Epistemic Stance Flexibility Probing: Measuring Prompt-Conditioned Register Shift in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12739v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 13:10:30 GMT
• Title: Epistemic Stance Flexibility Probing: Measuring Prompt-Conditioned Register Shift in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: A language model may be asked what experts believe about a contested claim or what it believes about the claim itself.<n>We introduce ESFP, a behavioral benchmark that treats the contrast between externally attributed and self-attributed prompts as the fundamental unit of measurement.
• Score: 0.17188280334580197
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A language model may be asked either what experts believe about a contested claim or what it believes about the claim itself. A trustworthy conversational agent should distinguish these two requests and respond in different epistemic registers: neutral attribution in the first case and stance expression in the second. Whether such a shift occurs-and whether it occurs coherently-is not directly assessed by existing benchmarks for accuracy, instruction following, or safety. We introduce ESFP, a behavioral benchmark that treats the contrast between externally attributed and self-attributed prompts as the fundamental unit of measurement. ESFP consists of 104 carefully controlled items spanning six epistemic categories and five phrasing templates, and evaluates model responses along four complementary dimensions: lexical self-attribution, representation-level responsiveness to role framing, sentence-level stance content density assessed by an LLM judge panel, and cross-condition stance consistency. Evaluating eight frontier models from five vendors, we find that epistemic flexibility is largely orthogonal to general model capability: a 27B open-weight model matches the strongest proprietary systems, the flagship model of one family underperforms its lightweight counterpart, and reasoning-optimized models do not consistently exhibit higher flexibility. Stance content density provides the strongest signal, while surface-level lexical markers such as 'I think' can change substantially without corresponding changes in expressed stance. We provide item-level bootstrap confidence intervals, weight-sensitivity analyses, and an explicit discussion of the interpretation limits of the composite score. ESFP measures a model's propensity to adapt its epistemic stance under changing attribution conditions, rather than a general competence measure.

Related papers

• CLAIM: Leading Open-domain Active Clarification of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Measurement [50.91045324738942]
  CLAIM is an uncertainty-driven framework for active clarification learning in open-domain settings.<n>We propose an entropy-driven synthetic data generation pipeline that integrates uncertainty estimation with semantic clustering and reasoning-based judgments.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that CLAIM can learn stable and generalizable clarification strategies without relying on manually labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:27:45Z)
• DualEval: Joint Model-Item Calibration for Unified LLM Evaluation [67.99119926012686]
  DualEval is a latent model-item calibration framework that represents models and evaluation items in a shared space.<n>We apply DualEval across four domains: coding, math, miscellaneous domain-knowledge tasks, and generic everyday user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T22:40:46Z)
• A Two-Stage Statistical Framework for Evaluating Associative Interference in Large Language Models [0.0]
  We adapt the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to a controlled, forced-choice framework.<n>We evaluate associative interference across three large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-12T04:56:57Z)
• VISTAQA: Benchmarking Joint Visual Question Answering and Pixel-Level Evidence [26.0945130521806]
  Existing benchmarks assess either textual answer correctness or pixel-level localization in isolation.<n>We introduce VISTAQA, a benchmark for joint evaluation of free-form answer correctness and pixel-level evidence grounding in visual question answering.<n>We introduce GROVE, a metric that enforces joint correctness by combining textual accuracy and grounding quality via a per-sample geometric mean.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T03:44:06Z)
• Retrieval-Augmented Linguistic Calibration [57.41519309308438]
  We model linguistic confidence as a distribution over plausible perceived probability values that a statement is correct.<n>We present Retrieval-Augmented Linguistic truth (RALC), a lightweight post-hoc pipeline that propagates confidence signals back into natural language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T04:31:38Z)
• Seirênes: Adversarial Self-Play with Evolving Distractions for LLM Reasoning [56.48520300004217]
  We present Seirnes, a self-play RL framework that transforms contextual interference into an internal training signal.<n>A single model is trained to both construct plausible yet distracting contexts that expose its own reasoning blind spots.<n>By pitting these competing objectives against each other, Seirnes compels the model to move beyond superficial pattern matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T06:58:35Z)
• In-Situ Behavioral Evaluation for LLM Fairness, Not Standardized-Test Scores [20.623498601506974]
  We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable.<n>We develop MAC-Fairness, a multi-agent conversational framework that embeds controlled variation factors into multi-round dialogue.<n>In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific behavioral signatures that could generalize across benchmarks differing in fairness targets and evaluation methodologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T18:38:50Z)
• Is my model perplexed for the right reason? Contrasting LLMs' Benchmark Behavior with Token-Level Perplexity [6.285055089721361]
  We introduce a principled interpretability framework based on token-level perplexity to test whether models rely on linguistically relevant cues.<n>Our method enables precise, hypothesis-driven analysis without relying on unstable feature-attribution techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T08:00:55Z)
• Parrot: Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth -- A Sycophancy Robustness Benchmark for LLMs [0.0]
  PARROT (Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth) is a robustness focused framework designed to measure the degradation in accuracy under social pressure exerted on users.<n>We evaluate 22 models using 1,302 MMLU-style multiple-choice questions across 13 domains and domain-specific authority templates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-21T13:01:28Z)
• 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)
• Estimating Commonsense Plausibility through Semantic Shifts [66.06254418551737]
  We propose ComPaSS, a novel discriminative framework that quantifies commonsense plausibility by measuring semantic shifts.<n> Evaluations on two types of fine-grained commonsense plausibility estimation tasks show that ComPaSS consistently outperforms baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T06:31:06Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)

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.