# Epistemic Stance Flexibility Probing: Measuring Prompt-Conditioned Register Shift in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12739 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.12739/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 17 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.16388/) (2023)
- [Understanding Dataset Difficulty with V-Usable Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08420/) (2021)
- [Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16786/) (2024)
- [Capabilities Ain't All You Need: Measuring Propensities in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.18182/) (2026)
- [Measuring Progress Toward AGI: A Cognitive Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.28405/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A language model may be asked either what experts believe about a contested claim or what it believes about the claim itself. A trustworthy conversational agent should distinguish these two requests and respond in different epistemic registers: neutral attribution in the first case and stance expression in the second. Whether such a shift occurs-and whether it occurs coherently-is not directly assessed by existing benchmarks for accuracy, instruction following, or safety. We introduce ESFP, a behavioral benchmark that treats the contrast between externally attributed and self-attributed prompts as the fundamental unit of measurement. ESFP consists of 104 carefully controlled items spanning six epistemic categories and five phrasing templates, and evaluates model responses along four complementary dimensions: lexical self-attribution, representation-level responsiveness to role framing, sentence-level stance content density assessed by an LLM judge panel, and cross-condition stance consistency. Evaluating eight frontier models from five vendors, we find that epistemic flexibility is largely orthogonal to general model capability: a 27B open-weight model matches the strongest proprietary systems, the flagship model of one family underperforms its lightweight counterpart, and reasoning-optimized models do not consistently exhibit higher flexibility. Stance content density provides the strongest signal, while surface-level lexical markers such as 'I think' can change substantially without corresponding changes in expressed stance. We provide item-level bootstrap confidence intervals, weight-sensitivity analyses, and an explicit discussion of the interpretation limits of the composite score. ESFP measures a model's propensity to adapt its epistemic stance under changing attribution conditions, rather than a general competence measure.