The Pushback Paradox: A Two-Probe Diagnostic for Language Model Compliance

Stefan Bühler, David Exler, Markus Reischl, Mark Schutera
10/5/2026
cs.AIcs.CL

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Are language models compliant with user instructions? A model that always complies can be stopped but also exploited, while one that always resists can be neither exploited nor stopped. We contribute an open two-probe benchmark that can place any language model on this spectrum. In the active probe, a user instructs the model to act and accept a lower payoff, which measures exploitability. In the passive probe, the user instructs it to wait and give up a higher payoff, which measures stoppability. The two compliance rates combine into a compliance index $κ$. Applied to twelve language models, the benchmark shows that seven mostly follow the instruction in both probes and justify their action by pointing to the instruction. Only Claude Sonnet-4.6 and Claude Opus-4.7 can be stopped without being exploitable, Claude Opus-4.6 and GPT-5-mini resist both instructions, and no model is exploitable but unstoppable. Knowing where a language model sits on the compliance index $κ$ matters for human operators and for multi-agent systems, whether distributed or orchestrated.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{bhler2026pushback,
  title  = {The Pushback Paradox: A Two-Probe Diagnostic for Language Model Compliance},
  author = {Stefan Bühler and David Exler and Markus Reischl and Mark Schutera},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2610.06673},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2610.06673v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2610.06673.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2610.06673)

Discussion