Correction or Manipulation? Measuring Epistemic Vigilance in LLM Agents Under User Pressure
arXiv:2610.36453v1 Announce Type: new 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 fro
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2610.36453. Source account: arXiv:2610.36453v1 Announce Type: new 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 fro
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “Who Should Know What? Empirical Information Design for Multi-Agent LLM Economies” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026); “Don't Prompt Your Agents. Equip Them: Skillware as a Modular Standard for Sovereign, Auditable, and Deterministic Capability Execution for Logical Sys” (arXiv, Nov 6, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.