pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.17450 · v3 · pith:ZXJZJAUWnew · submitted 2025-08-24 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.CY

Persuasion Dynamics in LLMs: Investigating Robustness and Adaptability in Knowledge and Safety with DuET-PD

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.CY
keywords persuasionduet-pdllmsmisleadingsafetyaccuracycorrectionsdialogues
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) can struggle to balance gullibility to misinformation and resistance to valid corrections in persuasive dialogues, a critical challenge for reliable deployment. We introduce DuET-PD (Dual Evaluation for Trust in Persuasive Dialogues), a framework evaluating multi-turn stance-change dynamics across dual dimensions: persuasion type (corrective/misleading) and domain (knowledge via MMLU-Pro, and safety via SALAD-Bench). We find that even a state-of-the-art model like GPT-4o achieves only 27.32% accuracy in MMLU-Pro under sustained misleading persuasions. Moreover, results reveal a concerning trend of increasing sycophancy in newer open-source models. To address this, we introduce Holistic DPO, a training approach balancing positive and negative persuasion examples. Unlike prompting or resist-only training, Holistic DPO enhances both robustness to misinformation and receptiveness to corrections, improving Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct's accuracy under misleading persuasion in safety contexts from 4.21% to 76.54%. These contributions offer a pathway to developing more reliable and adaptable LLMs for multi-turn dialogue. Code is available at https://github.com/Social-AI-Studio/DuET-PD.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Confident but Conflicted: Internal Uncertainty and Cognitive Dissonance Resolution in LLMs

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LLMs show model-specific Trust Elasticity to conflicting evidence on health claims, with near-zero elasticity for false claims and associations to internal uncertainty indicators in open-weight models.