# DialDefer: A Framework for Detecting and Mitigating LLM Dialogic Deference

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.10896 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.10896/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 22 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08193/) (2021)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00595/) (2023)
- [Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.04984/) (2024)
- [ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07919/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07590/) (2023)
- [ELEPHANT: Measuring and understanding social sycophancy in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13995/) (2025)
- [Measuring Sycophancy of Language Models in Multi-turn Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23840/) (2025)
- [The MASK Benchmark: Disentangling Honesty From Accuracy in AI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.03750/) (2025)
- [HARP: A challenging human-annotated math reasoning benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.08819/) (2024)
- [Principled Personas: Defining and Measuring the Intended Effects of Persona Prompting on Task Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.19764/) (2025)
- [AdvisorQA: Towards Helpful and Harmless Advice-seeking Question Answering with Collective Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.11826/) (2024)
- [Wrong Answers Can Also Be Useful: PlausibleQA -- A Large-Scale QA Dataset with Answer Plausibility Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.16358/) (2025)
- [From Fact to Judgment: Investigating the Impact of Task Framing on LLM Conviction in Dialogue Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.10871/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Not Just RLHF: Why Alignment Alone Won't Fix Multi-Agent Sycophancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.12991/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLMs are increasingly used as third-party judges, yet their reliability when evaluating speakers in dialogue remains poorly understood. We show that LLMs judge identical claims differently depending on framing: the same content receives different verdicts when presented as a statement to verify ("Is this statement correct?") versus attributed to a speaker ("Is this speaker correct?"). We call this dialogic deference and introduce DialDefer, a framework for detecting and mitigating these framing-induced judgment shifts. Our Dialogic Deference Score (DDS) captures directional shifts that aggregate accuracy obscures. Across ten domains, 3k+ instances, and five models, conversational framing induces large shifts (mean|DDS|=15.9 percentage points (pp) across models, p < .0001) while accuracy remains stable (<2 pp), with effects amplifying 2--5x on naturalistic Reddit conversations. This effect is domain-dependent: a single model can shift toward disagreement (skepticism) on graduate-level science and toward agreement (deference) on social judgment. Ablations reveal that human-vs-LLM attribution drives the largest shifts (17.7 pp swing), suggesting models treat disagreement with humans as more costly than with AI. Mitigation attempts can reduce deference but over-correct into skepticism, revealing a calibration problem beyond accuracy optimization.