mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Authority Inversion in LLM-Mediated Ubiquitous Systems: When Models Trust Users Over Sensors

arXiv 2605.23938 ↗First posted 28 Apr 2026cs.AI cs.CY cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly fuse heterogeneous inputs in ubiquitous systems. Yet, how LLMs implicitly allocate authority when sensor measurements and user claims conflict remains unexamined, raising critical reliability concerns for deployments where physical sensing must retain priority. Unlike explicit traditional fusion, LLMs bury authority allocation within learned representations. We discover this allocation is severely format-dependent: numerical sensor data fails to integrate into answer-relevant model directions, allowing natural-language claims to dominate the final decision, a phenomenon we term Authority Inversion.To diagnose and mitigate this, we develop a geometric framework of context integration, introduce two computable audit metrics, specifically the Context Integration Ratio (CIR) and Authority Alignment Index (AAI), and propose Geometric Authority Calibration (GAC), an inference-time layer-level intervention to suppress misplaced user authority. Evaluating four models (4B to 35B parameters, three architectures) across four datasets totaling 576 conflict instances reveals extreme inversion: on numerical tasks, models exhibit near-zero sensor trust (AAI = -0.805, Cohen's d = -2.14), unaffected by model capacity. Validating our geometric framework, theory-guided causal injection flips 80.2% of incorrect decisions (vs. <0.4% for random controls). Practically, GAC improves HAR accuracy from 0 -- 1.6% to 21.9 -- 27.5%, outperforming prompting baselines. Ultimately, authority allocation in LLM-mediated systems must be explicitly audited and application-specifically configured rather than left implicit.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2026.

Builds on

17 of 42 references.

References · 17

  1. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
  2. 2019Root Mean Square Layer Normalizationcited by 1,425
  3. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
  4. 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
  5. 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 822
  6. 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 805
  7. 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 579
  8. 2023Large Language Models Are Zero-Shot Time Series Forecasterscited by 491
  9. 2020Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunitiescited by 125
  10. 2023Penetrative AI: Making LLMs Comprehend the Physical Worldcited by 64
  11. 2024HARGPT: Are LLMs Zero-Shot Human Activity Recognizers?cited by 52
  12. 2025SensorLM: Learning the Language of Wearable Sensorscited by 44
5 more
  1. 2024LLMSense: Harnessing LLMs for High-level Reasoning Over Spatiotemporal Sensor Tracescited by 28
  2. 2025GLOSS: Group of LLMs for Open-Ended Sensemaking of Passive Sensing Data for Health and Wellbeingcited by 4
  3. 2025Human-like Social Compliance in Large Language Models: Unifying Sycophancy and Conformity through Signal Competition Dynamicscited by 4
  4. 2026The Geometric Price of Discrete Logic: Context-driven Manifold Dynamics of Number Representationscited by 1
  5. 2026TeamLLM: Exploring the Capabilities of LLMs for Multimodal Group Interaction Predictioncited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.