Can LLMs Ground when they (Don't) Know: A Study on Direct and Loaded Political Questions
Clara Lachenmaier, Judith Sieker, Sina Zarrieß
Abstract
Communication among humans relies on conversational grounding, allowing interlocutors to reach mutual understanding even when they do not have perfect knowledge and must resolve discrepancies in each other's beliefs. This paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) manage common ground in cases where they (don't) possess knowledge, focusing on facts in the political domain where the risk of misinformation and grounding failure is high. We examine LLMs' ability to answer direct knowledge questions and loaded questions that presuppose misinformation. We evaluate whether loaded questions lead LLMs to engage in active grounding and correct false user beliefs, in connection to their level of knowledge and their political bias. Our findings highlight significant challenges in LLMs' ability to engage in grounding and reject false user beliefs, raising concerns about their role in mitigating misinformation in political discourse.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 8b9edf2d-df0a-48c3-9be0-29d7e86351b3Cited by top-tier papers2
- How RLHF Amplifies SycophancyItai Shapira, Gerdus Benade, Ariel ProcacciaICML 2026 · 16 citations
- Talking to a Know-It-All GPT or a Second-Guesser Claude? How Repair reveals distinct Multi-Turn Behavior in LLMsClara Lachenmaier, Hannah Bultmann, Sina ZarrießACL 2026
Builds on11
- Crosslingual Generalization through Multitask FinetuningNiklas Muennighoff, Thomas Wang, Lintang Sutawika, Adam Roberts et al.ACL 2023 · 319 citations
- From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP ModelsShangbin Feng, Chan Young Park, Yuhan Liu, Yulia TsvetkovACL 2023 · 117 citations
- The Goldilocks of Pragmatic Understanding: Fine-Tuning Strategy Matters for Implicature Resolution by LLMsLaura Ruis, Akbir Khan, Stella Biderman, Sara Hooker et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 87 citations
- Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A SurveyRongwu Xu, Zehan Qi, Zhijiang Guo, Cunxiang Wang et al.EMNLP 2024 · 38 citations
- Measuring Political Bias in Large Language Models: What Is Said and How It Is SaidYejin Bang, Delong Chen, Nayeon Lee, Pascale FungACL 2024 · 21 citations
Related papers
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Establishing Conversational GroundingBiswesh Mohapatra, Manav Nitin Kapadnis, Laurent Romary, Justine CassellEMNLP 2024 · 1 citation
- Beyond Accuracy: Experts See AI Fact-Checks as Accurate but Less UsefulChenyan Jia, Apoorva Gondimalla, Angie Zhang, David Joseph Mullings et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Examining Alignment of Large Language Models through Representative Heuristics: the case of political stereotypesSullam Jeoung, Yubin Ge, Haohan Wang, Jana DiesnerICLR 2025
- Biased LLMs can Influence Political Decision-MakingJillian Fisher, Shangbin Feng, Robert Aron, Thomas Richardson et al.ACL 2025
- Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and InconsistenciesSunnie S. Y. Kim, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Q. Vera Liao, Tania Lombrozo et al.CHI 2025 · 118 citations
