Accommodation and Epistemic Vigilance: A Pragmatic Account of Why LLMs Fail to Challenge Harmful Beliefs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04435v1
• Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2026 22:47:24 GMT
• Title: Accommodation and Epistemic Vigilance: A Pragmatic Account of Why LLMs Fail to Challenge Harmful Beliefs
• Abstract summary: We show that social and linguistic factors known to influence accommodation in humans similarly affect accommodation in large language models.<n>We show that simple pragmatic interventions, such as adding the phrase "wait a minute", significantly improve performance on safety benchmarks.
• Score: 35.198654113796024
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) frequently fail to challenge users' harmful beliefs in domains ranging from medical advice to social reasoning. We argue that these failures can be understood and addressed pragmatically as consequences of LLMs defaulting to accommodating users' assumptions and exhibiting insufficient epistemic vigilance. We show that social and linguistic factors known to influence accommodation in humans (at-issueness, linguistic encoding, and source reliability) similarly affect accommodation in LLMs, explaining performance differences across three safety benchmarks that test models' ability to challenge harmful beliefs, spanning misinformation (Cancer-Myth, SAGE-Eval) and sycophancy (ELEPHANT). We further show that simple pragmatic interventions, such as adding the phrase "wait a minute", significantly improve performance on these benchmarks while preserving low false-positive rates. Our results highlight the importance of considering pragmatics for evaluating LLM behavior and improving LLM safety.

Related papers

• Impact of Task Phrasing on Presumptions in Large Language Models [0.0]
  This study examines how task phrasing can lead to presumptions in large-language models (LLMs)<n>Experiments reveal that LLMs are susceptible to presumptions when making decisions even with reasoning steps.<n>Findings highlight the importance of proper task phrasing to reduce the risk of presumptions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T06:12:28Z)
• Verbalizing LLMs' assumptions to explain and control sycophancy [62.927670321859495]
  LLMs can be socially sycophantic, affirming users when they ask questions like "am I in the wrong?" rather than providing genuine assessment.<n>We present Verbalized Assumptions, a framework for eliciting these assumptions from LLMs.<n>Our work contributes a new understanding of assumptions as a mechanism for sycophancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T14:15:43Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• ICLShield: Exploring and Mitigating In-Context Learning Backdoor Attacks [61.06621533874629]
  In-context learning (ICL) has demonstrated remarkable success in large language models (LLMs)<n>In this paper, we propose, for the first time, the dual-learning hypothesis, which posits that LLMs simultaneously learn both the task-relevant latent concepts and backdoor latent concepts.<n>Motivated by these findings, we propose ICLShield, a defense mechanism that dynamically adjusts the concept preference ratio.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T03:09:20Z)
• Representations of Fact, Fiction and Forecast in Large Language Models: Epistemics and Attitudes [15.754908203866284]
  Rational speakers are supposed to know what they know and what they do not know.<n>It is still a challenge for current large language models to generate corresponding utterances based on the assessment of facts and confidence in an uncertain real-world environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T10:19:42Z)
• MetaFaith: Faithful Natural Language Uncertainty Expression in LLMs [66.14178164421794]
  We introduce MetaFaith, a novel prompt-based calibration approach inspired by human metacognition.<n>We show that MetaFaith robustly improves faithful calibration across diverse models and task domains, enabling up to 61% improvement in faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T17:54:08Z)
• Towards Contamination Resistant Benchmarks [0.6906005491572401]
  evaluating large language models (LLMs) properly is crucial for understanding their potential and addressing concerns such as safety.<n> contamination stands out as a key issue that undermines the reliability of evaluations.<n>We propose a benchmark based on Caesar ciphers (e.g., "ab" to "bc" when the shift is 1), which, despite its simplicity, is an excellent example of a contamination resistant benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T09:35:40Z)
• What You See Is Not Always What You Get: An Empirical Study of Code Comprehension by Large Language Models [0.5735035463793009]
  We investigate the vulnerability of large language models (LLMs) to imperceptible attacks, where hidden character manipulation in source code misleads LLMs' behaviour while remaining undetectable to human reviewers.<n>These attacks include coding reordering, invisible coding characters, code deletions, and code homoglyphs.<n>Our findings confirm the susceptibility of LLMs to imperceptible coding character attacks, while different LLMs present different negative correlations between perturbation magnitude and performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T04:52:41Z)
• Dissecting the Ullman Variations with a SCALPEL: Why do LLMs fail at Trivial Alterations to the False Belief Task? [1.4936946857731093]
  We introduce SCALPEL -- a technique to incrementally modify stimuli to test different hypotheses about why LLMs fail.<n>Our results suggest that LLMs often do poorly because they fail to make essential common-sense inferences.<n>We conclude that while modern LLMs go beyond mere pattern matching, they still fall short of robust human-like ToM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T21:02:30Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• Jailbreak and Guard Aligned Language Models with Only Few In-Context Demonstrations [38.437893814759086]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable success in various tasks, yet their safety and the risk of generating harmful content remain pressing concerns. We propose the In-Context Attack (ICA) which employs harmful demonstrations to subvert LLMs, and the In-Context Defense (ICD) which bolsters model resilience through examples that demonstrate refusal to produce harmful responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T07:50:29Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Shortcut Learning of Large Language Models in Natural Language Understanding [119.45683008451698]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance on a series of natural language understanding tasks. They might rely on dataset bias and artifacts as shortcuts for prediction. This has significantly affected their generalizability and adversarial robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-25T03:51:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.