How AI Models Manage Epistemic Authority: A Taxonomy and Comparative Analysis of Responses to User Disagreement
Authors: Riyadh Alnasser, Yusuf Mücahit Çetinkaya, Sumin Zhao, Tuğrulcan Elmas
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%.
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.
Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user. Existing evaluations typically measure this either by assessing what it takes to make a model shift a binary endorsement or by eliciting an explicit probability in a proposition. However, much user-facing sycophantic behavior is demonstrated through shifts in graded support expressed through ordinary language. We propose the AI Epistemic Deference Index (AEDI): a continuous, unidimensional score representing how sensitive the support expressed in a model's output is to the attitude expressed in a user's prompt. To generate AEDI, we provide a new protocol for estimating probabilities from natural language outputs, using LLMs-as-judges validated for consistency and correlation to human judgment. We deploy it on a new curated database of 500 propositions across diverse topics and 16,000 prompts varying in user attitude, testing eight prominent models. Every model exhibits substantial deference, though with large and systematic differences across providers, with Claude models demonstrating the least, and Grok and Gemini models the most. The effect is amplified in prompts requesting a written artifact, and concentrated on propositions where models hold weaker priors. We release AEDI as an easy-to-update benchmark and measurement pipeline for output-level sycophancy evaluation.
Large language models are increasingly deployed in citation-augmented settings, yet the effect of citation presence on model behavior independent of factual content remains poorly understood. We introduce AuthorityBench, a 220,564-prompt multi-domain benchmark that isolates how citation-based authority signals influence epistemic behavior in LLMs. The benchmark uses a fully balanced 2x2 factorial design crossing claim veracity with citation veracity, the first to do so, across four domains (general knowledge, science, law, and medicine), with controlled variation over 40 prompt templates, four venue prestige tiers, and a country-coded author name dataset. Evaluating seven models on 12 structured research questions, we find that citation presence, whether real or fabricated, consistently increases hallucination rates relative to a no-citation baseline. The effect is strongest when fabricated citations accompany true claims, raising hallucination rates by 3 to 22 percentage points and reaching 35 to 77% in the general knowledge domain, while legal claims are comparatively robust and venue prestige and author demographics show negligible impact. All datasets and evaluation code are available at: https://github.com/floating-reeds/AuthorityBench