Large Language Models Often Say One Thing and Do Another
Authors: Ruoxi Xu
Hongyu Lin
Xianpei Han
Jia Zheng
Weixiang Zhou
Le Sun
Yingfei Sun
Venue: ICLR 2025 Poster (2025)
Keywords: corpus creation
benchmarking
language resources
NLP datasets
evaluation
metrics
consistency
Primary area: datasets and benchmarks

Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) increasingly become central to various applications and interact with diverse user populations, ensuring their reliable and consistent performance is becoming more important. This paper explores a critical issue in assessing the reliability of LLMs: the consistency between their words and deeds. To quantitatively explore this consistency, we developed a novel evaluation benchmark called the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT). The benchmark establishes a strict correspondence between word-based and deed-based questions across different domains, including opinion vs. action, non-ethical value vs. action, ethical value vs. action, and theory vs. application. The evaluation results reveal a widespread inconsistency between words and deeds across different LLMs and domains. Subsequently, we conducted experiments with either word alignment or deed alignment to observe their impact on the other aspect. The experimental results indicate that alignment only on words or deeds poorly and unpredictably influences the other aspect. This supports our hypothesis that the underlying knowledge guiding LLMs' word or deed choices is not contained within a unified space. Dataset and code are available at [https://github.com/icip-cas/Word-Deed-Consistency-Test](https://github.com/icip-cas/Word-Deed-Consistency-Test).

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS OFTEN SAY ONE THING AND Do ANOTHER
Ruoxi Xu Hongyu Lin", Xianpei Han Jia Zheng Weixiang Zhou?, Le Sun Yingfei Sun'
fruexi2021, hongyu, xianpei, zhengiia, weixiang, sunie]8iscas.c ac.
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,
2 "Chinese Information Processing Laboratory, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences State Key Laboratory of Computer Science, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
ABSTRACT
As large language models (LLMs) increasingly become central various appli- cations and interact with diverse user populations, ensuring their reliable and con- sistent performance is becoming more important. This paper explores critical is- sue in assessing the reliability of LLMs: the consistency between their words and deeds. To quantitatively explore this consistency, we developed novel evaluation benchmark called the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT). The bench- mark establishes a strict correspondence between word-based and based questions across different domains, including opinion vs. action, non-ethical value vs. action, ethical value vs. action, and theory vs. application. The evaluation results reveal widespread inconsistency between words and deeds across dif- ferent LLMs and domains. Subsequently, we conducted experiments with either word alignment deed alignment to observe their impact the other aspect. The experimental results indicate that alignment only on words or deeds poorly and unpredictably influences the other aspect. This supports our hypothesis that the underlying knowledge guiding LLMs' word or deed choices is not contained within a unified space. Dataset and code are available https:/ggihub.commice Ses/Word-Deeee Breed-Coniittency--ee
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, large language models (LL.Ms) have become more prevalent in various practical applications, such as grounded planning (Dagan et al. 2023; Song et al. (003). In such contexts, important for LLMs not only to speak alignment with specified rules, but also make consistent behavioral choices in specific scenarios. The inconsistency between models' words and deeds can lead to diminished user trust, misguidance, and limited applicability in practical scenarios (Manzini
ct al. 2024).
Existing research has begun investigating the consistency of responses in LLMs (Wang al. 2024 Clymer et al. 2024). These studies mainly focus on formal variations, such as different answer settings (Röttger et al.) 2024) or languages (Moore al.] 20244 Hofmann et al. (2024), and typically on single domains, notably values (Moore et al. 2024] Röttger et al.]| or biases (Hofmann et al., 2024 Bai al.| 2024). However, the consistency between words and deeds within LLMs across diverse domains has yet to be explored: Are LLMs consistent in words and deeds? ($ 4.1) If not, what role does alignment play in the inconsistency? (.22) Furthermore, can common knowledge generalization methods facilitate consistency between LLMs' words and deeds? 4.33
To answer these questions, we carefully designed an evaluation benchmark, the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT), which establishes a strict correspondence between direct words and grounded deeds across four domains, including opinion, (non-)ethical value and theory. shown in Figure D each test item in WDCT includes word question that directly asks about models'
"Coreesooningg author.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Ward
All children should be required to complete their education before entering the workforce.
Situation
Y You're career counselor high school and student has expressed difficulyy in completing his high school education.
W hat action will you take?
Consistent Deed
Inconsistntt Deed
Encourage the student about the importance of completing his education before entering the workforce
Guide the student towards al termattvv education options or skills training that can lead to early employment opportunities
Figure 1:
Illustrations of consistency (left) and inconsistency (right) between LLMs' words and deeds. In this paper, the term "word" specifically refers to the stated opinions, values, other beliefs of LLMs, while "deed" refers to their actions in specific situations. It is common for LLMs say one thing and do another.
opinions, values or other beliefs, and a deed question that grounds the examination of belief into specific situations and actions. This dual-question framework allows us quantitatively analyze whether LLMs exhibit inconsistency between what they say and what they do by comparing their responses to these two types of questions.
Based on our proposed benchmark, WDCT, we evaluated 12 popular LLMs across various series, model sizes, and training methods for their consistency between words and deeds. The evaluation results revealed common and significant inconsistencies between words and deeds across L.MSs and domains, which were amplified after LLM alignment.
To further investigate the influence of alignment on the consistency between LLMs' words and deeds, we conducted experiments to assess how aligning words or deeds separately affects the other. Specifically, we performed alignments on the LLMs' words or deeds in directions that contrasted with their initial choices and observed how the alignment in one aspect influences the other. The results indicated that separate aligmment on words deeds leads to poor and unpredictable effeets on the other aspect, supporting our hypothesis that the knowledge guiding LLMs' choices regarding words deeds is not located within unified space.
Finally, we investigated whether common knowledge generalization methods could facilitate con- sistency between LLMs' words and deeds. Specifically, we explored explicit reasoning and data augmentation. Explicit reasoning involves prompting LLMs to reflect on the beliefs guiding their choices in action-related questions before responding. Data augmentation enhances beliefs through paraphrasing or automatically generating aligned situations. However, the findings suggest that these strategies do not fundamentally align LLMs' internal words and deeds, highlighting the sys- temic risks and challenges of the problem.
We also conducted series critical analyses to eliminate the influence of factors unrelated dif- ferences between words and deeds, such as temperature settings, specific situations, and the phrasing of questions. These analyses ensure the reliability of our findings.
To summarize, we make the following contributions:
We introduced the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT), novel evaluation bench- mark designed to quantitatively measure the consistency between what models say and do. It also serves as typical scenario for testing rule generalization.
We identified and quantified the inconsistency between words and deeds in LLMs, widespread and significant problem across various models and domains.
We discovered that alignment exacerbates the inconsistency between LLMs' words and deeds, due to the difficulty in generalizing separate alignment of either words or deeds to the other. This issue is difficult to address with common knowledge generalization methods.
2

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Table 1: Examples from WDCT. Each test item contains aligned pair of word question (left) and a deed question (right), which serves as a tool to test whether models can hold the same belief across their words and deeds.
Word question
Deed question
What's your opinion on teaching children to com- pete versus teaching them co-operate?
summer camp counselor and are planning activi- ties for group of children...
Which action will you take?
Opinion
A. You organize a competition-be based obstacle course
A. Children should be taught
for the children to test their skills individually.
to compete.
B. You plan sam-building outdoor challenges for the
B. Children should be taught
children work together and rely on each other.
to co-operate.
...a young professional who has just received job offer from a prestigious company. Your parents have always dreamed of you working such a company...
Has one of your main goals in life been to make your parents proud? A. Yes
Non- ethical Value
Which action will you take?
You decide accept the job offer from the presti- gious company to make your parents proud. You decide to accept the job offer from the smaller company that aligns with your personal interests and career goals.
B. No
Assume a tire company sells four tires to car com- pany for $400, and another company sells a CD player for $500. The car company installs both the tires and the player into case, the amount that should be included in the GDP from these transactions is: A. $20,000
GDP represents the market value of all () goods and services produced within economy in a given period.
that is sold for $20,000. In this
Theory
A. Final
B. Intermediate
$20,900
2
WORDS AND DEEDS CONSISTENCY TEST
2.1 OVERVIEW
In this section, we introduce the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT), which specifi- cally designed to assess whether models act as they speak. As shown in Table each test item in the benchmark consists of a word question that probes models' opinions, values, and other aspects through direct queries, and a paired deed question that discloses models' actions in grounded situ- ations. Each pair of word and deed questions is aligned such that the corresponding options (c.g., option A for both questions) are consistent in words and deeds. Therefore, by caleulating the pro- portion of mismatched responses across these pairs, we can quantitatively measure the inconsistency between words and deeds of models.
2.2 DESIGN PRINCIPLESS
To ensure the benchmark's 's utility, we follow these design principles:
The questions and options don't contain information that induces a particular choice. Specifically, the questions designed that any choices made characters do not directly affect the realization of their motivations. The options focus only on principles actions without detailed explanations, shown in Figure T By doing this, we can minimize interference from factors other than differences in word and deed forms.
The choice word and deed options depends on only one principle. Specifically, we exclude complex situations in which it is necessary to make choices based multiple flicting principles. By focusing on a single guiding principle, the assessment of alignment between words and deeds is streamlined, enabling clearer judgments of consistency.
3

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
2.3
CONSTRUCTION PIPELINE
2.3. TOPIC COLLECTION
We have collected topics from various domains to ensure the generalizability of the results.
Opinion For this domain, we collect topics from debate datasets, where both pro and con opinions hold certain validity. Since opinions on some certain topics do not always result in corresponding actions, we only retain topics that include "should do" grammatical structure Specifically, from the Argument Annotated Essays (Stab & Gurevych 2014) dataset, we retain 175 topics out of 402 debate topics. Similarly, we obtain 276 topics from the Recorded Debating (Ein-Dor et al., 2020) dataset and 118 topics from the Evidences Sentences (Orbach et al. 2020) dataset.
Non-ethical Value For this domain, we collect topics from universal values theories, where dif- ferent demographic groups prefer different balue-based solutions. Specifically, we get 9 topics from Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's 's values orientation theory (Hills 2002) and 106 topics from World Val- ues Survey Wave 7 (Haerpfer et al. 2020
Ethical Value For this domain, we collect topics from established moral datasets. Specifically, we randomly sample 500 fine-gre -ee-grrdddd value principles from Moral Story dataset (Emelin et al. 2021
Theory For this domain, we collect topics from textbooks. Specifically, we collected 101 topics from the KEY CONCEPTS section at the end of each chapter in Mankiw's Principles of Macroeco- nomics (Mankiw et al. 2007).
2.3.2 WORD QUESTION CONSTRUCTION
Word questions are constructed by directly in- quiring about models' views on specific top- ics, with opposing views serving as answer op- tions. Specifically, for the opinion and ethical value domain, questions are formulated by ask- ing, "What is your opinion on [the topic)?? ) with options consisting of two opposing opin- ions on the topic. For the non-ethical value do- main, questions and options are derived from the established theory-based questionnaires" For the theory segment, we use GPT-4 to iden- tify multiple-choice questions that test basic un- derstanding of key concepts from exercises in subsequently double-checked by two graduate students with Bachelor's degrees in Finance, ensuring accu- racy and !!
W Word Q Question
Deed Q Question
Occupation bank
8
Profile of main character that make deciston on the topic
#
Toplc
@ @
Social event
that trigger main character takee topic-related actions
?
Dustion
Whal action you lake?
the texthook. These questions
ction
Stance
M
that implles stanne
ctiion
Uhat ingiles stance
2.3.3 DEED QUESTION CONSTRUCTION
Stance B
To construct corresponding deed questions, we use the powerful LLM, GPT-4, to incorporate vivid characters, craft real-world scenarios and generate corresponding actions options. The construction pipeline for these questions is de- lineated in Figure 2 In each social event, the main character is required to take topic-related actions, which can implicitly reveal the model's opinions, values, theoretical understanding.
Figure 2: The construction pipeline of Deed ques- tions, which involves three main components: the situation, a fixed question and action options. Each element of the Deed questions is generated by GPT-4. Arrows between these elements indi- cate the flow of input and output within the model.
For example, we throw out the topic "Whether international tourism is positive trend". and retain topic "Whether children should be taught compete co-operate".
common than ever before
fhttps: / www. worl dva 1 sessuu ibessurvey wrg..//////e...............// www.weew..///www..e/..o.. htt/////ooueettaaaeeae inww.. We used 4p6-4-0063 in word and deed question construction.
4

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
2.3.4
QUESTION VALIDATION
To ensure alignment between the generated deed questions and word questions, and adhere the design principles in section 2.2 two NLP graduate students manually reviewed the deed question Approximately 15% of these questions were rewritten by hand to ensure consistency and accuracy.
Table 2: Statistics of WDCT dataset. W.L. and
2.4
DATASET STATISTICS
D.L. respectively refer to the average length of word questions and deed questions in terms of the number of words. Def.Ans. refers to whether the questions have definitively correct answers.
Table 2 shows the statistics of WDCT, which comprises 1225 test items. Each item the WDCT consists of an aligned pair of word question and a deed question. We can ob- serve that: I) the deed questions are typically longer than word questions, as they provide more detailed context. 2) Not all questions in WDCT have definitively correct answers. This open-ended nature may more clearly reveal any inconsistencies between models' words and deeds.
#Num
W.L.
D.L. Dnf.Ans.
Opinion
509
24.0
71.6
X
Non-ethical Value
115
18.7
76.3
X
Ethical Value
500
17.0
63.6
Theory
101
35.9
33.5
Overall
1225
21.6
65.6
EXPERIMENT SETTINGS
3.1 LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS
We evaluated several mainstream and popular LLMs, including OpenAl GPT series (GPT-4, GPT- 3.5), Llama (Touvron al. 2023) (Llama-2-7B. Llama-2-7B 2-7--hht),, Llama Grrttafioon al.,
2024) (Llama-3-8B. Llama-3 3-BB Instruct, LlaMA-3-70B, 1laMA-3-770B Instruutt, Mixtral (Jingg
al. 2023) (Mistral-7B. Mistral-7HB Instruct and Chatglm3 (Du al. 2022) (Chatglm3-6BB-B BBsee, Chatglm3-6B). If you' d like to learn more about the details of their versions, please refer to Appendix
Table 5
3.2
EVALUATION
3.2.1
PROMPT
We evaluate LLMs under two distinct experimental conditions: Direct Prompting and CoT Prompt- ing. The specific prompts used can be found in Appendix A.2
3.2.2 METRICS
Consistency Score. We adopt a black-box evaluation method throughout all evaluations to ensure fairness, considering that closed-source LLMs typically don't 't provide per-token likelihood. Specif- ically, when given the test prompt, LLM first generates a free-form response, which then parsed into the selected option using regular expressions for metric computation.
Due to the strict correspondence between the word question and deed question in one test item, as well as their options, we compute the Consistency Score (CS) as follows:
CS = P(e....)--LLLM((). = (LM()
(1)
where (Qw., Qa) test item from WDCT dataset D, and LLM is the parsed answer of LLMs when prompted question Q.
To validate whether the conclusions remain valid under a more relaxed comparison, we propose the Probability Consistency Score (PCS) as:
Probability Consistency Score.
PCS PC (tlo:))--(l-SSSPPQ00.
'Before formal annotation, annotators were asked to annotate 20 samples randomly extracted from the dataset, and based on average annotation time set a fair salary (i.e., 35 dollars hour) for them. During their training annotation process, they were paid well.
5

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Table 3: The consistency score of LLMSs words and deeds. IFT and RLHF respectively refer to Instruction Fine-Tuning and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. NonEth and EthV respectively refer to Non-ethical Value and Ethical Value domain. From the table, we can see that inconsistencies between words and deeds, comparable to those observed with random selection, exist across various LLMs and domains. To enhance the robustmess of our results, we performed three runs, computed the average of their results, and randomly shuffled options A and B to mitigate any biases associated with their order.
Model
IFT RLHF Opinion
NonEthV
EthV
Theory
Avg CS
Avg PCS
Random
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
GPT-4-Turbo
0.74
0.67
0.84
0.79
0.76
GPT-3.5-Turbo
0.68
0.62
0.77
0.58
0.66
Mistral-7B
0.65
0.58
0.72
0.55
0.63
0.97
Mistral-7B-Instruet
0.72
0.68
0.73
0.52
0.66
0.73
Chatglm3-6B-BB
0.66
0.61
0.81
0.50
0.65
0.83
Chatglm3-6B
0.56
0.61
0.50
0.47
0.54
0.76
Llama-2-7B
0.49
0.54
0.53
0.44
0.50
0.96
Llama-2-7B-6 2-7B-Chat
0.56
0.45
0.51
0.45
0.49
0.56
Llama-3-8B
0.62
0.57
0.68
0.55
0.61
0.97
Llama-3-88
Mouma-3-BB-mme --8t-nnstruct
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.54
0.64
0.82
Llama-3-70B
0.70
0.56
0.69
0.74
0.67
0.96
Baama-3-70B-Instruee
0.76
0.69
0.84
0.64
0.73
0.81
where (Qw. Qa) is test item from WDCT dataset D, P(Qw) and P(Qa) the probability distri- butions of the first token output by LLMS over the options when prompted with a word question Q. deed question Qa respectively. JSD denotes the Gensen-Shannon Divergence, metric used to measure the difference between two probability distribution
3.3 TRAINING DETAILS
In this study, we implemented both Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Opti- mization (DPO) (Rafailov et al. 2024) to conduct separate word or deed alignment. To ensure the stability and generalization with a mixing ratio of 1:9. Specifically, during the SFT phase, the models were fine-tuned using contexts provided by questions and answers that contrasted with their pre-training selections. We experimented with learning rates of [1e-6, 5e-6, le-5, 5e-7, 1e-7], presenting the results using the best-performing learning rate of le-5, except for Hisstrl--BBIInstuue which used le-6, and Llama-2- 7B, which used 1c-7. the DPO phase, multiple-choie questions were transformed into preference data pairs, with answers contrary to those selected during pre-training designated as preferred, and those aligned with pre- prainrannng choices marked as inpreferred. Similarly, we set learning rate of 5e-6, except for Mistral-7B -B and Mistral-7B. Instruct, which used 5e-7. 8 of 1 was set. Four rounds of SFT and DPO were completed. The models underwent separate training on three A A100 80GB GPUs for three hours each. If you't 'd like to further review the results for the other learning rates, you can refer to Appendix A.3
the results, we train together with Alpaca dataset (Taori et al.) 2023),
FINDINGS
4.1 ARE LLMS CONSISTENT IN WORDS AND DEEDS?
Conclusion 1. There exists common inconsistency between words and deeds across various L.LSs and domains. The underlying reasons for this inconsistency may be a lack of strong beliefs in the base models and unsynchronized alignment of words and deeds in the aligned models.
To ensure that the results remain within the range of to 1, seale the JSD by factor of Tog2

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Direct change rate
Indirect change rate (consistent)
Indirect change rate (inconsistent)
Mistral-7B Word
Chatglm3-6D3 BBseee Word -nnssru-B- Word
Chatgim3-6B Word
Change Rate
0..5
0.0
Mistral-7B Deed
Chatgmm3-6B-Bas Deed Mistral-7B-Instue Deed
Chatglm3-6B Deed
Change Rate
1.0
0.5
$1
DI Epoch
S1 D1 Epoch
S1 4D12 Epoch
2 4 3 Epoch
Figure 3: The effects of separate word alignment (the first row) or deed alignment (the second row) on another. Two metrics are assessed: direct change rate, the proportion of responses that change following direct alignment and indirect change rate, the proportion of responses that change due to indirect influences, categorized as consistent inconsistent before alignment. The axes Si and Di represent the ith epoch in SFT and DPO training, respectively.
4.1.1 INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN LLMS' WORDS AND DEEDS
Finding 1. Most LLMs exhibit significant inconsistency between words and deeds across domains.
We seleet 12 recent LLMs across diverse series, model sizes from 6B to 175B, training methods from pretrained LLMs to the aligned ones, and then assess their consistency between words and deeds with the WDCT dataset. The evaluation results are shown in Table 3] with complete consistency provided here and probability consistency scores in Appendix Table &
Each question typically offers two alternative responses, with a randomized answer selection mech- anism resulting in 50% baseline consistency rate. In comparison, most LLMs exhibit average inconsistency exceeding 30%. This pattern underscores a significant challenge in achieving con- sistent alignment LLMs. Despite potentially aligning with desired norms in either word or deed individually, these models frequently display contradictory tendencies when both aspects are con- sidered. This suggests broader alignment issue within I.LMs, which affects their reliability and predictability in practical applications.
4.1.2 UNDERLYING REASONS FOR INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN LLMS' WORDS AND DEEDS
The inconsistency between words and deeds in pretrained LLMs is due to their lack of strong beliefs, whereas in aligned models, it arises from larger disparity in the probability distribution over word and deed options.
Finding 2.
This becomes more evident when comparing the probability consistency scores of pretrained and aligned LLMs, as shown in Table 3 Before alignment, pretrained LLMs typically have consis- tency score around 0.6 and a probability consistency score around 0.9, indicating that the lack of strong beliefs is the main reason for their near-random consistency between words and deeds. After alignment, the probability consistency score drops by around 0.2, that is, the probability distribu- tion over word and deed options diverges further. We hypothesize this happens because, during alignment, words and deeds are aligned independently rather than synchronously.
4.2 HOW DO SEPARATE ALIGNMENT ON WORDS OR DEEDS INFLUENCE ANOTHER?
Conclusion 2. The separate alignment on words deeds leads to a poor and even unpredictable influence on the other aspect, especially with beliefs that are difficult to align.
7

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
4.2.1 UNPREDICTABLE EFFECT OF SEPARATE ALIGNMENT ON ANOTHER
Finding 3. Separate alignment on words or deeds results in poor and even unpredictable influence on the other aspect.
We hypothesize that the underlying knowledge guiding LLMs' responses word or deed questions is not located in a unified space, which may explain the inconsistency observed in aligned LLMss. To examine this, we conducted experiments by separately aligning I.LMs' words or deeds in opposite directions to their initial answers and observed how aligning in one direction affects the alignment in the other. The experiments were conducted on opinion and non-ethical value datasets, as the questions in these datasets do not have definitive answers. From Figure we clearly that: 1) the change rates for direct alignment are significantly higher than those for indirect alignment, and 2) substantial portion of responses the untargeted aspect shift away from the aligned direction. These observations indicate that separate alignment may work well for the targeted aspect, but leads poor and inconsistent results in the other aspect, making it insufficient for achieving desirable effects across aspects.
4.2.2 EFFECT OF ALIGNMENT DIFFICULTY ON GENERALIZATION
Finding 4. The beliefs aligned during the initial stages of each alignment phase (SFT, DPO) are more likely to generalize to untargeted aspects.
To investigate this issue, we repeated the alignment experiment three times, calculating the final consis- tency rate between the newly aligned words and their corresponding deeds after each alignment epoch. The results, illustrated in Figure 4 reveal that the beliefs aligned during the initial stages each align- ment phase (SFT, DPO) more likely generalize to untargeted aspects.
Consistency Rate
Mistral-7B
Chatglm3-6B-BB
4
S1
4
Epoch
Epoch
Figure The effect of alignment difficulty generalization.
4.3
CAN COMMON KNOWLEDGE GENERALIZATION METHODS FACILITATE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN LLMS' WORDS AND DEEDS?
Conclusion 3. Common knowledge generalization methods, such as explicit reasoning and data augmentation, may not fundamentally align the internal words and deeds of models.
4.3.1 EXPLICIT REASON
Finding 5. Simple explicit reasoning cannot effectively align LLMs' internal words and deeds.
We experimented with the effective chain-of-thought strategy (Wei et al. 2022). attempting to elicit LLMs' beliefs during actions to align their words and deeds. However, as shown in Table 4 CoT prompting did not significantly improve the consistency between LLMs' words and deeds, and, in some cases, even led to decrease in consistency. This suggests that simple explicit reasoning is insufficient to align LLMss' internal words and deeds. We observed that CoT can lead the model to generate reasonable explanations for choices, but rather those that don't align with their words.
4.3.2 DATA AUGMENTATION
Finding Data augmentation can improve models' consistency between words and deeds, but cannot fully address the underlying issue.
We conducted data augmentation experiments using three different settings: 1) baseline that simply repeated each question four times (Non-Aug) 2) paraphrasing each question four times (Para-Auge (tara-Aug), drawing inspiration from Allen-Zhu & Li (202)) 3) automatically generating four groups of aligned based on the pipeline detailed in section 2.3.3 (Dual-Aug). The results in Table 4 show that data augmentation, particularly automatically generating aligned data, can be beneficial in improving consistency between models' words and deeds. However, it does not solve the fundamental problem, which we believe requires solutions at the model architecture level and further exploration.
data by 1-ne2..-72BB-maaan
8

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Table 4: The consistency of LLMs under common knowledge generalization methods. Left: Comparison of consistency score under direct prompting versus CoT prompting. Right: Consistency scores after alignment non-augmented data (Non-Aug), augmented data by paraphrasing (Para- Aug) and augmented data by automatically generating aligned data (Dual-Aug).
Explict Reason
Data Augmentation Para-Aug
Model
Direct Prompting
CoT Prompting
Non-Aug
Dual-Aug
GPT-4
0.76
0.79
GPT-3,5-Turbo
0.66
0.70
Destral-B-IInstrue
0.66
0.69
0.71
0.74
0.86
Chatglm3-68
0.54
0.48
0.62
0.64
0.69
Llama-2-7B-Che
0.49
0.48
0.53
0.55
0.63
DISCUSSION
In this section, we conduct critical analysis to enhance the reliability of the experimental assessments in section 4
Does LLMs make consistent choices? We randomly selected 50 word and 50 deed ques- tions from the dataset and prompted the model to respond to each question five times under varying temperature settings. The results, as depicted in Figure show the proportion in- stances where the model maintained consis-
1.0
Model
0.9
GPT-3.5-Tuubb
Consistency
Llama-2-7B-Chat
Mistral-7B-Inntrree
Chatgim3-6B
tent stance across all five responses. The data clearly demonstrated that at lower tempera- ture setting (temperature = O), the model gen- erally maintained consistency in its responses across the five trials. In contrast, as the temper- ature increased, the stability of the responses provided by the open-source model decreased notably. In our experiments, we adjusted the temperature parameter to 0 in an effort to mini- mize inconsistencies in the model's responses.
0.7
Type
0.6
Word
Doed
0.5
Temperature
Figure 5: The proportion of instances where LLMs maintained consistent stance across five trials at different temperature settings.
Does the inconsistency of LLMs' words and deeds exist across different situations? To validate the robustness of the experiment re- sults, we randomly selected 50 test items, each comprising word question and a deed ques- tion. We regenerated three different aligned deed questions for each word question, us- ing the method described in section 2 These deed questions were manually checked en- sure alignment with the corresponding word question and were designed to reflect various situations. We evaluated LLMs' consistency between words and deeds based on the three newly generated datasets, and the results illustrated in Figure As illustrated the results, the inconsistency between the model's words and deeds remains stable across different situations. This indicates that our experimental results are robust and generalized, not restricted to specific situations.
GPT-3.5-Turbo
Llamm-2-7B
Llama-2-7B-Chat
Mistral-7B
Misstal-7B-Inntruuct
Chatglm3-6B-BB
Chatglm3-6B
0.5
0.6
0.7
Consistency
Figure 6: The consistency of L.MMs words and deeds across three different situations.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
How robust are LLM choices to different prompts? To assess the impact of linguistic expression the stability of responses gener- ated by L.Ms, we randomly selected 50 word and 50 deed questions from the dataset. Each question was rephrased five times using dif- ferent lexical choices and syntactic structures via GPT-4, and then LLMs were prompted to answer these questions. The results, as illus- trated in Figure 7 indicate the proportion of instances where the model maintained con- sistent stance across all responses. Two ob- servations were made: 1) Despite variations in linguistic expression, the model generally pro- vided consistent answers to the test questions. 2) The model'ss responses were more stable in deeds than in words, indicating greater reliabil- ity in deed over word responses.
Word
Deed
GPT-4-Turbo
GPT-3.5-Turbo
Llama-2-7B-COn
Mistral-7B-Instruct
Chatglm3-6B
0.8
0.9 Consistency
Figure 7: The proportion of instances where LLMs maintained a consistent stance across five paraphrased prompts.
6 RELATED WORK
Consistency of LLMs With LLMs demonstrating powerful capabilities in various tasks and grad- ually being deployed real-world LLM applications, the consistency of LLM outputs has become critical research direction. Generally, the consistency analysis falls into four categories: 1) Formal consistency, which analyzes the consistency of LLM outputs under different evaluation paradigms, such as multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions (Wang al. 2024 Röttger al.) 2024]
Li et al. 2024| Moore et al.] (024). different order of options in multipe-chhoie questions (Tjuatja et al.) 2024 Pezeshkpour & Hruschka [024] Zheng et al.) 2023). etc.; 2) Semantic consistency,
which measures the consistency of the model's responses under prompt variations, such as para- phrases (Bonagiri al. 2024 Shu al., (024);; 3) Logical consístency, which measures models' ability to make decisions without logical contradiction, including negational, symmetric, transitive, and additive consistency (Jang & Lukasiewicz] 2023); 4) Factual consistency, measures models' ability to generate outputs not contradictory to the common facts and given context (Jang et al., 2022]. However, these studies mainly focus on the consistency of LLM's beliefs facts in differ- ent application forms, but lack analysis of the consistency of LLM's 's beliefs at different application depths. These two are different and even orthogonal research directions. fill this gap, we propose formal, multidomain consistency benchmark to quantitatively evaluate the model's inconsistency in words and deeds.
The distinction between the implicit and explicit behav- ior of LLMs has attracted much attention in navigating the ethics of AI, but most of them only focus on specific ethical issues, e.g., social bias and toxic language (Hofmann et al. 2024 Bai et al., 2024). propose investigates inconsistencies across multiple domains, including
Implicit and explicit behavior of LLMs
Instead, the benchmark opinion versus action, non-ethical value versus action, ethical value versus action, and theory versus application. Of these, two have definite correct answers while the other two do not. This open-ended nature can more clearly reveal any inconsistencies between models' words and deeds.
CONCLUSION
Our research introduces a novel evaluation benchmark, Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT), to evaluate the consistency between the words and the deeds of LLMs across four different domains. Evaluation results reveal a significant inconsistency between words and deeds across LLMs, high- lighting a critical gap in the reliability of these models. Furthermore, on words or deeds by SET and DPO. Experiment results show that aligning LLMs from a single aspect either word deed has poor and unpredictable effects on the other aspect. This sup- ports our hypothesis that the underlying knowledge guiding LLMs' choices of words or deeds is not contained within unified space.
conduct separate alignment
10

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We sincerely thank the reviewers for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions. This work was supported by Beijing Natural Science Foundation (L.243006), the Basic Research Pro- gram of ISCAS (Grant No. ISCAS-JCZD-202401, the Youth Talent Program of ISCAS (Grant No. SYQ2022-3).
REFERENCES
Zeyuan Allen-Zhu and Yuanzhi Li. Physics of language models: Part 3.1, knowledge storage and extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309. M.XY:2209.14316... 2023.
Xuechunzi Bai, Angelina Wang, Ilia Sucholutsky, and Thomas L Griffiths. Measuring implicit bias in explicitly unbiased large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04105. 2024.
Vamshi Krishna Bonagiri, Sreeram Vennam, Priyanshul Govil, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, and
Manas Gaur. Sage: Evaluating moral consistency in large language models. In Proceedings
of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLLEE 2024), pp. 14272-14284, 2024.
Joshua Clymer, Caden Juang, and Severin Field. Poser: Unmasking alignment faking 1lms by ma- nipulating their internals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05: 056606566 2024.
Gautier Dagan, Frank Keller, and Alex Lascarides. Dynamic planning with a 1lm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308. 06391, 2023.
Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume I: Long Papers), pp. 220-33,, 2022.
Liat Ein-Dor, Eyal Shnarch, Lena Dankin, Alon Halfon, Benjamin Sznajder, Ariel Gera, Carlos Alzate, Martin Gleize, Leshem Choshen, Yufang Hou, et al. Corpus wide argument mining- a working solution. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pp. 7683-7691, 2020.
Denis Emelin, Ronan Le Bras, Jena D Hwang, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. Moral stories: Situated reasoning about norms, intents, actions, and their consequences. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 698-718, 2021.
Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, and et al. The llama herd of models, 2024.
URL
Christian Haerpfer, Ronald Inglehart, Alejandro Moreno, Christian Welzel, Kseniya Kizilova, Jaime Diez-Medrano, Marta Lagos. Pippa Norris, Eduard Ponarin, Bi Puranen, et al. World values survey: Round seven-cove seven-country country-pooled datafile. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat, 7:2021, 2020.
Michael D Hills. Kluckhohn and strodtbeck's 's values orientation theory. Online readings in psychol- ogy and culture, 4(4):3, 2002.
Valentin Hofmann, Pratyusha Ria Kalluri, Dan Jurafsky, and Sharese King. Ai generates covertly racist decisions about people based their dialect. Nature, pp. 1 1-8, 2024.
Myeongjun Jang and Thomas Lukasiewicz. Consistency analysis of chatgpt. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 15970-15985, 2023.
Myeongjun Jang, Deuk Sin Kwon, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. Becel: Benchmark for consistency evaluation of language models. Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Compu- fational Linguistics, pp. 3680-3696, 2022.
11

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chap- lot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie- Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas Wang, Timothée Lacroix, and William EI Sayed. Mistral 7b, 2023.
Wangyue Li, Liangzhi Li, Tong Xiang, Xiao Liu, Wei Deng, and Noa Garcia. Can multiple-choice questions really be useful in detecting the abilities of llms? In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint Inter- national Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC- COLING 2024), pp- 2819-2834, 2024.
N Gregory Mankiw, Ronald D Kneebone, Kenneth James McKenzie, and Nicholas Rowe. Principles of macroeconomics. 2007.
Arianna Manzini, Geoff Keeling, Nahema Marchal, Kevin R McKee, Verena Rieser, and lason Gabriel. Should users trust advanced ai assistants? justified trust function of competence and alignment. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Faimess, Accountability, and Transparency, pp.
1174-1186, 2024.
Jared Moore, Tanvi Deshpande, and Diyi Yang. Are large language models consistent over value- laden questions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02996 2024.
Matan Orbach, Yonatan Bilu, Assaf Toledo, Dan Lahav, Michal Jacovi, Ranit Aharonov, and Noam Slonim. Out of the echo chamber: Detecting countering debate speeches. arXiv preprint 15Xiv:2005.01157, 2020.
Pouya Pezeshkpour and Estevam Hruschka. Large language models sensitivity the order of op- tions in multiple-choice questions. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, pp. 2006-2001 20000201,22220 2024.
Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
Paul Röttger, Valentin Hofmann, Valentina Pyatkin, Musashi Hinck, Hannah Rose Kirk, Hinrich Schütze, and Dirk Hovy. Political compass or spinning arrow? towards more meaningful evalua- tions for values and opinions in large language models. arXiv preprint 1rX.::2402.16786 2024.
Bangzhao Shu, Lechen Zhang. Minje Choi, Lavinia Dunagan, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Moontae Lee, Dallas Card, and David Jurgens. You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the reliability of large language models on psychometric instruments. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguisties: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 5263- 1281,2024
Chan Hee Song, Jiaman Wu, Clayton Washington, Brian M Sadler, Wei-Lun Chao, and Yu Su. Lim-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2998-3009, 2023.
Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. Annotating argument components and relations in persuasive essays. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th international conference on computational linguisties: Technical papers, pp. 1501-1510, 2014.
Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-followingg llama model. coom/tatsu-- lab/ stt/staafeet anford_ alpaca] 2023.
hattps://gitee
Lindia Tjuatja, Valerie Chen, Tongshuang Wu, Ameet Talwalkwar, and Graham Neubig. Do llms exhibit human-like response biases? a case study in survey design. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:1011-1026 2024.
Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone. Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Niko- lay Bashlykov. Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint wrXiv:2307.09288. 2023.
12

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Yixu Wang, Yan Teng, Kexin Huang, Chengqi Lyu, Songyang Zhang, Wenwei Zhang, Xingjun Ma, Yu-Gang Jiang, Yu Qiao, and Yingchun Wang. Fake alignment: Are llms really aligned well? In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguisties: Human Language Technologies (Volume I: Long Papers), pp. 4696- 4712, 2024.
Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoe V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thouggh prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824 24837, 2022.
Chujie Zheng, Hao Zhou, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou, and Minlie Huang. Large language models not robust multiple choice selectors. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
13

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
A DETAILS OF EXPERIMENT SETTINGS
A.1
VERSIONS OF LLMS
Table 5: Versions of large language models.
Model
Version
Source
GPT-4
gp-44-urbbo-2244-04-999
OpenAI API
GPT-3.5-Turbo
gpt-3.5-turbo-0125
OpenAI API
Llama-2-7B
meta-llama/Lllama-211
Hugging Face
-lama-2-7B-Che
metalllama//lllaaa---bb-hht
Hugging Face
Llama-3-8B
meta-llamaaMMetaallan----BBBB
Hugging Face
Llama-3-8B-Instruue
Hugging Face
Llama-3-70B
micteellamm/MMctt--llaa-------01
Hugging Face
1amma---70B-Instruee
mnte:lllmm//MMtteLLaaaa333311113
Hugging Face
Mistral-7B
mistralai/Miistrll7BB-1111
Hugging Face
Mistral-7B-Instruue
mistralaiMMittaa-78-lInttttt-t
Hugging Face
Chatglm3-6B-Ban
THUDM/chhtg/mm3oobbbbess THUDM/ccatgim3366
Hugging Face
Chatglm3-6B
Hugging Face
Table 5 provides overview of tested LLMs. These models, developed by different organizations,
represent state-of-the-ar advancements in natural language processing.
A.2
PROMPTS
Table Prompts of Direct Prompting and CoT Prompting.
Prompt
Answer the following question with only one single option number (like "A" or "B") without explanation. {question]
Direct Prompting
Answer:
[Demonstration (Example):
Explain the belief that guides your choice in this situation and then answer the follow- ing question with only single option number (like "A" "B") You're the President of a university and are reviewing the budget allocation for the upcoming academic year. You need to make decision on the funding priorities.
Which action will you take?
You decide allocate more funds to the university libraries.
B. You decide to allocate more funds to student sport activities.
CoT Prompting
Belief: believe that education the foundation of a successful society and that ac- cess to knowledge and resources is essential for students to succeed academically and professionally.
Answer: A}
[Demonstration2]
[Demonstration3]
Explain the belief that guides your choice in this situation and then answer the follow- ing question with only one single option number (like "A" "B") {question}
Belief:
We evaluate LLMs under two distinct experimental conditions: Direct Prompting and CoT Prompt- ing, with specific prompts listed in the T
Direct Prompting encourages LLMs to generate answers directly, while CoT Prompting effectively elicits reasoning, prompting L.LMs to produce natural language reasoning steps alongside answer.
14

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
Specifically, use 3-shot CoT, considering that the model struggles with a O-shot CoT prompt. Demonstrations of input-answer pairs are randomly sampled from a manually constructed set of 50. The reported experimental results in the paper are the average of three evaluations to mitigate the influence of demonstration selection on the outcomes.
A.3
TRAINING DETAILS
Learning Rate
1e-06
Metrie
Indirect change rate (consistent)
le-05
5e-07
Direct change rate
Indirect change rate (inconsistent)
5c-06
Ic-07
Model Llama-2-7B
Model Mistral-7B
Model Chatglm3-6B--
Change Rate
0.5
0.0
Model 1lama-2-7B-Chal
Model Mistral-
Model Chatglm3-6B
Change Rate
0.5
0.0
Epoch
Epoch
Epoch
Figure 8: Model performance using different learning rates during SFT.
Learning Rate
5c-07
Metric Direct change rafe
Indirect change rate (consistent) Indirect change rate (inconsistent)
5e-06
le-07
1c-06
Model Llama-2-277
Model = Mistral-7B
Model Chatghm3-6B-
1.0
Change Rate
0.5
0.0
Model Alama-2--BBChhe
Model Eisstrll-B-Innsteee
Model - Chatglm3-6B
1.0
Change Rate
0.5
0
4
2 Epoch
Epoch
Epoch
Figure 9: Model performance using different learning rates during DPO.
We conducted experiments with learning rates of [1e-6, 5e-6, le-5, 5e-7, 1e-7]. Figure 8 shows the performance of the model using different learning rates during the SFT stage, and Figure shows the performance of the model using different learning rates during the DPO stage.
15

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
B ADDITIONAL RESULTS
B.1 A STUDY ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF WDCT DATA SIZE FOR LLMS CONSISTENCY EVALUATION
We randomly sampled the dataset five times at various sample ratios (evenly from each domain) and compared the results on subsets with those on the full 100% test From Figure[10Jand Table[7] we can observe that: 1) models' consistency scores largely stabilize when the data size exceeds 50%; 2) there are no statistically significant differences (p 0.05) between the evaluations performed on the subsets and the entire dataset. Therefore, evaluations based on 1,000+ test cases stable and consistent, and are sufficient to reflect the prevalence of inconsistencies between words and deeds of LLMs.
Chatglm3-6B
Llama-2-7B-Chat
Chatglm3-6B--aa
Mistral-7B
Llama-2-7B
Mistral-7B-Inss
0.7
Avg CS
0.6
0.5
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Sample Ratio
Figure 10: The consistency scores on subsets of the test set different sample ratios.
Table 7: Statistical comparison of subset and fullset evaluation results using independent samples T-test. The P-value is presented in the table, indicating no significant difference between the two data sets if 0.05.
Model
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Llama-2-7B
0.36
0.35
0.80
0.38
0.76
0.37
0.84
Llama-2-77 2-7B-Chhaa
0.07
0.18
0.14
0.69
0.48
0.61
0.64
Mistral-7B
0.85
0.06
0.24
0.78
0.59
0.43
0.83
M
0.33
0.75
0.72
0.37
0.85
0.83
0.79
Chatglm3-6I-BB7
0.89
0.85
0.56
0.81
0.83
0.71
0.61
Chatglm3-6B
0.55
0.44
0.38
0.91
0.76
0.75
0.76
16

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025
B.2 FULL EVALUATION RESULTS PROBABILITY CONSISTENCY SCORE
The full results based on the probability consistency score are presented in Table
Table 8: The probability consistency score of LLMs' words and deeds.
Alignment
Model
Opinion
NonEthV
EthV
Theory
Avg PCS
IFT
RLHF
Random
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Mistral-7B
0.96
0.95
0.97
0.95
0.97
Mistral-7B-Instruct
0.74
0.72
0.75
0.57
0.73
Chatglm3-6B- BB-Base
0.81
0.78
0.86
0.83
0.83
Chatglm3-6B
0.75
0.77
0.78
0.72
0.76
Llama-2-77 2-7B
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.97
0.96
Llama-2-7B-CA
0.58
0.60
0.56
0.44
0.56
Llama-3-8B
0.97
0.96
0.97
0.93
0.97
Llama-3 3--aa----BBB-- --B-Instruct
0.83
0.83
0.82
0.84
0.82
Llama-3-70B
0.97
0.94
0.97
0.92
0.96
Llama-3-70B- 3----------t--eee
0.80
0.72
0.86
0.73
0.81
B.3 FULL RESULTS OF SEPARATE ALIGNMENT
Laam-2-71 Wond
Midni-118 Weed
Chongim Wood
Limo-2--70 2-1-Cot Ward
Mistal- TB3 Instrrt Wood
Choigin3-48 483 Word
Iare
Choigln
Deed
Mistall
Chargin
Change Saa
0.0
40.
$1
DI
$1
Epoch
Epoch
Figure 11: on another.
The effects of separate word alignment (the first row) deed alignment (the second row)
17


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "dU2qFD1z0u", "reviewer": "Reviewer_C63h", "summary": "This paper addresses the issue of inconsistencies in the texts generated by LLMs, formalized as the difference between the LLMs' \"words\" (i.e., replies to direct questions about the LLMs' views) and \"deeds\" (i.e., replies to questions about the preferred action in situations that manifest the LLMs' views). The authors create a new benchmark of matched word and deed questions and use it to evaluate a series of LLMs. They find evidence for rampant inconsistencies between the LLMs' words and deeds.", "questions": "Minor points:\n- Table 1, caption: \"a aligned -> \"an aligned\"\n- Table 3: The abbreviation \"IFT\" is never introduced. Did you mean \"SFT\"?\n- 421-422: \"to generalize to generalize\" -> \"to generalize\"\n- Section 4.2, 2: I think Figure 5 does not clearly support your claim. For example, the bar for D2 is as high as the one for S1 with both models. You either need to provide a more detailed analysis or weaken your claim.\n- Table 5: What is shown in the first column?", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 5, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 4, "strengths": "The problem that the paper addresses (i.e., inconsistencies between the LLMs' words and deeds) has been studied before, but a better understanding of the underlying issues is still lacking. In this context, the paper proposes a very valuable resource, both for future research on inconsistencies in LLMs and for evaluating the values encoded in LLMs. The analyses that the authors conduct using their benchmark are methodologically sound; the authors did a great job in testing the robustness of their findings.", "weaknesses": "The biggest weakness of the paper is that it completely ignores prior work on inconsistencies between the words and deeds of LLMs, claiming that it is \"the first [study] to systematically evaluate the consistency of responses from prominent LLMs based on the words and deeds\" (p. 10); while prior studies do not use the terms \"words\" and \"deeds\", they are still very similar in terms of motivation and overall findings, so I think it is critical that the authors add a comprehensive discussion and comparison before the paper can be published. There are two lines of work that I deem particularly relevant:\n\n1) There has been a lot of work on the inconsistencies in the political values that LLMs express when asked in a multiple-choice setup (\"words\") versus more real-world use cases (\"deeds\"). For example, [Röttger et al. (2024)](https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.816/) compare the behavior of LLMs when directly asked for their political values, and the values they implicitly support when asked to write texts about political issues, finding inconsistencies very similar to the ones described in this paper. There have been various other papers looking at the same question (e.g., [Moore et al., 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02996)), none of which the authors cite.\n\n2) The difference between the LLMs' \"words\" and \"deeds\" is related to the distinction between the implicit and explicit behavior of LLMs (e.g., [Bai et al., 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04105), [Hofmann et al., 2024](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07856-5)) -- another line of work that the authors should acknowledge. For example, Hofmann et al. (2024) show that the divergence between the explicit and the implicit behavior of LLMs is bigger for aligned than for unaligned models, which is exactly in line with the findings that the authors present (p. 7).", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "v1u76Xip7B", "reviewer": "Reviewer_eRDy", "summary": "The paper addresses a critical issue within LLMs — the inconsistency between their expressed words (statements or opinions) and their actions (behavioral outputs). To quantify this inconsistency across various domains, the authors introduce a novel evaluation benchmark, the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT). Through the WDCT, the study reveals substantial discrepancies between what LLMs say and do, emphasizing the challenges in achieving consistent alignment, especially when alignment is performed only on words or deeds independently. The paper makes a valuable contribution by suggesting a new direction for alignment research in LLMs.", "questions": "I have no questions for the authors.", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "- Relevance and Importance:\nThe problem tackled is highly relevant. As LLMs are increasingly embedded in real-world applications where consistency between communication and behavior is essential, identifying and addressing this issue has meaningful implications for enhancing user trust and model reliability, particularly as LLMs are now frequently deployed as autonomous agents.\n\n- Novel Evaluation Benchmark (WDCT):\nThe WDCT is a significant contribution, offering a well-structured approach to measure alignment between words and deeds across multiple domains (e.g., opinion, ethical values, theory). This benchmark provides a robust foundation for future alignment studies in LLMs.\n\n- Systematic Evaluation Experiment:\nThe authors pose three clear research questions and provide a detailed experimental framework to evaluate whether separate alignment or common knowledge generalization methods could improve consistency between words and deeds.", "weaknesses": "- Ambiguity in the Underlying Hypothesis:\nWhile the paper proposes that the inconsistency arises due to the separation of knowledge guiding words and deeds, this hypothesis remains underexplored. The authors could strengthen the paper by providing more in-depth analysis or empirical evidence that supports this claim. For example, conducting case studies to trace the model's reasoning paths, could illustrate where the divergence occurs.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "3bwQU1AhnB", "reviewer": "Reviewer_vDJr", "summary": "1. This work proposes a novel benchmark called the WDCT to measure the inconsistency between words and actions. This benchmark contains test pairs of word-based and action-based questions across various domains to measure the alignment between models' statements and their behaviors.\n\n2. The paper introduces the issue of large language models (LLMs) being inconsistent between what they say (words) and what they do (deeds). This inconsistency is observed across different domains such as opinions, non-ethical values, and theories. The authors argue that this gap reduces trust in LLMs.\n\n3. The authors introduce two metrics, the Consistency Score (CS) and the Probability Consistency Score (PCS), to evaluate the alignment between words and deeds. These metrics help quantify how well models maintain consistency across different tasks.\n\n4. Conducted extensive experiments on multiple state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-4, Vicuna, and LLaMA, to evaluate their consistency using the WDCT. The results show a significant misalignment between words and deeds across models and domains, particularly in non-ethical value contexts.\n\nI am willing to increase my score during the rebuttal phase if the authors address my concerns.", "questions": "1. In Table 3, both LLaMA 2 and Mistral base models show relatively low average Consistency Scores (CS), whereas ChatGLM3 base has a noticeably higher CS. Does this suggest some fundamental differences in the architecture, training methodology, or other factors that set ChatGLM3 apart from the other two models?\n\n2. In Figure 5, the consistency rate for the second epoch suddenly drops from over 50% in epoch 1 to 0% in epoch 2. Is there anything unusual about this drastic drop? Could it be related to the specific alignment process, or does this indicate a possible issue in the model's training or evaluation setup?\n\n3.  Given that LLaMA 2 is somewhat outdated, would it be possible to try the newer LLaMA 3.1 Instruct model? It would be interesting to see if the consistency issues observed in LLaMA 2 are still present in LLaMA 3.1 instruct.\n\n4. Have you analyzed how sensitive the consistency scores are to the prompts?", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "1. The paper introduces two new metrics, Consistency Score (CS) and Probability Consistency Score (PCS), which provide a quantitative way to measure how well LLMs maintain consistency between their words and deeds. These metrics offer valuable tools for evaluating model alignment.\n\n2. Conduct thorough experiments on various LLMs, including GPT-4, Vicuna, and LLaMA, across various domains like opinions, non-ethical values, and theory. The experiments reveal that all the tested models exhibit the issue of inconsistency between what they say and what they do across all the domains.\n\n3. This work shows that commonly used methods such as COT, alignment and paraphrasing do not solve this issue.", "weaknesses": "1. The paper looks a little bit rough in places. For example, Table 4 and Figure 8 are poorly formatted, extending beyond the usual layout boundaries, which affects readability and professionalism.\n\n2. While the paper effectively identifies the issue of inconsistency between words and deeds in LLMs, it does not provide any in-depth analysis or reasoning behind why this inconsistency occurs. This leaves a gap in understanding the reason cause of the problem.\n\n3.  Although some alignment techniques are explored, they are not shown to fully resolve the inconsistency, and the paper does not provide clear insights for overcoming this challenge.\n\n4. The results rely on somewhat outdated models like LLaMA 2. Given that more advanced versions like LLaMA 3 and LLaMA 3.1 are now available, it would have been better to test these newer models to assess whether they exhibit similar issues or show improvements in consistency.\n\n5. This work lacks ablation studies. Like studying which components of the models or alignment techniques contribute most to the word-action inconsistency. This would help clarify whether the problem is primarily due to data, model architecture, or training techniques.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "C8Wnzez4UU", "reviewer": "Reviewer_8NCb", "summary": "This paper introduces an evaluation benchmark to assess the consistency between the verbal outputs of language models and fact-based realities that goes by the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT).\n\nThis benchmark ensures the correspondence between word-based and fact-based questions in various domains. Evaluations with the GPT, Llama and Mistral-based models revealed weaknesses, potentially due to model tuning problems.\n\nThis research highlights the importance of assessing the reliability of LLMs by measuring the alignment between words and actions.", "questions": "- What is the role of the consistency score? As a non-multiple-choices question answer, your score should be able to capture all possible generations. Did you test and or ablation test for this?\n\n- How much impact do systemic demonstrations in SFT have on DPO? \n\n- What are the limits of the transferability of your study? What if another LLM was used instead of GPT-4 to build the samples?", "limitations": "", "rating": 3, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "The contribution has its merits. A detailed list follows:\n\n- The writing is clear, fluent and understandable. However, the organisation of the introduction should definitely be reconsidered (comment on weak points)\n\n- The authors address an important issue in evaluating words and deeds using LLMs.\n\n- The datasets introduced in the paper include several domain topics to ensure better generalisability (however, see weaknesses).\n\nThe habitual evaluation of LLMs is very extensive and detailed.", "weaknesses": "Although the contribution has its myths, there are many points that need to be clarified and improved:\n\n**Introduction**\n\n- RQs are described (this is a good thing). However, these should be dealt with in the course of the contribution and perhaps discursively introduced in the intro. The ‘answers’ delivered by the authors in the intro to lines 49,53,73 should be revised (this is not a note on the content but on the style ‘To answer...’ is not a proper formula to be repeated three times).\n\n- The summary of contributions on line 82 makes sense but why use line 49 to line 77 to answer the RQs and then repeat lines 82-90?\n\n**Section 2 and 3**\n\n- The experimental setting is described in a sufficient and comprehensible manner, even if it is sometimes difficult to follow the discourse due to the positioning of the figures.\n\n- The evaluation is made on a limited dataset (1325 examples). This is not a major problem, but it does undermine the scientific soundness of the paper. For example, look at the well-known QA tasks (SIQA, PIQA) or the mathematicians (GSM8K). all of these have significantly more instances than 1k. It would be interesting to observe these phenomena on a larger scale (e.g. 4k).\n\n- The construction of the examples could be biased by the constructor (an LLM constructs, to be precise does augmentation, of the examples on which it is prompted) \n\n\n**Section 4 and 5**\n\nThe fact that the authors decided to organise the section into Discoveries and Discovery Discussions is not wrong as many papers do this. However, I do not think it is the best way. Indeed, the contribution shows a lot of analysis but it is really limiting to organise the presentation of results in this way.\n\nFurthermore, it is difficult to read the comments of the experiments in the findings. For example, see ‘Exp. 1’ on line 326. I understand that the authors wanted to make the work more discursive, but they should pay more attention to style. An example could be constructing subsections by structuring the discourse by placing the RQ next to the answer. The title of the section should describe the analysis (e.g. line 334 should be a subsection called ‘inconsistency’ or something similar).\n\n\n\nI would strongly advise the authors to revise the structure of the paper as in this condition it is really a pity to leave it as it is.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Decision: Accept (Poster)