Asael Sklar | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Motivation in Large Language Models

Motivation is a central driver of human behavior, shaping decisions, goals, and task performance. As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly aligned with human preferences, we ask whether they exhibit something akin to motivation. We examine whether LLMs "report" varying levels of motivation, how these reports relate to their behavior, and whether external factors can influence them. Our experiments reveal consistent and structured patterns that echo human psychology: self-reported motivation aligns with different behavioral signatures, varies across task types, and can be modulated by external manipulations. These findings demonstrate that motivation is a coherent organizing construct for LLM behavior, systematically linking reports, choices, effort, and performance, and revealing motivational dynamics that resemble those documented in human psychology. This perspective deepens our understanding of model behavior and its connection to human-inspired concepts.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Confident-Knowledge Diversity Drives Human-Human and Human-AI Free Discussion Synergy and Reveals Pure-AI Discussion Shortfalls

Conversations transform individual knowledge into collective insight, enabling collaborators to solve problems more accurately than they could alone. Whether dialogues among large language models (LLMs) can replicate the synergistic gains observed in human discussion remains unclear. We systematically compared four interaction settings: LLM-LLM pairs, LLM trios, human trios, and human-LLM pairs, using validated medical multiple-choice questions. Agents answered individually, engaged in open-ended discussion, then re-answered, allowing us to quantify conversational gains. Interactions that included humans consistently yielded synergy (post-discussion accuracy increased for both stronger and weaker participants), whereas purely LLM groups did not improve and often declined. To explain and prospectively predict when unstructured dialogue helps, we introduce an agent-agnostic confident-knowledge framework that models each participant by performance (accuracy) and confidence. This framework quantifies confident-knowledge diversity, the degree to which one agent tends to be correct when another is uncertain, and yields a conservative upper bound on gains achievable via confidence-informed decisions, which we term Potential Conversation Synergy. Across humans, LLMs, and mixed teams, this metric prospectively predicts observed conversational improvements: when confident-knowledge diversity is low (as in LLM-only groups), discussion doesn't improve performance; when it is present (as in human or human-LLM groups), free-form dialogue reliably lifts accuracy. These findings propose a new concept and method for AI collaboration: quantifying confident-knowledge diversity to prospectively predict conversational gains and guide team selection and interaction design in both multi-agent and human-AI settings.

cs.HC↗