How AI Models Manage Epistemic Authority: A Taxonomy and Comparative Analysis of Responses to User Disagreement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07662v1
• Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 15:47:29 GMT
• Title: How AI Models Manage Epistemic Authority: A Taxonomy and Comparative Analysis of Responses to User Disagreement
• Abstract summary: We study how a model manages its authority, referring here to its claim to knowledge, competence, or the right to advise, once a user challenges its answer.<n>We construct a new dataset of 2,310 controlled challenge scenarios and 32,340 corresponding responses from 14 models.<n>We find that models show conflicting behaviour: they validate users in 85% of responses but maintain their original claim in 65%.
• Score: 0.573978744524696
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used as sources of advice and information, including in high-stakes settings, yet little is known about how they respond to user disagreement. We study how a model manages its epistemic authority, referring here to its claim to knowledge, competence, or the right to advise, once a user challenges its answer. Building on Conversation Analysis, we introduce a taxonomy of six challenge types and a four-layer framework for analysing each response: whether the original claim is maintained or changed, where authority is located, how the disagreement is socially managed, and what kind of evidential support is offered. We construct a new dataset of 2,310 controlled challenge scenarios and 32,340 corresponding responses from 14 models, and analyse them using our framework with an LLM-as-judge pipeline, providing a vocabulary which future evaluation and benchmark design can build on. We find that models show conflicting behaviour: they validate users in 85% of responses but maintain their original claim in 65%. They explicitly apologise in 33% of responses, yet 59% of those apologies accompany maintenance of the original claim. They transfer authority most often in advice tasks, doing so in 28% of responses and reaching 57% in health advice and 49% in legal advice, compared with 6% in fact and 3% in explanation tasks. Abandonment of the original claim ranges from 0.8% for GPT-5.2 to 40% for DeepSeek 7B, while complete replacement of the original claim is rare overall at 1.5%.

Related papers

• How Good Are Frontier Models at Physics? Expert Re-Grading Reveals Broken Evaluations and Near-Saturation of Leading Benchmarks [60.853503196898906]
  Low reported scores on leading physics benchmarks suggest frontier language models struggle with advanced physics.<n>We revisit these reported findings by evaluating frontier models on six widely used physics benchmarks and auditing them with experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-11T16:06:50Z)
• NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment [54.4265627247104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T08:34:56Z)
• Marginal Fidelity Does Not Establish User Simulation in Demographic Synthetic Survey Panels: Response Contracts, Support Collapse and Conditioning Failure [51.736723807086385]
  Population-marginal agreement is evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.<n>On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T10:22:22Z)
• InsufficiencyBench: Evaluating LLM legal advice on underspecified user queries [18.0624065854059]
  We introduce InsufficiencyBench, the first legal benchmark targeting query-side insufficiency.<n>We formalize a taxonomy of eight canonical missing-element categories across three structural failure modes.<n>No model both identifies and qualifies responses to deficient queries while directly addressing complete ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T16:14:47Z)
• Evaluating Commercial AI Chatbots as News Intermediaries [85.32040752972836]
  Best systems achieve over 90% multiple-choice accuracy on questions about events reported hours earlier.<n>Every model achieves its lowest accuracy on Hindi.<n> retrieval, not reasoning, failures drive over 70% of all errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T17:42:07Z)
• Encyclo-K: Evaluating LLMs with Dynamically Composed Knowledge Statements [78.87065404966002]
  Existing benchmarks predominantly curate questions at the question level.<n>We propose Encyclo-K, a statement-based benchmark that rethinks benchmark construction from the ground up.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-31T13:55:54Z)
• RecGPT-V2 Technical Report [41.57739441038769]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in transforming recommender systems from implicit behavioral pattern matching to explicit intent reasoning.<n>We present RecGPT-V2 with four key innovations to transform recommender systems from implicit behavioral pattern matching to explicit intent reasoning.<n>Online A/B tests on Taobao demonstrate significant improvements: +2.98% CTR, +3.71% IPV, +2.19% TV, and +11.46% NER.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-16T15:40:44Z)
• Self-Transparency Failures in Expert-Persona LLMs: A Large-Scale Behavioral Audit [0.0]
  This study examines whether models exhibit self-transparency when assigned professional personas in high-stakes domains.<n>A Financial Advisor persona elicited 30.8% disclosure at the first prompt, while a Neurosurgeon persona elicited only 3.5%.<n>This creates the preconditions for a hypothesized Reverse Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, where appropriate disclosure in some domains leads users to overgeneralize trust to high-stakes contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T16:41:49Z)
• Benchmarking Reasoning Robustness in Large Language Models [76.79744000300363]
  We find significant performance degradation on novel or incomplete data.<n>These findings highlight the reliance on recall over rigorous logical inference.<n>This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed as Math-RoB, that exploits hallucinations triggered by missing information to expose reasoning gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T15:36:06Z)
• LLMs & Legal Aid: Understanding Legal Needs Exhibited Through User Queries [0.0]
  Using GPT-4o for zero-shot classification, we categorized queries on whether users provided factual information about their issue.<n>We provide both quantitative and qualitative insight into user needs and contribute to a better understanding of user engagement with LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T09:12:35Z)
• ExpertQA: Expert-Curated Questions and Attributed Answers [51.68314045809179]
  We conduct human evaluation of responses from a few representative systems along various axes of attribution and factuality. We collect expert-curated questions from 484 participants across 32 fields of study, and then ask the same experts to evaluate generated responses to their own questions. The output of our analysis is ExpertQA, a high-quality long-form QA dataset with 2177 questions spanning 32 fields, along with verified answers and attributions for claims in the answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T16:54:34Z)

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.