# Whether LLMs Can Navigate Beliefs and Facts Depends on How You Phrase It

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17809 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.17809/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 16 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (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)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21509/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08399/) (2023)
- [A Survey of Confidence Estimation and Calibration in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08298/) (2023)
- [Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18153/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02083/) (2023)
- [Neural Theory-of-Mind? On the Limits of Social Intelligence in Large LMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.13312/) (2022)
- [Clever Hans or Neural Theory of Mind? Stress Testing Social Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14763/) (2023)
- [Relying on the Unreliable: The Impact of Language Models' Reluctance to Express Uncertainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06730/) (2024)
- [Navigating the Grey Area: How Expressions of Uncertainty and Overconfidence Affect Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13439/) (2023)
- [(QA)2: Question Answering with Questionable Assumptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10003/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Humans naturally form and express beliefs in daily communication, e.g., "I think the answer is 3" or "I suppose that's right." Such beliefs inevitably intertwine with fact and knowledge, making the ability to handle them in tandem desirable for large language models (LLMs), as they are increasingly deployed in user-facing settings. Prior work showed that even capable LLMs exhibit a systemic weakness in acknowledging user beliefs grounded in incorrect information. We extend this evaluation to 10 LLMs across 18 epistemic expressions and find that the size and direction of this weakness depend on the verb used to express the belief, with the accuracy gap between factual and false information ranging from +50% on "I vaguely remember" to -14% on "I seriously doubt". We further show that the phenomenon stems from what we call task confusion: models default to fact-checking the underlying claim, overriding the user's stated belief. We provide evidence where chains of thought that explicitly fact-check show lower accuracy on false information than those that do not, and a single instruction can reverse the failure across verb families. Mechanistically, models attend more to false beliefs they fail to confirm, but suppressing this attention at decoding time recovers accuracy only partially and only in some models, calling for future work on intervention methods. Our findings clarify prior results and show how fact-checking, a generally desirable behavior, can interfere with belief tracking in LLMs.