# Humans and LLMs Diverge on Probabilistic Inferences

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23546 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.23546/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 49 of its 95 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 49)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05426/) (2017)
- [A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1508.05326/) (2015)
- [Kimi k1.5: Scaling Reinforcement Learning with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12599/) (2025)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Kimi K2: Open Agentic Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.20534/) (2025)
- [GLM-4.5: Agentic, Reasoning, and Coding (ARC) Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06471/) (2025)
- [Measuring Calibration in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01685/) (2019)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [From System 1 to System 2: A Survey of Reasoning Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17419/) (2025)
- [Abductive Commonsense Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.05739/) (2019)
- [Generating with Confidence: Uncertainty Quantification for Black-box Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19187/) (2023)
- [Reducing conversational agents' overconfidence through linguistic calibration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.14983/) (2020)
- [What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.03532/) (2020)
- [We're Afraid Language Models Aren't Modeling Ambiguity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.14399/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Uncertainty Quantification of Large Language Models: Taxonomy, Open Research Challenges, and Future Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05563/) (2024)
- [Uncertainty Quantification and Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.15850/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-R1 Thoughtology: Let's think about LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07128/) (2025)
- [Can Large Language Models Faithfully Express Their Intrinsic Uncertainty in Words?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.16908/) (2024)
- [Are Natural Language Inference Models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESupposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03066/) (2020)
- [Calibrating Large Language Models Using Their Generations Only](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05973/) (2024)
- [VariErr NLI: Separating Annotation Error from Human Label Variation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.01931/) (2024)
- [Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.18183/) (2025)
- [Position: Stop Anthropomorphizing Intermediate Tokens as Reasoning/Thinking Traces!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09762/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Bayesian Fine-tuning Yields Language Models that are as Bayesian as their Beliefs Allow](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.00679/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Human reasoning often involves working over limited information to arrive at probabilistic conclusions. In its simplest form, this involves making an inference that is not strictly entailed by a premise, but rather only likely given the premise. While reasoning LLMs have demonstrated strong performance on logical and mathematical tasks, their behavior on such open-ended, non-deterministic inferences remains largely unexplored. We introduce ProbCOPA, a dataset of 210 handcrafted probabilistic inferences in English, each annotated for inference likelihood by 25--30 human participants. We find that human responses are graded and varied, revealing probabilistic judgments of the inferences in our dataset. Comparing these judgments with responses from eight state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, we show that models consistently fail to produce human-like distributions. Finally, analyzing LLM reasoning chains, we find evidence of a common reasoning pattern used to evaluate such inferences. Our findings reveal persistent differences between humans and LLMs, and underscore the need to evaluate reasoning beyond deterministic settings.