# How AI Models Manage Epistemic Authority: A Taxonomy and Comparative Analysis of Responses to User Disagreement

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07662 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07662/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [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)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Measuring Sycophancy of Language Models in Multi-turn Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23840/) (2025)
- [Are You Sure? Challenging LLMs Leads to Performance Drops in The FlipFlop Experiment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08596/) (2023)
- [TRUTH DECAY: Quantifying Multi-Turn Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11656/) (2025)
- [Classifying Epistemic Relationships in Human-AI Interaction: An Exploratory Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.03673/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models are increasingly used as sources of advice and information, including in high-stakes settings, yet little is known about how they respond to user disagreement. We study how a model manages its epistemic authority, referring here to its claim to knowledge, competence, or the right to advise, once a user challenges its answer. Building on Conversation Analysis, we introduce a taxonomy of six challenge types and a four-layer framework for analysing each response: whether the original claim is maintained or changed, where authority is located, how the disagreement is socially managed, and what kind of evidential support is offered. We construct a new dataset of 2,310 controlled challenge scenarios and 32,340 corresponding responses from 14 models, and analyse them using our framework with an LLM-as-judge pipeline, providing a vocabulary which future evaluation and benchmark design can build on. We find that models show conflicting behaviour: they validate users in 85% of responses but maintain their original claim in 65%. They explicitly apologise in 33% of responses, yet 59% of those apologies accompany maintenance of the original claim. They transfer authority most often in advice tasks, doing so in 28% of responses and reaching 57% in health advice and 49% in legal advice, compared with 6% in fact and 3% in explanation tasks. Abandonment of the original claim ranges from 0.8% for GPT-5.2 to 40% for DeepSeek 7B, while complete replacement of the original claim is rare overall at 1.5%.