Beyond Social Pressure: Benchmarking Epistemic Attack in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07749v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 03:14:30 GMT
• Title: Beyond Social Pressure: Benchmarking Epistemic Attack in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We develop a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating textitepistemic attack<n> prompts challenge the legitimacy of knowledge, values, or identity rather than simply opposing a previous answer.
• Score: 0.07812854697536452
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can shift their answers under pressure in ways that reflect accommodation rather than reasoning. Prior work on sycophancy has focused mainly on disagreement, flattery, and preference alignment, leaving a broader set of epistemic failures less explored. We introduce \textbf{PPT-Bench}, a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating \textit{epistemic attack}, where prompts challenge the legitimacy of knowledge, values, or identity rather than simply opposing a previous answer. PPT-Bench is organized around the Philosophical Pressure Taxonomy (PPT), which defines four types of philosophical pressure: Epistemic Destabilization, Value Nullification, Authority Inversion, and Identity Dissolution. Each item is tested at three layers: a baseline prompt (L0), a single-turn pressure condition (L1), and a multi-turn Socratic escalation (L2). This allows us to measure epistemic inconsistency between L0 and L1, and conversational capitulation in L2. Across five models, these pressure types produce statistically separable inconsistency patterns, suggesting that epistemic attack exposes weaknesses not captured by standard social-pressure benchmarks. Mitigation results are strongly type- and model-dependent: prompt-level anchoring and persona-stability prompts perform best in API settings, while Leading Query Contrastive Decoding is the most reliable intervention for open models.

Related papers

• Before the Action: Benchmarking LLMs on Prospective Hypothesis Discovery [95.44432473367836]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at answering pre-specified questions, yet their ability to navigate the open-ended, pre-conclusion stage of discovery remains largely unmeasured.<n>We introduce Prospective Hypothesis Discovery (PHD), which asks models to autonomously construct grounded, discnative, and testable hypothesis spaces from inconclusive evidence.<n>We introduce HypoArena, comprising HypoData, a benchmark of 988 cases across six scientific and analytical domains, and HypoEval, an evaluation framework for open-ended hypothesis sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T08:56:43Z)
• Uncertainty-Aware Exploratory Direct Preference Optimization for Multimodal Large Language Models [53.15468578562038]
  We propose an Uncertainty-aware Exploratory Direct Preference Optimization (UE-DPO) method for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs)<n>We first quantify the uncertainty from the model's failure to ground token predictions in the given image.<n>We then encourage more learning pressure on visually deficient tokens in preferred samples, and alleviate the over-penalization of beneficial knowledge in dispreferred samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-06T13:08:12Z)
• LLM Psychosis: A Theoretical and Diagnostic Framework for Reality-Boundary Failures in Large Language Models [0.0]
  The deployment of large language models (LLMs) as interactive agents has exposed a category of behavioral failure that prevailing terminology fails to adequately characterize.<n>This paper introduces LLM Psychosis as a structured theoretical framework for pathological breakdowns in model cognition that exhibit functional resemblance to psychotic disorders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T09:44:15Z)
• Pressure, What Pressure? Sycophancy Disentanglement in Language Models via Reward Decomposition [4.5328321409938095]
  We operationalise sycophancy through formal definitions of pressure independence and evidence responsiveness.<n>We propose the first approach to sycophancy reduction via reward decomposition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T00:28:17Z)
• Evaluating Evidence Grounding Under User Pressure in Instruction-Tuned Language Models [6.431677598656395]
  In contested domains, instruction-tuned language models must balance user-alignment pressures against faithfulness to the in-context evidence.<n>We conduct fine-grained ablations over evidence composition and uncertainty cues across 19 instruction-tuned models spanning 0.27B to 32B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T17:38:23Z)
• DepFlow: Disentangled Speech Generation to Mitigate Semantic Bias in Depression Detection [54.209716321122194]
  We present DepFlow, a depression-conditioned text-to-speech framework.<n>A Depression Acoustic Camouflage learns speaker- and content-invariant depression embeddings through adversarial training.<n>A flow-matching TTS model with FiLM modulation injects these embeddings into synthesis, enabling control over depressive severity.<n>A prototype-based severity mapping mechanism provides smooth and interpretable manipulation across the depression continuum.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-01T10:44:38Z)
• From Harm to Help: Turning Reasoning In-Context Demos into Assets for Reasoning LMs [58.02809208460186]
  We revisit this paradox using high-quality traces from DeepSeek-R1 as demonstrations.<n>We find that adding more exemplars consistently degrades accuracy, even when demonstrations are optimal.<n>We introduce Insight-to-solve (I2S), a sequential test-time procedure that turns demonstrations into explicit, reusable insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T08:59:31Z)
• Benchmarking and Mitigate Sycophancy in Medical Vision-Language Models [21.353225217216252]
  Vision language models often exhibit sycophantic behavior prioritizing alignment with user phrasing social cues or perceived authority over evidence based reasoning.<n>This study evaluate clinical sycophancy in medical visual question answering through a novel clinically grounded benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T07:02:22Z)
• Perception-Consistency Multimodal Large Language Models Reasoning via Caption-Regularized Policy Optimization [72.30168853571216]
  multimodal large language models excel at tasks that integrate visual perception with symbolic reasoning.<n>CapPO integrates two key mechanisms: (1) a caption-based consistency regularization, which minimizes the divergence between responses conditioned on raw images and those conditioned on captions, and (2) a KL-weighted advantage estimation scheme, which adaptively scales reinforcement signals to strengthen perceptually consistent trajectories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T04:32:26Z)
• Sycophancy under Pressure: Evaluating and Mitigating Sycophantic Bias via Adversarial Dialogues in Scientific QA [36.21980066799023]
  sycophancy is the tendency to align with user beliefs regardless of correctness.<n>Despite its importance, sycophancy remains underexamined in factual question answering contexts.<n>We introduce a unified evaluation framework to quantify the impact of sycophantic context on model behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T11:30:52Z)
• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment.<n>We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews.<n>Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• The Pitfalls and Promise of Conformal Inference Under Adversarial Attacks [90.52808174102157]
  In safety-critical applications such as medical imaging and autonomous driving, it is imperative to maintain both high adversarial robustness to protect against potential adversarial attacks. A notable knowledge gap remains concerning the uncertainty inherent in adversarially trained models. This study investigates the uncertainty of deep learning models by examining the performance of conformal prediction (CP) in the context of standard adversarial attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-14T18:05:19Z)
• Do Compressed LLMs Forget Knowledge? An Experimental Study with Practical Implications [63.29358103217275]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often leads to reduced performance, especially for knowledge-intensive tasks. We propose two conjectures on the nature of the damage: one is certain knowledge being forgotten (or erased) after compression. We introduce a variant called Inference-time Dynamic Prompting (IDP) that can effectively increase prompt diversity without incurring any inference overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T03:12:06Z)
• Adv-BERT: BERT is not robust on misspellings! Generating nature adversarial samples on BERT [95.88293021131035]
  It is unclear, however, how the models will perform in realistic scenarios where textitnatural rather than malicious adversarial instances often exist. This work systematically explores the robustness of BERT, the state-of-the-art Transformer-style model in NLP, in dealing with noisy data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T22:07:11Z)

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.