Are language models rational? The case of coherence norms and belief revision
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Do norms of rationality apply to machine learning models, in particular language models? In this paper we investigate this question by focusing on a special subset of rational norms: coherence norms. We consider both logical coherence norms as well as coherence norms tied to the strength of belief. To make sense of the latter, we introduce the Minimal Assent Connection (MAC) and propose a new account of credence, which captures the strength of belief in language models. This proposal uniformly assigns strength of belief simply on the basis of model internal next token probabilities. We argue that rational norms tied to coherence do apply to some language models, but not to others. This issue is significant since rationality is closely tied to predicting and explaining behavior, and thus it is connected to considerations about AI safety and alignment, as well as understanding model behavior more generally.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2024.
Builds on
5 of 23 references.
References · 5
- 2021Knowledge Neurons in Pretrained Transformerscited by 590
- 2021Editing Factual Knowledge in Language Modelscited by 548
- 2020Modifying Memories in Transformer Modelscited by 222
- 2024Relying on the Unreliable: The Impact of Language Models' Reluctance to Express Uncertaintycited by 106
- 2021Do Language Models Have Beliefs? Methods for Detecting, Updating, and Visualizing Model Beliefscited by 79
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 4.
9 papers.
- 2024Belief Revision: The Adaptability of Large Language Models Reasoningcited by 26
- 2024Fundamental Problems With Model Editing: How Should Rational Belief Revision Work in LLMs?cited by 24
- 2024Teaching Models to Balance Resisting and Accepting Persuasioncited by 19
- 2024Representation Shattering in Transformers: A Synthetic Study with Knowledge Editingcited by 18
- 2024Rel-A.I.: An Interaction-Centered Approach To Measuring Human-LM Reliancecited by 15
- 2025Calibrating Verbalized Confidence with Self-Generated Distractorscited by 14
- 2025RankAlign: A Ranking View of the Generator-Validator Gap in Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025Language Models Identify Ambiguities and Exploit Loopholescited by 2
- 2025Belief Graphs with Reasoning Zones: Structure, Dynamics, and Epistemic Activationcited by 1
- 2025Belief Graphs with Reasoning Zones: Structure, Dynamics, and Epistemic Activation11 Oct 2025
- 2025Calibrating Verbalized Confidence with Self-Generated Distractors29 Sep 2025
- 2025Language Models Identify Ambiguities and Exploit Loopholes27 Aug 2025
- 2025RankAlign: A Ranking View of the Generator-Validator Gap in Large Language Models15 Apr 2025
- 2024Representation Shattering in Transformers: A Synthetic Study with Knowledge Editing22 Oct 2024
- 2024Teaching Models to Balance Resisting and Accepting Persuasion18 Oct 2024
- 2024Rel-A.I.: An Interaction-Centered Approach To Measuring Human-LM Reliance10 Jul 2024
- 2024Belief Revision: The Adaptability of Large Language Models Reasoning28 Jun 2024
- 2024Fundamental Problems With Model Editing: How Should Rational Belief Revision Work in LLMs?27 Jun 2024