Staying with the Uncertainty: Uncertainty-Scaffolding Strategies for Artificial Moral Advisors in LLM-to-LLM Simulated Conversations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05890v1
• Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 08:59:10 GMT
• Title: Staying with the Uncertainty: Uncertainty-Scaffolding Strategies for Artificial Moral Advisors in LLM-to-LLM Simulated Conversations
• Abstract summary: We propose three modes of uncertainty (Perspective, Tension-Preserving, Process-Reflecting) and compare them against three control conditions (Baseline, Persuasive, Sycophantic)<n>A user-agent LLM engages in a dialogue on an ethical dilemma with an AMA following a specific uncertainty strategy, and completes pre- and post-conversation questionnaires.<n>We found that no single model dominates as a simulated user agent, with open models aligning with human ambiguity through between-persona divergence and closed models through within-persona hedging.
• Score: 14.219056094334809
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs are increasingly deployed as Artificial Moral Advisors (AMA) in a variety of contexts: what kind of conversational patterns should they display? In this paper, we study how AMA can help their interlocutors "stay with the uncertainty". We propose three modes of uncertainty (Perspective-Multiplying, Tension-Preserving, Process-Reflecting) and compare them against three control conditions (Baseline, Persuasive, Sycophantic). A user-agent LLM engages in a dialogue on an ethical dilemma with an AMA following a specific uncertainty strategy, and completes pre- and post-conversation questionnaires. We further examine the effect of two persona prompt formats (Declarative and Narrative). We found that (1) no single model dominates as a simulated user agent, with open models aligning with human ambiguity through between-persona divergence and closed models through within-persona hedging; (2) declarative personas better capture initial stance diversity while narrative personas show more realistic belief revision; (3) all six AMA strategies produce distinguishable conversational patterns; and (4) uncertainty strategies differ not in how much stance revision they produce, but in the quality of engagement they sustain.

Related papers

• FramingQA: Does the Question Shape the Answer? Measuring the Compositional Framing Effect [69.8983512616053]
  Large language models often change their responses to subtle rephrasings that align with an implied stance by users.<n>This can leave users with advice tainted by how they happened to phrase a question rather than by the underlying facts.<n>We introduce FramingQA, a benchmark that measures the model sensitivity to question framing across law, medicine, finance, and robotic simulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T12:56:44Z)
• Caught in the Story: Narrative Captivity in Multi-turn LLMs Conversation [17.233278905124916]
  We show a failure mode in which a model treats an unopposed one-sided account as complete and aligns with the narrator's interpretation without seeking missing perspectives.<n>Across 17 large language models, narrative captivity is widespread: end-state judgments under multi-turn narration shift by 25 percentage points on average beyond the matched single-turn baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T06:07:00Z)
• Bad company corrupts good morals: Understanding and Measuring Narrative-Induced Moral Reasoning Degradation in LLMs [9.12926114428835]
  Large language models are deployed in long-context, emotionally interactive environments like digital humans, AI companions, educational assistants, and counseling systems.<n>This raises an important question: can prolonged narrative exposure reshape the reasoning and alignment stability of LLMs?<n>We present the first systematic study of narrative-induced alignment degradation in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-27T15:30:42Z)
• LivingArena: Do LLMs Know What Other LLMs Don't? Peer-Probing as Scalable Evaluation [79.03892269184145]
  LivingArena is an automated, contamination-resistant evaluation framework.<n>Models take turns proposing questions, aiming to pose items that opponents cannot answer correctly.<n>Questioners are encouraged to actively identify and exploit opponents' knowledge boundaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T06:20:58Z)
• Adaptive Interviewing for Persona Simulation in LLMs: Evidence-Grounded Reasoning Improves Decision Alignment [23.066564025282386]
  We propose an adaptive interview framework that gathers persona-relevant information through a structured three-stage dialogue.<n>We evaluate whether large language models can simulate participants' decisions in moral dilemma scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T06:53:08Z)
• Spontaneous Persuasion: An Audit of Model Persuasiveness in Everyday Conversations [0.2621730497733947]
  Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons.<n>Prior work measures persuasion as intentional attempts at producing the most effective argument or convincing statement.<n>We introduce "spontaneous persuasion," which characterizes the inexplicit use of persuasive strategies in everyday scenarios where persuasion is not necessarily warranted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T23:01:38Z)
• Measuring Opinion Bias and Sycophancy via LLM-based Persuasion [8.399156116912904]
  We propose a method for discovering the opinions an assistant holds on contested topics.<n>Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user.<n>Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T11:34:06Z)
• Revisiting LLM Value Probing Strategies: Are They Robust and Expressive? [81.49470136653665]
  We evaluate the robustness and expressiveness of value representations across three widely used probing strategies.<n>We show that the demographic context has little effect on the free-text generation, and the models' values only weakly correlate with their preference for value-based actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T18:56:41Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• When Ethics and Payoffs Diverge: LLM Agents in Morally Charged Social Dilemmas [68.79830818369683]
  Large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>There is limited understanding of how they act when moral imperatives directly conflict with rewards or incentives.<n>We introduce Moral Behavior in Social Dilemma Simulation (MoralSim) and evaluate how LLMs behave in the prisoner's dilemma and public goods game with morally charged contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T16:19:24Z)
• Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs' Intrinsic Self-Correction [58.12627172032851]
  Intrinsic self-correction was proposed to improve LLMs' responses via feedback prompts solely based on their inherent capability.<n>Recent works show that LLMs' intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback prompts.<n>We identify intrinsic self-correction can cause LLMs to waver both intermedia and final answers and lead to prompt bias on simple factual questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T15:39:31Z)
• How FaR Are Large Language Models From Agents with Theory-of-Mind? [69.41586417697732]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm for large language models (LLMs): Thinking for Doing (T4D) T4D requires models to connect inferences about others' mental states to actions in social scenarios. We introduce a zero-shot prompting framework, Foresee and Reflect (FaR), which provides a reasoning structure that encourages LLMs to anticipate future challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T06:47:58Z)

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.