Emergent Bayesian Behaviour and Optimal Cue Combination in LLMs
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) excel at explicit reasoning, but their implicit computational strategies remain underexplored. Decades of psychophysics research show that humans intuitively process and integrate noisy signals using near-optimal Bayesian strategies in perceptual tasks. We ask whether LLMs exhibit similar behaviour and perform optimal multimodal integration without explicit training or instruction. Adopting the psychophysics paradigm, we infer computational principles of LLMs from systematic behavioural studies. We introduce a behavioural benchmark - BayesBench: four magnitude estimation tasks (length, location, distance, and duration) over text and image, inspired by classic psychophysics, and evaluate a diverse set of nine LLMs alongside human judgments for calibration. Through controlled ablations of noise, context, and instruction prompts, we measure performance, behaviour and efficiency in multimodal cue-combination. Beyond accuracy and efficiency metrics, we introduce a Bayesian Consistency Score that detects Bayes-consistent behavioural shifts even when accuracy saturates. Our results show that while capable models often adapt in Bayes-consistent ways, accuracy does not guarantee robustness. Notably, GPT-5 Mini achieves perfect text accuracy but fails to integrate visual cues efficiently. This reveals a critical dissociation between capability and strategy, suggesting accuracy-centric benchmarks may over-index on performance while missing brittle uncertainty handling. These findings reveal emergent principled handling of uncertainty and highlight the correlation between accuracy and Bayesian tendencies. We release our psychophysics benchmark and consistency metric (https://bayes-bench.github.io) as evaluation tools and to inform future multimodal architecture designs.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 7 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Dec 2025.
Builds on
7 of 28 references.
References · 7
- 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,335
- 2023MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player?cited by 2,105
- 2021An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inferencecited by 915
- 2022Are Multimodal Transformers Robust to Missing Modality?cited by 183
- 2024Human-inspired Episodic Memory for Infinite Context LLMscited by 62
- 2025Bayesian Teaching Enables Probabilistic Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 36
- 2022Bayesian sense of time in biological and artificial brainscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023Psychometric Predictive Power of Large Language Models
- 2026Human-Alignment, Calibration, and Activation Patterns in Large Language Model Uncertainty
- 2024Dual Traits in Probabilistic Reasoning of Large Language Models
- 2025Downscaling Intelligence: Exploring Perception and Reasoning Bottlenecks in Small Multimodal Models
- 2025Contrast Sensitivity in Multimodal Large Language Models: A Psychophysics-Inspired Evaluation
- 2026Evaluating LLMs as Human Surrogates in Controlled Experiments
- 2026Understanding Large Language Models
- 2025BOTS: A Unified Framework for Bayesian Online Task Selection in LLM Reinforcement Finetuning