# Think Again! The Effect of Test-Time Compute on Preferences, Opinions, and Beliefs of Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19621 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19621/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 19 of its 44 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 May 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-V2: A Strong, Economical, and Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04434/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.19437/) (2024)
- [Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10403/) (2022)
- [Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.16388/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models for Mathematical Reasoning: Progresses and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00157/) (2024)
- [Forest-of-Thought: Scaling Test-Time Compute for Enhancing LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.09078/) (2024)
- [Assessing Political Bias in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.13041/) (2024)
- [Fair is Better than Sensational:Man is to Doctor as Woman is to Doctor](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.09866/) (2019)
- [Does Reasoning Introduce Bias? A Study of Social Bias Evaluation and Mitigation in LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15361/) (2025)
- [The Colorful Future of LLMs: Evaluating and Improving LLMs as Emotional Supporters for Queer Youth](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11886/) (2024)
- [The LLM Effect: Are Humans Truly Using LLMs, or Are They Being Influenced By Them Instead?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04699/) (2024)
- [Being Right for Whose Right Reasons?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.00639/) (2023)
- [Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13840/) (2024)
- [Improving Neutral Point-of-View Generation with Data- and Parameter-Efficient RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.03654/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Structuring the Space of Sociotechnical Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.01250/) (2026)
- [Understanding the Limits of Automated Evaluation for Code Review Bots in Practice](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.24525/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become deeply integrated into human life and increasingly influence decision-making, it's crucial to evaluate whether and to what extent they exhibit subjective preferences, opinions, and beliefs. These tendencies may stem from biases within the models, which may shape their behavior, influence the advice and recommendations they offer to users, and potentially reinforce certain viewpoints. This paper presents the Preference, Opinion, and Belief survey (POBs), a benchmark developed to assess LLMs' subjective inclinations across societal, cultural, ethical, and personal domains. We applied our benchmark to evaluate leading open- and closed-source LLMs, measuring desired properties such as reliability, neutrality, and consistency. In addition, we investigated the effect of increasing the test-time compute, through reasoning and self-reflection mechanisms, on those metrics. While effective in other tasks, our results show that these mechanisms offer only limited gains in our domain. Furthermore, we reveal that newer model versions are becoming less consistent and more biased toward specific viewpoints, highlighting a blind spot and a concerning trend. POBS: https://ibm.github.io/POBS