Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Measuring and Mitigating Silent Narrative Switching in Large Language Models through Epistemic Mediation Cover

Measuring and Mitigating Silent Narrative Switching in Large Language Models through Epistemic Mediation

Open Access
|Nov 2026
Read online

References

  1. S. Santurkar, E. Durmus, F. Ladhak, C. Lee, P. Liang, and T. Hashimoto, “Whose opinions do language models reflect?” in Proc. 40th Int. Conf. Machine Learning (ICML), Mar. 2023, pp. 29977–30004. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.17548
  2. E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 103, Apr. 2023, Art. no. 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
  3. S. Wollny, J. Schneider, D. Di Mitri, J. Weidlich, M. Rittberger, and H. Drachsler, “Are we there yet? A systematic literature review on chatbots in education,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, July 2021, Art. no. 654924. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.654924
  4. L. P. Argyle, E. C. Busby, N. Fulda, J. R. Gubler, C. Rytting, and D. Wingate, “Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples,” Political Analysis, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 337–351, Feb. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2023.2
  5. M. Sharma et al., “Towards understanding sycophancy in language models,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.13548
  6. A. Salinas and F. Morstatter, “The butterfly effect of altering prompts,” in Findings of the ACL, Bangkok, Thailand, Aug. 2024, pp. 4629–4651. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.275
  7. F. Perez and I. Ribeiro, “Ignore previous prompt: Attack techniques for language models,” arXiv:2211.09527, Nov. 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.09527
  8. L. Ouyang et al., “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,” in Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), vol. 35, New Orleans, USA, Nov.–Dec. 2022, pp. 27730–27744. https://doi.org/10.52202/068431-2011
  9. Y. Bai et al., “Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback,” arXiv:2212.08073, Dec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.08073
  10. T. Sorensen et al., “A roadmap to pluralistic alignment,” in Proc. 41st Int. Conf. Machine Learning (ICML), 2024.
  11. S. Feng et al., “Modular pluralism: Pluralistic alignment via multi-LLM collaboration,” arXiv:2406.15951, Oct. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.15951
  12. G. V. Aher, R. I. Arriaga, and A. T. Kalai, “Using large language models to simulate multiple humans,” in Proc. ICML, 2023, pp. 337–371.
  13. J. S. Park, J. C. O’Brien, C. J. Cai, M. R. Morris, P. Liang, and M. S. Bernstein, “Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior,” in Proc. ACM UIST, Oct. 2023, pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606763
  14. F. Wu, E. Black, and V. Chandrasekaran, “Generative monoculture in large language models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=yZ7sn9pyqb
  15. L. Weidinger et al., “Taxonomy of risks posed by language models,” in Proc. ACM Conf. Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), June 2022, pp. 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533088
  16. X. Wang et al., “Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Learning Representations (ICLR), Mar. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.11171
  17. Y. Chang et al., “A survey on evaluation of large language models,” ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., vol. 15, no. 3, Mar. 2024, Art. no. 39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3641289
  18. Y. Liu, D. Iter, Y. Xu, S. Wang, R. Xu, and C. Zhu, “G-Eval: NLG evaluation using GPT-4 with better human alignment,” in Proc. EMNLP, Singapore, Dec. 2023, pp. 2511–2522. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.153
  19. S. M. T. I. Tonmoy et al., “A comprehensive survey of hallucination mitigation techniques in large language models,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 56, no. 9, Jan. 2024, Art. no. 220. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11724.39045
  20. S. Gehman, S. Gururangan, M. Sap, Y. Choi, and N. A. Smith, “RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models,” in Findings of the ACL: EMNLP, Nov. 2020, pp. 3356–3369. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.301
  21. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
  22. V. Sanh, L. Debut, J. Chaumond, and T. Wolf, “DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: Smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter,” arXiv:1910.01108, Mar. 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.01108
  23. D. Amodei, C. Olah, J. Steinhardt, P. Christiano, J. Schulman, and D. Mané, “Concrete problems in AI safety,” arXiv:1606.06565, July 2016. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.06565
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acss-2026-0017 | Journal eISSN: 2255-8691 | Journal ISSN: 2255-8683 (formerly 2255-8691)
Language: English
Page range: 206 - 213
Submitted on: Sep 4, 2026
Accepted on: Oct 19, 2026
Published online: Nov 1, 2026
Published in print: Jan 1, 2026
Published by: Riga Technical University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: Volume open

© 2026 Iurii Lukianchuk, Lev Boiko, Inna Kondius, published by Riga Technical University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.