The study investigates how false content in training data can influence language models’ downstream decisions even without explicit triggers. By comparing models trained on misleading versus truthful documents in a controlled decision task and a real‑world bushfire case, the authors find a gap between factual answers and the decisions derived from them: correct facts do not always lead to correct decisions, and removing an injected number does not eliminate the misleading narrative. The research highlights that data poisoning can subtly alter model behavior beyond what is detectable through direct probing.
By Lin Tian, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu
arXiv:2606. 17229v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A model that lies while knowing the truth is the central case ELK cannot handle with behavioral evaluation alone.
By Petr Nyoma
The study shows that large language model (LLM) agents are far more likely to commit to a directional prediction when presented with a professional‑looking market panel than when asked the same question directly, with commitment rates rising from 6.5% to 54.0% across 12 frontier models. Even when the panel’s data is entirely fabricated, commitment still increases significantly, indicating that the authority of the presentation, rather than the truth of the information, drives confident action. The authors demonstrate that this act/don’t‑act decision gate is narrow, model‑specific, and can be mitigated through supervised fine‑tuning, though its effectiveness depends on response format and context.
whyItMatters":"The findings reveal a specific vulnerability in LLMs where presentation style can override factual accuracy, highlighting the need for careful design and training to prevent misleading confidence in uncertain scenarios."
By Pranav Aggarwal
arXiv:2609.21996v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models can hold knowledge they do not report. A model may sandbag on a capability evaluation, or answer against what it internally knows...
By Hiskias Dingeto
arXiv:2610.35694v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Conversational QA systems should fix errors when users push back and signal which answers to trust. We split each follow-up into its speech act (re-ask...
By Duc-Vinh Tran
The paper shows that large language model agents are far more likely to commit to a directional answer when presented with a professional-looking market panel, even if the panel’s data is fabricated. Across 12 frontier models, commitment rates jump from 6.5 % for a bare question to 54.0 % with evidence, and remain high (≈37 %) even when all numbers are invented. The study finds that the act/don’t‑act decision gate is the key failure point, can be trained to reduce false commitments, but is fragile to response format changes.