Can LLMs Ground when they (Don't) Know: A Study on Direct and Loaded Political Questions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Communication among humans relies on conversational grounding, allowing interlocutors to reach mutual understanding even when they do not have perfect knowledge and must resolve discrepancies in each other's beliefs. This paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) manage common ground in cases where they (don't) possess knowledge, focusing on facts in the political domain where the risk of misinformation and grounding failure is high. We examine the ability of LLMs to answer direct knowledge questions and loaded questions that presuppose misinformation. We evaluate whether loaded questions lead LLMs to engage in active grounding and correct false user beliefs, in connection to their level of knowledge and their political bias. Our findings highlight significant challenges in LLMs' ability to engage in grounding and reject false user beliefs, raising concerns about their role in mitigating misinformation in political discourse.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2025.
Builds on
21 of 53 references.
References · 21
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 836
- 2024Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Surveycited by 283
- 2023From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP Modelscited by 260
- 2020Reducing conversational agents' overconfidence through linguistic calibrationcited by 210
- 2023The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientationcited by 189
- 2024Measuring Political Bias in Large Language Models: What Is Said and How It Is Saidcited by 89
- 2020Are Natural Language Inference Models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESuppositioncited by 77
- 2022CREPE: Open-Domain Question Answering with False Presuppositionscited by 72
- 2022The Goldilocks of Pragmatic Understanding: Fine-Tuning Strategy Matters for Implicature Resolution by LLMscited by 58
- 2022(QA)2: Question Answering with Questionable Assumptionscited by 51
- 2023Grounding Gaps in Language Model Generationscited by 47
9 more
- 2021Grounding 'Grounding' in NLPcited by 44
- 2021Which Linguist Invented the Lightbulb? Presupposition Verification for Question-Answeringcited by 41
- 2024On the Relationship between Truth and Political Bias in Language Modelscited by 31
- 2023Pregnant Questions: The Importance of Pragmatic Awareness in Maternal Health Question Answeringcited by 14
- 2023Conversational Feedback in Scripted versus Spontaneous Dialogues: A Comparative Analysiscited by 10
- 2024Defining Knowledge: Bridging Epistemology and Large Language Modelscited by 7
- 2024The Illusion of Competence: Evaluating the Effect of Explanations on Users' Mental Models of Visual Question Answering Systemscited by 6
- 2024Syn-QA2: Evaluating False Assumptions in Long-tail Questions with Synthetic QA Datasetscited by 5
- 2023No that's not what I meant: Handling Third Position Repair in Conversational Question Answeringcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 9.
10 papers.
- 2026How RLHF Amplifies Sycophancycited by 23
- 2025Are BabyLMs Deaf to Gricean Maxims? A Pragmatic Evaluation of Sample-efficient Language Modelscited by 11
- 2026Reference Games as a Testbed for the Alignment of Model Uncertainty and Clarification Requestscited by 2
- 2026Sycophancy Undermines Epistemic Vigilance in Cooperative Vision-Language Taskscited by 2
- 2026Evaluating Evidence Grounding Under User Pressure in Instruction-Tuned Language Modelscited by 1
- 2026How Hypocritical Is Your LLM judge? Listener-Speaker Asymmetries in the Pragmatic Competence of Large Language Modelscited by 1
- 2026Talking to a Know-It-All GPT or a Second-Guesser Claude? How Repair reveals unreliable Multi-Turn Behavior in LLMscited by 1
- 2026Don't `Well, Actually' Me Unless You Know What You're Talking About: Weak Presupposition Verification Degrades General QA Performancecited by 1
- 2026XYBench: Can LLMs Respond Pragmatically to Queries with Misconceptions?cited by 1
- 2026Pushback in a Haystack: Language Models Respond to Factual Errors Ambiguously and Ineffectivelycited by 0
- 2026Pushback in a Haystack: Language Models Respond to Factual Errors Ambiguously and Ineffectively13 Oct 2026
- 2026XYBench: Can LLMs Respond Pragmatically to Queries with Misconceptions?6 Sep 2026
- 2026Don't `Well, Actually' Me Unless You Know What You're Talking About: Weak Presupposition Verification Degrades General QA Performance6 Aug 2026
- 2026Sycophancy Undermines Epistemic Vigilance in Cooperative Vision-Language Tasks31 Jul 2026
- 2026Talking to a Know-It-All GPT or a Second-Guesser Claude? How Repair reveals unreliable Multi-Turn Behavior in LLMs21 Apr 2026
- 2026How Hypocritical Is Your LLM judge? Listener-Speaker Asymmetries in the Pragmatic Competence of Large Language Models17 Apr 2026
- 2026Evaluating Evidence Grounding Under User Pressure in Instruction-Tuned Language Models20 Mar 2026
- 2026How RLHF Amplifies Sycophancy1 Feb 2026
- 2026Reference Games as a Testbed for the Alignment of Model Uncertainty and Clarification Requests12 Jan 2026
- 2025Are BabyLMs Deaf to Gricean Maxims? A Pragmatic Evaluation of Sample-efficient Language Models6 Oct 2025