# Pseudo-Deliberation in Language Models: When Reasoning Fails to Align Values and Actions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09893 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09893/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 9 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 May 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.16388/) (2023)
- [Will AI Tell Lies to Save Sick Children? Litmus-Testing AI Values Prioritization with AIRiskDilemmas](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14633/) (2025)
- [Social-R1: Towards Human-like Social Reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.09249/) (2026)
- [ValueFlow: Measuring the Propagation of Value Perturbations in Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.08567/) (2026)
- [Are they lovers or friends? Evaluating LLMs' Social Reasoning in English and Korean Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.19028/) (2025)

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

- [Principled Under Pressure: Post-Training Decides Whether LLMs Act on Their Own Moral Judgment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.08670/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are often evaluated based on their stated values, yet these do not reliably translate into their actions, a discrepancy termed "value-action gap." In this work, we argue that this gap persists even under explicit reasoning, revealing a deeper failure mode we call "Pseudo-Deliberation": the appearance of principled reasoning without corresponding behavioral alignment. To study this systematically, we introduce VALDI, a framework for measuring alignment between stated values and generated dialogue. VALDI includes 4,941 human-centered scenarios across five domains, three tasks that elicit value articulation, reasoning, and action, and five metrics for quantifying value adherence. Across both proprietary and open-source LLMs, we observe consistent misalignment between expressed values and downstream dialogues. To investigate intervention strategies, we propose VIVALDI, a multi-agent value auditor that intervenes at different stages of generation.