, we show that, for each considered form of entailment, the complexity class of entailment checking does not change when moving from propositional KLM to DRSL.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly interact with one another in multi-agent systems, from simulations of human discourse to influence operations and fully LLM-driven social platforms. These interactions give rise to new regimes of opinion propagation that are not yet well understood. We investigate whether classical opinion dynamics models, which have long been used to explain how interactions shape collective beliefs in human societies, can capture the behavior of LLM networks. We find that, while naive averaging-style models fail to track LLMs' opinion dynamics, simple modifications yield substantial gains in modeling fidelity. In particular, bias, an innate opinion toward which agents regress, emerges as a significant driver of LLM opinion dynamics, with its inclusion reducing cumulative estimated mean opinion error by up to 88%. We additionally find that these conclusions generalize across model families, discussion topics, and networks.

Deep research agents have attracted increasing attention for their ability to collect large-scale online information to acquire target knowledge, with recent efforts shifting from purely text-based information seeking to multimodal settings. However, existing agentic workflows are largely aligned with evidence accumulation models, which linearly aggregate evidence and lack principled mechanisms for handling contradictory information across heterogeneous modalities. Towards this end, we propose Struct-Searcher, a structural agentic workflow grounded in belief revision theory that explicitly maintains an evolving multimodal structural graph throughout the reasoning process, enabling effective conflict-aware multimodal deep information seeking. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmark datasets and backbone models demonstrate that Struct-Searcher is (1) plug-and-play and model-agnostic, yielding an average relative accuracy improvement of 17.2% on BrowseComp-VL across five different backbones. (2) top-performing, consistently outperforming state-of-the-art vision-language models (VLMs) and deep research agents, with relative accuracy improvements of 3.7% on MM-BrowseComp, 1.5% on HLE-VL, and 0.7% on BrowseComp-VL over the second-best competing approach.

Probabilistic inference over spatially embedded variables requires beliefs that respect $SE(3)$ symmetry, yet existing equivariant networks produce only scalars and vectors -- not the rank-2 precision tensors needed for anisotropic uncertainty, and single-component messages collapse multi-modal energy landscapes to physically meaningless averages. We introduce Equivariant Neural Belief Propagation (ENBP), a factor-graph framework whose messages are equivariant Gaussian mixture models with sufficient statistics that transform exactly under $SE(3)$. Rank-2 precision matrices are synthesised via equivariant outer products, ingested through differentiable spectral decomposition, and kept tractable by a greedy KL-based mixture reduction that provably commutes with $SE(3)$. On GEOM-QM9 and GEOM-Drugs, ENBP achieves 98.9% conformational coverage at 0.090 $\mathring{A}$ error with sub-second latency -- over $100\times$ faster than diffusion baselines at higher accuracy. On multi-body robotic inference, vanilla loopy BP diverges at 15+ agents while ENBP converges with near-zero collision rates and machine-precision equivariance error (${\sim}10^{-7}$ vs.\ $10^{-1}$ for augmented baselines).

Large language models can shift human beliefs across high-stakes domains, but most persuasion studies rely on pre/post belief change. These endpoint measures identify whether persuasion occurred, yet miss where and how beliefs moved within a dialogue. We present PERSUASIONTRACE, a framework for studying persuasion in human-LLM interaction. Built on a web-based experimental platform, PERSUASIONTRACE contributes a tool for multi-turn persuasion studies and a process-level evaluation protocol: it records multi-turn belief reports from human or simulated targets of persuasion, annotates persuader turns with rhetorical dimensions (logos/pathos/ethos), and evaluates simulators by fidelity to real human belief dynamics. Using this framework, we find that human targets group into two clusters of multi-turn belief updates and exhibit susceptibility to rhetorical strategies, and that LLMs are persuasive across generic and personalized topics, text and audio modalities, and multi-turn interactions. Prior work has chiefly used vanilla-prompted LLMs to simulate human targets, but we show that these simulators fail to replicate human belief dynamics. We introduce a Bayesian-network simulated target that maintains an explicit latent belief state over time so each persuader message yields cognitively realistic belief updates. In human-likeness evaluation, our Bayesian target scores near a human reference (81 vs 80), while baseline LLM targets score substantially lower (64). PERSUASIONTRACE reframes persuasion evaluation from endpoint movement alone to process fidelity, providing a stronger basis for scientific analysis and safer optimization of persuasive systems.

As large language models (LLMs) become default tools for online information verification, an implicit assumption follows them: that scale and general capability are sufficient for nuanced classification of misinformation discourse. We test this assumption directly on 900 Reddit comments spanning three PolitiFact-verified misinformation claims (environment, health, immigration), labelled as belief (propagates the claim), fact-check (corrects it), or other. We compare nine models across three paradigms -- BART-MNLI, three Llama variants, three commercial frontier LLMs (Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini Flash Lite 2.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6), and fine-tuned DistilBERT and RoBERTa -- under universal and topic-specific label schemas. The assumption does not hold. Fine-tuned RoBERTa reaches 0.62 macro-$F_1$ against a best zero-shot result of 0.50 (Claude Haiku 4.5), at a fraction of the per-query cost; the supervised advantage is concentrated on the belief class, the implicit, affective category every zero-shot model under-detects. Scaling does not help: Llama-3-8B matches Llama-3-70B, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 underperforms the smaller Haiku under generic labels, collapsing belief detection to 0.17 and refusing outright on a subset of comments flagged as sensitive. This is a safety-alignment artefact, not a capacity limit. Label schema and topic jointly shape zero-shot performance, with the same model varying by more than 0.13 macro-$F_1$ across topics under matched labels. In a verification context, where missing belief is the costlier error, task-specific fine-tuning remains the more reliable choice despite the proliferation of large generative models.

Many decision-support settings require systems that adapt to individual users, but evaluation data for this problem remain limited. Existing benchmarks for user understanding often rely on simulated users or model-generated behavior, even though recent work cautions that model-based simulations can diverge systematically from human behavior. We introduce \textsc{BehaviorBench}, a benchmark for evaluating personalized decision modeling from real-world behavioral traces. \textsc{BehaviorBench} reconstructs wallet-level decision histories from observed public prediction-market and on-chain records, and organizes them into two complementary task layers: \emph{Belief prediction}, which predicts a user's final revealed stance and confidence in a market, and \emph{Trade prediction}, which predicts the direction and amount of individual transactions. Across 2,000 evaluation wallets, the benchmark contains 141,445 Belief instances and 1,485,972 Trade instances, with disjoint support pools for retrieval-based evaluation. We evaluate frontier and open-weight generative models under four history interfaces: no personalization, direct recent history, generated user profiles, and retrieved support-wallet evidence. Personalization improves Belief prediction more consistently than Trade prediction, model rankings change across task layers and metrics, and different history interfaces expose different failure modes. \textsc{BehaviorBench} provides an evaluation setting for studying whether personalized methods can use real-world behavioral evidence rather than simulated users alone.

This article proposes a set-theoretic framework for belief change, called Abstract Worlds Semantics, in which no logical syntax is assumed. Inspired by Grove's (1988) results, our approach treats worlds as primitive elements, over which world contraction and world revision operators are defined. This semantic framework enables a unified analysis of belief change models. Within this framework, we unify classical and non-prioritized belief change constructions by defining versatile operators. When classical propositional logic is considered, our framework provides a homogeneous account of AGM, KM, and Multiple Change models. In summary, AWS systematizes belief change frameworks and operators, simplifying and generalizing belief change theory over belief sets.

Theory of Mind (ToM) enables an agent to reason about another actor's beliefs, goals, and intentions, which is essential for human-centered embodied assistance. Existing ToM benchmarks have advanced text and multimodal mental-state recognition, but they mostly evaluate offline question answering or final action prediction. They do not fully test whether an embodied agent can stay connected to a changing environment, update actor-specific beliefs, decide when reasoning is needed, and intervene only when help is useful. Building on MindPower, we extend robot-centric ToM reasoning to a real-time closed-loop setting and introduce MindClaw, a framework for embodied mental-state reasoning with precision intervention. MindClaw connects multi-source inputs, belief memory, an embodied cognitive trigger skill, mental reasoning, and action generation, allowing the agent to output helpful actions at the right time while remaining silent when intervention is unnecessary. Experiments show that direct VLM baselines struggle with task awareness and intervention calibration, while MindClaw achieves the best overall performance, demonstrating the importance of trigger-skill optimization for closed-loop embodied ToM assistance.

Preference alignment has substantially improved the observable behavior of large language models, yet it remains unclear what alignment changes internally. Aligned systems still fail under jailbreaks, prompt injection, and retrieval-time corruption, suggesting behavior-level evaluation alone is incomplete. Post-training should leave measurable traces in internal computation. We ask: when an instruction-tuned (IT) model becomes a preference-aligned (PA) model, what geometric structure changes, where do those changes concentrate, and how selectively do they vary across concepts, prompts, and model families? We introduce MENTIS, a geometry-first framework for measuring alignment-induced internal reorganization in paired checkpoints. MENTIS compares IT and PA models using a primary layerwise covariance-based torsion norm (T1), a secondary spectral torsion diagnostic (T2), and an Energy-Radiance-Activation measure (ERA) for depth localization. Across four 7-8B model pairs on LITMUS, our study reveals that alignment-induced change is selective rather than uniform: normative concepts exhibit larger torsion shifts than factual concepts on average; torsion is negatively correlated with contextual entropy; and peak effects localize to architecture-specific mid-to-late layers. The same pattern appears across word-level, prompt-level, and model-level analyses. These results suggest preference alignment leaves structured, depth-localized geometric signatures in internal computation beyond what behavior-level evaluation alone can reveal.

Persistent maps used by autonomous robots increasingly fuse a geometric perception stack whose assertions are well-characterized with a foundation-model channel that produces semantic claims without calibrated reliability about the same scene. Contemporary mapping systems integrate the two channels by treating the foundation-model channel as an additional voter into a per-element posterior, uncalibrated for its own per-class reliability and without machinery to flag when the two channels contradict each other at a given moment. We propose an update operator with two cooperating mechanisms: a per-class calibrated commit gate, and a per-event conflict-drop window that refuses to commit foundation-model claims contradicted by the geometric channel at the moment of the claim. We evaluate on KITTI-360 and ScanNet, with an oracle geometric channel (panoptic ground truth) and an off-the-shelf online semantic segmenter (Mask2Former) to demonstrate real-world performance. The operator produces substantially more accurate committed maps (KITTI is car commit precision 99.7% vs. 43.9% for the calibration-only operator; mean per-class IoU 0.522 vs. 0.180), retains more compositional true positives at higher precision than a monolithic compositional VLM prompt. The framework operates at deployment quality across both oracle and off-the-shelf-segmenter geometric channels, and is invariant under foundation-model substitution.

Creating sound for storytelling is crucial to establishing the environment in productions such as films, TV series and video games. This process often involves repeating, layering and recording real objects or using sound libraries, which can be time-consuming and repetitive. To address these challenges, procedural audio, also known as digital foley, offers a solution by allowing sound designers to quickly generate samples. Despite its efficiency, questions remain about the believability of synthetic samples compared to real ones. In our study, we compared synthetic samples generated by an online procedural engine and integrated them with both animated and live-action visuals. Our results indicate that procedural audio is highly effective and perceived as believable in drama and sci-fi scenes, particularly for sound models such as lasers, hits, air and rockets, whereas synthetic sounds weren't as believable in cartoon productions when representing everyday actions. Finally, we identified specific models that needed optimisation and highlighted audio features that needed improvement with feedback from audio professionals.

Long-horizon interactions require language models to manage accumulating information: when to update their state, when to preserve their state, and what to ignore. We study this challenge as Contextual Belief Management (CBM): maintaining a predicted belief state aligned with formal evidence while isolating task-irrelevant noise. To make CBM measurable, we introduce BeliefTrack, a closed-world benchmark spanning Rule Discovery and Circuit Diagnosis, where a finite belief space and symbolic verifiers enable exact turn-level evaluation. BeliefTrack diagnoses three failures: Failed Stay, Failed Update, and Failed Isolation. Across multiple LLMs, vanilla models exhibit severe CBM failures, while explicit belief-tracking prompts provide limited gains. In contrast, reinforcement learning with belief-state rewards reduces failure rates by 70.9% on average. Further probing reveals latent belief-state dynamics behind these failures, and representation-level steering reduces failure rates by 46.1% across two tasks (Code is available at https://github.com/zjunlp/CBM).

Memory-augmented LLM agents tackle complex long-horizon tasks by recursively summarizing interaction trajectories into compact memory. However, existing approaches typically train these memory policies using outcome-based reinforcement learning, failing to localize where intermediate memory quality degrades. As interactions unfold, ambiguous recursive summaries progressively discard task-relevant information and introduce semantic noise. This exacerbates belief deviation, obscuring the agent's estimate of the latent task state and ultimately derailing long-horizon reasoning. We therefore argue that memory optimization should focus not merely on trajectory-level success, but on the clarity of the belief induced by intermediate summaries. To this end, we introduce Belief Entropy, a self-supervised proxy that probes how uncertain the model remains about the latent task state given its current memory. Based on this proxy, we propose Metacognitive Memory Policy Optimization (MMPO). Instead of relying only on sparse outcome-based signals, MMPO provides fine-grained, memory-specific supervision via explicitly penalizing summaries that induce high epistemic uncertainty. Experiments show that MMPO consistently outperforms existing methods on diverse long-horizon tasks, maintaining 97.1% performance even when scaled to 1.75M-token contexts.

Critical sequential decisions are rarely single-timescale: a strategic decision causally shapes the context in which every subsequent tactical choice is made; standard bandit and reinforcement-learning theory does not capture this causal coupling between timescales. We formalise the problem class as Nested Contextual Causal Bandits (NCCBs), a hierarchical SCM where each level's action sets the next level's context distribution, and propose Nested Causal Thompson Sampling (NCTS), which draws one mechanism-factorised belief per episode and acts recursively under it. Our main theoretical result is a causal PAC-Bayesian excess-risk bound that certifies any candidate deployment policy from historic data alone, off-policy and anytime, answering the deployment question: can we trust this agent here, and at what risk? Experiments on a hierarchical SCM show that, against a matched RFF-GP joint regression on the same function class, the factorised SCM-mechanism posterior transfers significantly better zero-shot under exogenous distribution shifts, the recursive meta-to-inner commit significantly dominates the joint-commit alternative in distribution, and the certificate significantly contracts as offline data accumulates. Combining these results, we establish progressive certified handover, a safe-deployment method: each timescale flips from a legacy controller to NCTS when gains can be certified, independently of the others.

Human coordination often relies on the ability to influence the beliefs of others through strategic action. In multi-agent reinforcement learning, opponent shaping attempts to replicate this influence, though existing methods typically operate within an opponent's parameter, policy, or value space. Meanwhile, belief-manipulation techniques in hidden-role games often rely on hard-coded objectives, such as deception or belief saturation. We propose Differentiable Belief-based Opponent Shaping (D-BOS), a first-order method that treats each observer's belief as the shaped opponent state and differentiates through $k$-step softmax-Bayes belief dynamics. Rather than explicitly rewarding deceptive or cooperative behavior, our method treats the belief state as the target for shaping. This allows the optimal strategy to emerge naturally from the environment's reward structure. This belief-space formulation provides an opponent-shaping signal by differentiating through opponent belief updates, and naturally extends to multiple observers by aggregating gradients over their individual inferred belief trajectories. Empirically, D-BOS outperforms PPO and BBM in hidden-role games, with the largest gains in mixed-motive settings.

This study reports findings from a cross-sectional survey (n = 72) of higher education practitioners examining beliefs, behaviors, and institutional conditions related to artificial intelligence (AI) integration in teaching and learning. Grounded in the DOT Framework, which integrates design thinking and open systems theory, the study investigates AI familiarity, usage patterns, design-oriented practices, and pedagogical beliefs. Exploratory factor analysis of 19 belief items identified a three-factor structure: AI Functional Capabilities, Oversight and Governance, and Instructor Collaboration and Planning (α = .90). Results indicate that practitioners hold favorable views of AI as a pedagogical support while maintaining strong commitments to human oversight and critical evaluation. Reported practices emphasize iterative prompting and content generation, with less consistent use of needs assessment and feedback loops. Institutional barriers including limited policy, training, and infrastructure were widely reported. These findings provide preliminary empirical support for the DOT Framework as a descriptive model of practitioner beliefs and practices, while also highlighting gaps between design-oriented theory and current implementation. The study contributes an initial measurement structure and identifies directions for confirmatory validation and outcome-based research linking AI-supported design practices to instructional quality.

Theory of Mind (ToM), the ability to infer others' knowledge, intentions, and emotions, is commonly evaluated in large language models (LLMs) using end-point question answering, where performance is judged solely by the final answer to a social reasoning query. This paradigm obscures whether the model actually constructs the underlying mental-state representations required for robust reasoning, particularly in scenarios involving divergent, evolving, or mistaken beliefs. In order to address this research gap, we introduce OmniToM, a benchmark that directly evaluates these representations by requiring explicit modeling of belief structures for all relevant actors within a narrative. These structures are composed of belief propositions: minimal statements of what an actor takes to be true about the world or another actor's mental state, allowing knowledge, intentions, emotions, and false beliefs to be analyzed in a common format. Models are evaluated in two stages: Stage 1: Belief Extraction, which extracts from the story the beliefs relevant to its social dynamics, and Stage 2: Belief Labeling, which assigns each belief a seven-dimensional schema label covering recursive order, truth status, knowledge access, explicitness, content type, mental source, and context. Built from 895 stories from the existing ToMBench story corpus and augmented with 22,343 labeled belief propositions, OmniToM uses a human-calibrated LLM-assisted annotation pipeline. Across diverse models in zero-shot evaluation, OmniToM reveals an actor-specific belief-tracking bottleneck: current LLMs struggle with the knowledge-access and representational decisions required to transform narrative facts into actors' beliefs and shared mental states.

World models for partially observed environments must imagine multiple compatible hidden futures and steer between them under counterfactual actions. Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) do this in latent space, but a vector-valued latent has no internal structure for carrying the belief over hidden continuations through blind rollout. We introduce the Unitary World Model JEPA (UWM-JEPA), a JEPA world model with a density-matrix latent on a joint system-environment space and a learned unitary predictor. The construction preserves the joint-state spectrum exactly during rollout, so the predictor itself cannot dissipate the represented uncertainty. On a hidden-velocity indicator task requiring five-step forward simulation under a given action sequence with the target observation masked, UWM-JEPA reaches 0.77 accuracy and degrades monotonically as actions are perturbed; a parameter-matched LSTM-JEPA trained under the same counterfactual-target objective and action head collapses to majority-class accuracy (0.53) under every action condition. Under blind rollout, UWM-JEPA loses fewer than ten points of probe R^2 at short horizons while vector-latent baselines lose forty-one and sixty-eight; both nevertheless tie on a held-out context probe, locating the separation in the predictor rather than the encoder. Action sensitivity itself requires training against counterfactual rather than teacher-forced targets, a finding that applies beyond the unitary parameterisation. For JEPA world models to imagine under partial observability, latent geometry and predictor dynamics matter, not frozen context-encoding capacity alone.

Multi-agent LLM systems improve reasoning by combining outputs from multiple agents, but interaction-heavy methods can introduce error propagation and high communication overhead. When agents exchange raw responses or reasoning traces, incorrect intermediate reasoning may be adopted and amplified, leading to confident but wrong consensus; multi-round communication also increases token consumption, latency, and inference cost. In this paper, we propose a controlled-communication coordination framework named DarkForest. DarkForest first keeps agents independent, so each agent produces an answer without seeing the others' outputs. It then parses the raw responses into structured candidate records, groups semantically equivalent candidates into clusters, and estimates a calibrated belief distribution over these clusters using agent reliability, confidence, parse quality, support-pattern reliability, and independence corrections. A coordinator receives only policy-permitted evidence from this belief state with controlled communication. Experiments on six reasoning benchmarks show that DarkForest achieves leading overall quality, improves the strongest baseline by up to 30.7% on benchmark metrics, and reduces token consumption by up to $6.5\times$ compared with communication-heavy baselines.

Learning from Demonstration (LfD) enables robots to learn complex behaviors from expert examples, yet existing approaches often fail to generalize to new compositions of known skills without retraining. Modern generative policies model distributions over action trajectories alone, thus are unable to reason about the symbolic outcomes required for robust composition. We propose that skills should jointly model action trajectories and the symbolic outcomes they induce. To address this gap, we introduce Predicate Action Skills (PACTS), a class of closed-loop visuomotor policies that model skills as a joint generative process over action and predicate belief trajectories, producing coherent action-outcome rollouts within a single model. Jointly generating actions and predicates enables PACTS to learn internal representations that improve both action generation and predicate classification. Furthermore, we demonstrate zero-shot composition of learned skills via planning by leveraging online predicate predictions from PACTS as a symbolic interface for sequencing and monitoring execution. Project website: https://planpacts.github.io/

Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) is a national health movement that encompasses a striking mix of beliefs, from broadly accepted concerns about good diet and exercise to controversial takes on organic and genetically modified food, childhood vaccination, science, and institutions. Various influencers and promoters of the MAHA movement on social media are scattered throughout the online space. Investigating the structure, discourse, and contagion of MAHA beliefs requires large-scale fine-grained digital footprints. Constructing structured data covering different MAHA themes from vast unstructured social media data is challenging. We introduce a Reddit dataset that spans six years (2020-2025), comprising 19.4M posts from 4M users. Containing the natural and thematic context of 12 MAHA-aligned beliefs, this dataset offers researchers from various domains the opportunity to study the dynamics of the MAHA movement, its structural and functional components, and the linguistic and behavioral patterns of its proponents.

Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a promising paradigm for improving large language model (LLM) agents on long-horizon interactive tasks. However, in partially observable environments, incomplete observations cause agent beliefs to drift over time, while delayed rewards obscure the causal impact of intermediate decisions, exacerbating temporal credit assignment challenges. To address this, we propose ReBel (Reward Belief), a process-level reinforcement learning algorithm that explicitly models structured belief states to summarize interaction history and guide subsequent policy learning. ReBel introduces belief-consistency supervision, converting discrepancies between predicted beliefs and observed feedback into dense self-supervised signals without requiring external step-wise annotations or verifiers. It also employs belief-aware grouping to compare trajectories under similar belief states, yielding more robust and lower-variance advantage estimates. We evaluate ReBel on challenging long-horizon benchmarks, including ALFWorld and WebShop. ReBel improves task success by up to $20.4$ percentage points over the episode-level baseline GRPO and increases sample efficiency by $2.1\times$. These results suggest that belief-aware self-supervision is a promising direction for reliable long-horizon decision-making under partial observability. Code is available at: https://github.com/Fateyetian/Rebel.git.

Classical models of opinion dynamics assume human participants with bounded rationality and limited coordination. The rise of LLM-based agents introduces a qualitative shift: agents can now participate in online discussions at scale, maintain consistent persuasion strategies, and coordinate systematically. This paper argues that LLM agents make collective belief dynamics programmable, enabling deliberate steering of population-level beliefs. We term this emerging problem programmable collective belief control. Through controlled multi-agent simulations, we provide proof-of-concept evidence that coordinated AI agents can induce measurable belief shifts that stabilize within a few interaction rounds. We identify four structural properties (indistinguishability, persistence, contextuality, and configurability) that make detection and defense fundamentally difficult. Based on these findings, we outline a research agenda spanning theoretical foundations for adversarial belief dynamics, operational methods for system-level detection and intervention, and simulation infrastructure for scalable experimentation. Our goal is not to present a complete solution, but to articulate why this problem demands urgent attention and to provide a conceptual foundation for future work.

Biomedical question answering often requires decisions from retrieved literature whose relevance, quality, and support for candidate answers are uneven. Most retrieval-augmented large language model (LLM) methods feed this literature to the model as flat text, leaving evidence reliability and remaining uncertainty largely implicit. We propose BELIEF, a structured evidence modeling and uncertainty-aware fusion framework for closed-set biomedical question answering. Rather than treating retrieved documents as undifferentiated context, BELIEF converts them into evidence objects that record clinical attributes, source quality, question relevance, support strength, and the associated candidate hypothesis. These evidence objects provide a shared basis for two complementary reasoning paths. The symbolic path constructs reliability-weighted basic probability assignments based on Dempster--Shafer (D-S) theory over a finite answer space and performs uncertainty-aware symbolic evidence fusion to estimate belief and residual uncertainty. The neural path uses the same structured evidence for LLM-based semantic inference, while a reliability-aware arbitration module reconciles the symbolic and neural outputs according to belief strength, uncertainty, evidence reliability, and semantic consistency. Experiments on PubMedQA, MedQA, and MedMCQA with five general-purpose LLM backbones show that BELIEF obtains the best result in 25 of 30 backbone--dataset--metric settings. Comparisons with biomedical-domain models indicate that BELIEF is competitive on MedQA and MedMCQA, while specialized biomedical pretraining remains advantageous on PubMedQA. Ablation, complementarity, uncertainty-stratified, and cost analyses further show that BELIEF improves retrieved-evidence utilization by making evidence structure, path disagreement, and decision uncertainty explicit.

Dempster's rule is a fundamental tool for combining belief functions from distinct and reliable sources. However, its intersection-based semantics imposes strong structural restrictions, which limits its flexibility in handling complex source states and diverse information fusion scenarios. To overcome this limitation, we propose a reversible transformation, derived from the isopignistic principle, between belief functions and a possibilistic structure defined on the power set. In this transformation, the relationships among subsets are explicitly characterized by a belief evolution network, which provides a more flexible representation of evidential information beyond the conventional mass function structure. On this basis, we further introduce the triangular norm family to develop a general and adaptive evidential information fusion framework. Unlike fusion methods rooted in Dempster semantics, the proposed framework supports more flexible combination behaviors and exhibits advantages in non-distinct source fusion, conflict management, parametric combination design, and heterogeneous information fusion.

Process Reward Models (PRMs) provide step-level feedback for reasoning, but current PRMs usually output only a single reward score for each step. Downstream methods must therefore treat imperfect step-level reward predictions as reliable decision signals, with no indication of when these predictions should be trusted. We propose BetaPRM, a distributional PRM that predicts both a step-level success probability and the reliability of that prediction. Given step-success supervision from Monte Carlo continuations, BetaPRM learns a Beta belief that explains the observed number of successful continuations through a Beta-Binomial likelihood, rather than regressing to the finite-sample success ratio as a point target. This learned reliability signal indicates when a step reward should be trusted, enabling downstream applications to distinguish reliable rewards from uncertain ones. As one application, we introduce Adaptive Computation Allocation (ACA) for PRM-guided Best-of-N reasoning. ACA uses the learned reliability signal to stop when a high-reward solution is reliable and to spend additional computation on uncertain candidate prefixes. Experiments across four backbones and four reasoning benchmarks show that BetaPRM improves PRM-guided Best-of-N selection while preserving standard step-level error detection. Built on this signal, ACA improves the accuracy--token tradeoff over fixed-budget Best-of-16, reducing token usage by up to 33.57% while improving final-answer accuracy.

LLM-based agents are increasingly used to simulate deliberative interactions such as negotiation, conflict resolution, and multi-turn opinion exchange. Yet generated transcripts often do not reveal why an agent's stance changes: movement may reflect evidence uptake, anchoring, role drift, echoing, or changed prompt and retrieval context. We introduce the Belief Engine (BE), an auditable belief-update layer that treats "belief" as an evidential state over a proposition and exposes it as scalar stance. BE extracts arguments into structured memory and updates stance with a log-odds rule controlled by evidence uptake u and prior anchoring a. Across multiple base LLMs, parameter sweeps show that these controls reliably shape stance dynamics while preserving an evidence-level update trail. On DEBATE, a human deliberation dataset with pre/post opinions, BE best reconstructs participants whose final stance follows extracted evidence; stable and evidence-opposed cases instead point to anchoring or factors outside the extracted evidence stream. BE provides configurable infrastructure for studying evidence-grounded deliberation, where openness, commitment, convergence, and disagreement can be tied to explicit update assumptions rather than hidden prompt effects.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent simulation offers a powerful testbed for studying social opinion dynamics. Yet current approaches often adopt two contrasting methods: either relying on fixed update rules with limited cognitive grounding or delegating belief change largely to unconstrained LLM interaction. We introduce ScioMind, a cognitively grounded simulation framework that bridges these paradigms by combining structured opinion dynamics with LLM-based agent reasoning. ScioMind integrates three key components: 1) a memory-anchored belief update rule that modulates susceptibility to influence via personality-conditioned anchoring strength; 2) a hierarchical memory architecture that supports persistent, experience-driven belief formation; and 3) dynamic agent profiles derived from a corpus-grounded retrieval pipeline, enabling heterogeneous personalities, rationales, and evolving internal states. We evaluate ScioMind on multiple case studies in a real-world policy debate scenario. Across metrics including polarisation, diversity, extremization, and trajectory stability, the proposed components consistently yield improvements in behavioural realism. In particular, dynamic profiles increase opinion diversity, memory and reflection reduce unstable oscillation, and anchoring induces persistent belief trajectories that better align with patterns reported in political psychology. These results suggest that our cognitively grounded design provides a novel solution to LLM-based social simulation that improves both stable and behavioural realism

Discrepancies between an agent's actual knowledge and what a person thinks the agent knows can hinder interactions. If an agent could detect such discrepancies, it could provide feedback to account for them and improve current and future interactions. Using the I-POMDP as a framework for a second-order Theory of Mind (ToM-2), this work endows an agent with the ability to model the evolution of a person's erroneous beliefs about an agent and the cognitive biases and heuristics (CBH) from which they arise. In doing so, the agent can detect when CBH might be at play during an interaction and adaptively generate feedback that accounts for them. An in-person user study shows how a ToM-2 learner can account for the effects of a teacher's CBH to significantly improve the informativeness of teacher actions, and subjective results suggest people find the ToM-2 learner's feedback more useful.

Large Language Models (LLMs) update their behavior in context, which can be viewed as a form of Bayesian inference. However, the structure of the latent hypothesis space over which this inference operates remains unclear. In this work, we propose that LLMs assign beliefs over a low-dimensional geometric space - a conceptual belief space - and that in-context learning corresponds to a trajectory through this space as beliefs are updated over time. Using story understanding as a natural setting for dynamic belief updating, we combine behavioral and representational analyses to study these trajectories. We find that (1) belief updates are well-described as trajectories on low-dimensional, structured manifolds; (2) this structure is reflected consistently in both model behavior and internal representations and can be decoded with simple linear probes to predict behavior; and (3) interventions on these representations causally steer belief trajectories, with effects that can be predicted from the geometry of the conceptual space. Together, our results provide a geometric account of belief dynamics in LLMs, grounding Bayesian interpretations of in-context learning in structured conceptual representations.

Constant Liar (CL), Kriging Believer (KB), and fantasy models are widely used for batch selection in parallel Bayesian Optimization, yet a unified theory explaining their effectiveness and conditions under which they fail has been lacking. We identify efficient conditioning as the key surrogate property the ability to update predictions in closed form when data is augmented. We prove that Gaussian Processes satisfy this requirement, producing provably distinct batch points with separation of order l, and that this holds for any acquisition function monotonically non decreasing in posterior uncertainty (EI, UCB, PI), with qualitatively similar behavior for Thompson Sampling. We unify CL, KB, and fantasy models as instances of a single conditioning mechanism differing only in the lie value distribution, and draw quantitative connections to Local Penalization (LP) and qualitative connections to Determinantal Point Processes (DPPs). To disentangle model structure from optimizer randomness, we introduce the Structural Diversity Diagnostic (SDD), a reusable methodology for testing surrogate compatibility. Experiments on Hartmann6D, Ackley 8D, Levy10D, and SVM hyperparameter tuning validate all theoretical predictions: CL or KBs implicit penalty matches or outperforms explicit LP greedy conditioning achieves convergence on par with joint qEI efficient conditioning extends to Multiquadric RBF networks; and parametric surrogates produce degenerate batches even when fully retrained (random forests), while neural networks regain diversity only at 15x the wall clock cost of GP conditioning. Robustness is confirmed across multiple initial datasets and under observation noise.

Uncertainty quantification has become an important factor in understanding the data representations produced by Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). Despite their predictive capabilities being ever useful across industrial workspaces, the inherent uncertainty induced by the nature of the data is a huge mitigating factor to GNN performance. While aleatoric uncertainty is the result of noisy and incomplete stochastic data such as missing edges or over-smoothing, epistemic uncertainty arises from lack of knowledge about a system or model (e.g., a graph's topology or node feature representation), which can be reduced by gathering more data and information. In this paper, we propose an original new framework in which node-level epistemic uncertainty is modelled in a belief function (finite random set) formalism. The resulting Random-Set Graph Neural Networks have a belief-function head predicting a random set over the list of classes, from which both a precise probability prediction and a measure of epistemic uncertainty can be obtained. Extensive experiments on 9 different graph learning datasets, including real-world autonomous driving benchmarks as such Nuscene and ROAD, demonstrate RS-GNN's superior uncertainty quantification capabilities

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed on long-horizon tasks in partially observable environments, where they must act while inferring and tracking a complex environment state over many steps. This leads to two challenges: partial observability requires maintaining uncertainty over unobserved world attributes, and long interaction history causes context to grow without bound, diluting task-relevant information. A principled solution to both challenges is a belief state: a posterior distribution over environment states given past observations and actions, which compactly encodes history for decision making regardless of episode length. In LLM agents, however, the open-ended nature of text makes it unclear how to represent such a distribution. Therefore, we introduce Agent-BRACE: Agent Belief state Representation via Abstraction and Confidence Estimation, a method that decouples an LLM agent into a belief state model and a policy model, jointly optimized via reinforcement learning. The belief state model produces a structured approximation of the belief distribution: a set of atomic natural language claims about the environment, each annotated with an ordinal verbalized certainty label ranging from certain to unknown. The policy model conditions on this compact, structured approximate belief rather than the full history, learning to select actions under explicit uncertainty. Across long-horizon, partially observable embodied language environments, Agent-BRACE achieves an average absolute improvement of +14.5% (Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct) and +5.3% (Qwen3-4B-Instruct), outperforming strong RL baselines while maintaining a near-constant context window independent of episode length. Further analysis shows that the learned belief becomes increasingly calibrated over the course of an episode as evidence accumulates.

Recent advances in visual generative models have highlighted the promise of learning generative world models. However, most existing approaches frame world modeling as novel-view synthesis or future-frame prediction, emphasizing visual realism rather than the structured uncertainty required by embodied agents acting under partial observability. In this work, we propose a different perspective: world modeling as embodied belief inference in 3D space. From this view, a world model should not merely render what may be seen, but maintain and update an agent's belief about the unobserved 3D world as new observations are acquired. We identify several key capabilities for such models, including spatially consistent scene memory, multi-hypothesis belief sampling, sequential belief updating, and semantically informed prediction of unseen regions. We instantiate these ideas in 3D-Belief, a generative 3D world model that infers explicit, actionable 3D beliefs from partial observations and updates them online over time. Unlike prior visual prediction models, 3D-Belief represents uncertainty directly in 3D, enabling embodied agents to imagine plausible scene completions and reason over partially observed environments. We evaluate 3D-Belief on 2D visual quality for scene memory and unobserved-scene imagination, object- and scene-level 3D imagination using our proposed 3D-CORE benchmark, and challenging object navigation tasks in both simulation and the real world. Experiments show that 3D-Belief improves 2D and 3D imagination quality and downstream embodied task performance compared to state-of-the-art methods.

In many real-world robotic tasks, robots must generate dynamically feasible motions that reliably reach desired goals even under uncertainty. Yet existing sampling-based kinodynamic planners typically optimize accumulated trajectory costs and treat goal reaching as a feasibility check, rather than explicitly optimizing terminal-state quality, such as goal preference or goal-reaching reliability. In this work, we introduce a terminal-cost formulation for kinodynamic planning that allows terminal-state quality to be optimized alongside accumulated trajectory cost. We prove that AO-RRT, an asymptotically optimal kinodynamic planner, preserves its asymptotic optimality under this augmented objective. We further extend the formulation to belief space and prove that minimizing the Wasserstein distance between the terminal belief and the goal improves a lower bound on the probability of reaching the goal region. The resulting planner, KiTe, uses this terminal-cost objective to encode goal preferences and improve reliability under uncertainty. To support systems without analytical uncertainty models, we learn dynamics and process uncertainty directly from data and integrate the learned belief dynamics into planning. Experiments on Flappy Bird, Car Parking, and Planar Pushing show that KiTe consistently improves goal-reaching success under uncertainty. Real-world Planar Pushing experiments further demonstrate that KiTe can plan effectively with learned dynamics and uncertainty. Source code is available at https://github.com/elpis-lab/KiTe.

Philosophical accounts of persuasion often assume that shared evidence and rational argumentation should lead to a convergence of views between peers, yet everyday discourse often suggests otherwise. In this study, we use large language models to analyze a corpus of debates on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView, where belief revision is publicly signaled. Large language models were asked, halfway through each discussion, to forecast whether such an acknowledgement would arise; their probabilistic estimates serve as a conversational baseline. Each reply was then coded, through a hybrid machine-assisted procedure, for ten familiar rhetorical strategies -- concession, empathy, logical challenge, credibility appeals, and so forth. Adding these strategic features markedly improves predictive power and yields a consistent pattern: moves that express concession or empathetic alignment substantially increase the prospect of belief change, whereas frontal refutation, credibility attacks, and topic deflection diminish it. The findings indicate that effective public reasoning depends as much on relational framing as on evidential content, and they invite a refinement of normative accounts of rational dialogue.

Belief functions are a powerful and popular framework for the mathematical characterisation of uncertainty, in particular in situations in which lack of data renders learning a probability distribution for the problem impractical. The first step in a reasoning chain based on belief functions is inference: how to learn a belief measure from the available data. In this survey we focus, in particular, on making inference from statistical data, and review the most significant contributions in the area.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are deployed in complex environments -- such as massive codebases, enterprise databases, and conversational histories -- where the relevant state far exceeds their context windows. To navigate these spaces, an agent must iteratively explore the environment to find relevant information. However, without explicit infrastructure, an agent's working memory can degrade into lossy representations of the search state, resulting in redundant work (e.g. repetitive looping) and premature stopping. In this work, we formalize this challenge as the Context Gathering Decision Process (CGDP), a specialized Partially Observable Markov Decision Process, where an agent's objective is to adaptively refine its belief state to isolate the necessary information for a task. We model an LLM's behavior as approximate Thompson Sampling within this CGDP, and introduce a predicate-based method that decomposes an LLM's implicit search into explicit and modular operations. We then derive two plug-and-play interventions for iterative LLM agents: a persistent, predicate-based belief state that bounds context while preserving multi-hop reasoning, and a programmatic exhaustion gate that halts unproductive search without premature stopping. Across four methods and three question-answering domains, we empirically validate that replacing an LLM's implicit state with our CGDP-motivated belief state improves multi-hop reasoning by up to $11.4\%$; while the modular programmatic exhaustion detection saves up to $39\%$ of tokens without any degradation in agent performance. Ultimately, we argue that framing the LLM agent loop as a CGDP can guide the design of modular, non-interfering improvements to agentic search harnesses.

Distributed agents in real-world settings frequently must coordinate under uncertainty with only partial observations. Coordination is necessary to share beliefs to aid in task completion, but communication costs bandwidth, introduces latency, and if done poorly, can degrade collective reasoning. This tension is especially acute in bandwidth-constrained deployments such as distributed sensing networks, autonomous reconnaissance, and collaborative cyber defense, where excessive transmission carries direct operational costs. Existing work has focused on multi-agent exploration and communication strategies, but not on how communication frequency and content jointly shape the collective belief state. Central to this challenge is the degree to which agents maintain compatible internal beliefs about the environment, a property we term \textit{epistemic alignment}. When agents share beliefs effectively, they converge on correct hypotheses; when communication is poorly designed, agents may converge confidently on wrong ones. We formalize this distinction and show it is not detectable from coordination metrics alone such as Jensen-Shannon Divergence or rate to consensus.

Language models often generate reasoning before giving a final answer, but the visible answer does not reveal when the model's answer preference became stable. We study this question through a narrow computable object: \emph{finite-answer preference stabilization}. For a model state and specified answer verbalizers, we project the model's own continuation probabilities onto a finite answer set; in binary tasks this yields an exact log-odds code, $δ(ξ)=S_θ(\mathrm{yes}\midξ)-S_θ(\mathrm{no}\midξ)$. This target defines parser-based answer onset, retrospective stabilization time, and lead without relying on greedy rollouts or learned probes. In controlled delayed-verdict tasks with Qwen3-4B-Instruct, the contextual finite-answer projection stabilizes before the answer is parseable, with 17--31 token mean lead in the main templates and positive, shorter lead in a parser-clean replication. The signal tracks the model's eventual output rather than truth, is linearly recoverable from compact hidden summaries, is partly separable from cursor progress, and transfers as shared information without a single invariant coordinate. Diagnostics separate the measurement from online stopping, verbalizer-free belief, and causal answer control; exact steering shows local sensitivity of $δ$ but not reliable generation control.