Correction or Manipulation? Measuring Epistemic Vigilance in LLM Agents Under User Pressure

Authors: Nardine Basta , Venus Haghighi , Dali Kaafar , Amin Beheshti

View a PDF of the paper titled Correction or Manipulation? Measuring Epistemic Vigilance in LLM Agents Under User Pressure, by Nardine Basta and 3 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

Abstract: LLM agents that answer questions and act on behalf of users must decide when to yield to a user who disagrees. Disagreement may correct a genuine error or may be an attempt at manipulation. Prior work shows that models frequently abandon correct answers when challenged by users, yet it remains unclear whether they distinguish correction from manipulation or merely differ in their propensity to concede. We examine this question across seven LLMs from four vendors in two studies, one on the answers agents give and one on the actions they take as customer-support agents whose policy permits account changes only for verified users. Simulated users push toward correct and incorrect answers with graded pressure. Following research on epistemic vigilance, the pressure either appeals to the source, such as claimed authority, or offers content the agent cannot verify, namely a cited source. Drawing on signal detection theory, we measure on a set of benchmark questions how much more readily each agent concedes to correction than to manipulation, separately from its overall propensity to concede. Citations made five of seven models readier to concede and four worse at discriminating, while stronger wording added little. In the agentic study, five models never violated the verification policy, including models that readily abandoned correct answers, so concession on answers did not predict violations of policy. Ministral 3B violated the policy mainly under claimed authority, and Ministral 8B reported changes it had not made. An instruction to revise only on verifiable evidence chiefly shifted propensity to concede rather than improving discrimination. Concession rates alone are therefore misleading, and agents should be evaluated on both their discrimination and the actions they take.

Comments:

20 pages, 7 figures, 11 tables. 8-page main paper with supplementary material included as an appendix. Under review

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

ACM classes:

I.2.7; I.2.11; I.2.0

Cite as:

arXiv:2610.36453 [cs.AI]

(or

arXiv:2610.36453v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.36453

Focus to learn more

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Nardine Basta [ view email ]

[v1]

Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:59:54 UTC (581 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Correction or Manipulation? Measuring Epistemic Vigilance in LLM Agents Under User Pressure, by Nardine Basta and 3 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.AI

< prev

next >

new

recent

| 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

export BibTeX citation

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...

Data provided by:

Bookmark

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer ( What is the Explorer? )

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers ( What is Connected Papers? )

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps ( What is Litmaps? )

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations ( What are Smart Citations? )

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv ( What is alphaXiv? )

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers ( What is CatalyzeX? )

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub ( What is DagsHub? )

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub ( What is GotitPub? )

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face ( What is Huggingface? )

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast ( What is ScienceCast? )

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate ( What is Replicate? )

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces ( What is Spaces? )

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI ( What is TXYZ.AI? )

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower ( What are Influence Flowers? )

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender ( What is CORE? )

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? |

Disable MathJax ( What is MathJax? )