The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Evaluating the Goal-Directedness of Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
To what extent do LLMs use their capabilities towards their given goal? We take this as a measure of their goal-directedness. We evaluate goal-directedness on tasks that require information gathering, cognitive effort, and plan execution, where we use subtasks to infer each model's relevant capabilities. Our evaluations of LLMs from Google DeepMind, OpenAI, and Anthropic show that goal-directedness is relatively consistent across tasks, differs from task performance, and is only moderately sensitive to motivational prompts. Notably, most models are not fully goal-directed. We hope our goal-directedness evaluations will enable better monitoring of LLM progress, and enable more deliberate design choices of agentic properties in LLMs.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLM agents frequently optimize for actions with local consistency, resulting in a departure from objectives at the global level.
“Due to the inherent nature of planning by the agent, LLM agents frequently optimize for actions with local consistency, which results in a departure from objectives at the global level (Huang et al., 2024; Everitt et al., 2025).”
From From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms (2026) · cites this paper as Everitt et al., 2025
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms
Luo, J., Tian, Y., Cao, C., Luo, Z., Lin, H., Li, K., Kong, C., Yang, R., & Ma, J. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.2069 · Cited by 3
“Due to the inherent nature of planning by the agent, LLM agents frequently optimize for actions with local consistency, which results in a departure from objectives at the global level (Huang et al., 2024; Everitt et al., 2025).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Everitt, T., Garbacea, C., Bellot, A., Richens, J., Papadatos, H., Campos, S., & Shah, R.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2504.11844
- OpenAlex
- W4416054112
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- goal-directed behavior, large language models, information gathering, cognitive effort, plan execution, subtasks, agentic LLMs, task performance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
