Vulnerability of LLMs' Belief Systems? LLMs Belief Resistance Check Through Strategic Persuasive Conversation Interventions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13590v1
• Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 04:43:55 GMT
• Title: Vulnerability of LLMs' Belief Systems? LLMs Belief Resistance Check Through Strategic Persuasive Conversation Interventions
• Authors: Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An,
• Abstract summary: Small models exhibit extreme compliance, with over 80% of belief changes occurring at the first persuasive turn.<n> meta-cognition prompting increases vulnerability by accelerating belief erosion rather than enhancing robustness.<n>These findings highlight substantial model-dependent limits of current robustness interventions.
• Score: 8.026492468995187
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed in various question-answering tasks. However, recent studies showcase that LLMs are susceptible to persuasion and could adopt counterfactual beliefs. We present a systematic evaluation of LLM susceptibility to persuasion under the Source--Message--Channel--Receiver (SMCR) communication framework. Across five mainstream Large Language Models (LLMs) and three domains (factual knowledge, medical QA, and social bias), we analyze how different persuasive strategies influence belief stability over multiple interaction turns. We further examine whether meta-cognition prompting (i.e., eliciting self-reported confidence) affects resistance to persuasion. Results show that smaller models exhibit extreme compliance, with over 80% of belief changes occurring at the first persuasive turn (average end turn of 1.1--1.4). Contrary to expectations, meta-cognition prompting increases vulnerability by accelerating belief erosion rather than enhancing robustness. Finally, we evaluate adversarial fine-tuning as a defense. While GPT-4o-mini achieves near-complete robustness (98.6%) and Mistral~7B improves substantially (35.7% $\rightarrow$ 79.3%), Llama models remain highly susceptible (<14%) even when fine-tuned on their own failure cases. Together, these findings highlight substantial model-dependent limits of current robustness interventions and offer guidance for developing more trustworthy LLMs.

Related papers

• Are Reasoning LLMs Robust to Interventions on Their Chain-of-Thought? [79.86483056611105]
  Reasoning LLMs generate step-by-step chains of thought before giving an answer.<n>How robust are these reasoning traces to disruptions that occur within them?<n>We introduce a controlled evaluation framework that perturbs a model's own CoT at fixed timesteps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T10:02:58Z)
• The Facade of Truth: Uncovering and Mitigating LLM Susceptibility to Deceptive Evidence [49.94160400740222]
  We introduce MisBelief, a framework that generates misleading evidence via collaborative, multi-round interactions.<n>Using MisBelief, we generate 4,800 instances across three difficulty levels to evaluate 7 representative LLMs.<n>Results indicate that while models are robust to direct misinformation, they are highly sensitive to this refined evidence.<n>We propose Deceptive Intent Shielding (DIS), a governance mechanism that provides an early warning signal by inferring the deceptive intent behind evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T02:28:00Z)
• MMPersuade: A Dataset and Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Persuasion [73.99171322670772]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are increasingly deployed in domains such as shopping, health, and news.<n> MMPersuade provides a unified framework for systematically studying multimodal persuasion dynamics in LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-26T17:39:21Z)
• The Chameleon Nature of LLMs: Quantifying Multi-Turn Stance Instability in Search-Enabled Language Models [1.4323566945483497]
  We present the first systematic investigation of "chameleon behavior" in Large Language Models.<n>We expose fundamental flaws in state-of-the-art systems.<n>Our analysis uncovers the mechanism: strong correlations between source re-use rate and confidence are statistically significant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-19T04:51:14Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• Persuasion Dynamics in LLMs: Investigating Robustness and Adaptability in Knowledge and Safety with DuET-PD [46.5669887497759]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can struggle to balance gullibility to misinformation and resistance to valid corrections in persuasive dialogues.<n>We introduce DuET-PD, a framework evaluating multi-turn stance-change dynamics across dual dimensions.<n>We find that even a state-of-the-art model like GPT-4o achieves only 27.32% accuracy in MMLU-Pro under sustained misleading persuasions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-24T17:08:37Z)
• How Overconfidence in Initial Choices and Underconfidence Under Criticism Modulate Change of Mind in Large Language Models [28.62988505317048]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strikingly conflicting behaviors.<n>LLMs can appear steadfastly overconfident in their initial answers whilst being prone to excessive doubt when challenged.<n>We show that LLMs exhibit a pronounced choice-supportive bias that reinforces and boosts their estimate of confidence in their answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T18:57:43Z)
• 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)
• Persuade Me if You Can: A Framework for Evaluating Persuasion Effectiveness and Susceptibility Among Large Language Models [9.402740034754455]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate persuasive capabilities that rival human-level persuasion.<n>LLMs' susceptibility to persuasion raises concerns about alignment with ethical principles.<n>We introduce Persuade Me If You Can (PMIYC), an automated framework for evaluating persuasion through multi-agent interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T18:53:21Z)
• Benchmarking Gaslighting Negation Attacks Against Multimodal Large Language Models [45.63440666848143]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have exhibited remarkable advancements in integrating different modalities.<n>Despite their success, MLLMs remain vulnerable to conversational adversarial inputs.<n>We study gaslighting negation attacks: a phenomenon where models, despite initially providing correct answers, are persuaded by user-provided negations to reverse their outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T10:37:48Z)
• Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs [60.61002524947733]
  Previous confidence elicitation methods rely on white-box access to internal model information or model fine-tuning. This leads to a growing need to explore the untapped area of black-box approaches for uncertainty estimation. We define a systematic framework with three components: prompting strategies for eliciting verbalized confidence, sampling methods for generating multiple responses, and aggregation techniques for computing consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-22T17:31:44Z)

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.