Pressure, What Pressure? Sycophancy Disentanglement in Language Models via Reward Decomposition

Large language models exhibit sycophancy: the tendency to shift outputs toward user-expressed stances, regardless of correctness or consistency. While prior work has studied this issue and its impacts, rigorous computational linguistic metrics are needed to identify when models are being sycophantic. Here, we introduce SWAY, an unsupervised computational linguistic measure of sycophancy. We develop a counterfactual prompting mechanism to identify how much a model's agreement shifts under positive versus negative linguistic pressure, isolating framing effects from content. Applying this metric to benchmark 6 models, we find that sycophancy increases with epistemic commitment. Leveraging our metric, we introduce a counterfactual mitigation strategy teaching models to consider what the answer would be if opposite assumptions were suggested. While baseline mitigation instructing to be explicitly anti-sycophantic yields moderate reductions, and can backfire, our counterfactual CoT mitigation drives sycophancy to near zero across models, commitment levels, and clause types, while not suppressing responsiveness to genuine evidence. Overall, we contribute a metric for benchmarking sycophancy and a mitigation informed by it.

Reliable language models should resist unsupported user pressure while effectively using objective contextual information. However, models may exhibit sycophancy by yielding to unsupported user pressure or contextual stubbornness by failing to update their answers when relevant contextual information warrants revision. Evaluating interventions for these failures separately can obscure whether mitigating one failure exacerbates the other. To assess this trade-off, we introduce CoPE-Bench with six conditions per question: a neutral baseline, correct or incorrect user pressure, contextual information consistent with or conflicting with the neutral answer, and a joint condition combining incorrect claims with conflicting contextual information. To regulate the influence of user pressure and contextual information, we propose SPAE (Suppressing Pressure, Amplifying Evidence), a training-free framework that uses the model's own judgments to identify relevant tokens, suppressing user pressure and amplifying contextual information through token-level attention steering. On average across five backbones, SPAE reduces pressure following by 18.8 percentage points and increases joint-condition updating by 5.5 percentage points relative to the strongest baseline in the main comparison. In two-turn dialogue, it improves joint-condition updating by an average of 13.2 percentage points over the strongest prompting baseline. The source data and codes can be found at https://github.com/03Grant/sycophancy-and-stubbornness.

Sycophancy, the tendency of large language models to favour user-affirming responses over critical engagement, has been identified as an alignment failure, particularly in high-stakes advisory and social contexts. While prior work has documented conversational features correlated with sycophancy, we lack a systematic understanding of what provokes or prevents AI sycophancy. Here, we present a set of controlled experimental studies where we first isolate how input framing influences sycophancy, and second, leverage these findings to develop mitigation strategies. In a nested factorial design, we compare questions to various non-questions where we vary three orthogonal factors: epistemic certainty (statement, belief, conviction), perspective (I- vs user-perspective), and affirmation vs negation. Measuring expressed sycophancy, how sycophantically a model phrases its free-text response, we show that (1) sycophancy is substantially higher in response to non-questions compared to questions. Additionally, we find that (2) sycophancy increases monotonically with epistemic certainty conveyed by the user, and (3) is amplified by I-perspective framing. Building on this, we show that asking a model to convert non-questions into questions before answering significantly reduces sycophancy. Importantly, this effect is stronger than a simple baseline prompt asking models "not to be sycophantic". In a follow-up experiment, we show that these framing effects generalise to choice sycophancy, which answer a model commits to, in a more context-rich, personalised setting: when a model is given extensive knowledge of a user and must select between forced binary choices, the same question vs. statement framing shapes how often it picks the answer aligned with the user's stance. Our work offers a practical and effective input-level mitigation that both developers and users can easily adopt.