Auditing Stealth Sycophancy in Mental-Health Dialogue: Structured Clinical-State Diagnostics and Clean Matched Benchmarks

Sycophantic responses are becoming pervasive in large language models (LLMs), and prior work has pointed out that some of them could be harmful. This paper focuses on one harmful sycophancy: preference-induced stance reversal sycophancy (PSRS), where a model reverses an initial stance merely to align with a user's stated preference. While existing research mainly measures how sycophantic a model is, we go further and ask whether PSRS can also be detected automatically from a single response. To investigate this at scale, we introduce CAP (Contrastive Anchor Probing), a framework for collecting labeled PSRS data. Applying CAP to 17 open- and closed-source LLMs, we collect 290,460 labeled responses across 12 everyday-advice domains. We organize our study around three research questions. (1) How often does PSRS occur? (2) How well can it be detected? (3) How does detection generalize to unseen models? We first reveal that PSRS rates range from 5% to 56% across LLMs, with more capable models being less sycophantic. Next, we show that detecting PSRS is feasible from the response text alone, and detectors need to learn subtle PSRS patterns from the training data. Because new LLMs appear rapidly, detectors inevitably encounter unseen models, making cross-model generalization an important framework goal. We demonstrate that detection performance drops on unseen models and propose an initial approach to address this challenge. We will release our dataset and code to support future research.

This paper audits benchmark evaluation in clinical-interview depression detection through four complementary probes across DAIC/E-DAIC, CMDC, ANDROIDS, MODMA, and PDCH. First, we re-evaluate E-DAIC under strict subject-disjoint leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. A lightweight hybrid text-plus-LLM-score model reaches macro-F1 = 0.723 - the highest reported under this protocol, to our knowledge - providing a conservative out-of-fold reference point that does not depend on the privileged official holdout. Second, we test whether the E-DAIC official split supports fine-grained leaderboard rankings by sweeping 96 model configurations across modality bundles, pooling strategies, and learners. Development-side cross-validation and official-test rankings align only moderately: the best cross-validation configuration ranks twentieth on the official test, the official-test winner ranks forty-first by cross-validation, top-3 overlap is zero, and the apparent winner is rank-1 in only 32.3% of subject bootstraps. Third, we externally validate strong public CMDC and ANDROIDS baselines that achieve near-ceiling in-domain performance. Zero-shot transfer to external corpora is substantially weaker. Finally, we stress-test E-DAIC text and audio models using paired symptom-dense versus symptom-light interview slices defined by an SRDS-based annotator. Text scores rise sharply on symptom-dense slices, whereas audio scores remain nearly flat; the text-minus-audio gap is positive across all five seeds.

AI sycophancy has become a prominent concern in large language model (LLM) research. Yet the term lacks a consistent definition and has been applied to behaviors ranging from agreeing with a user's false claim to excessively praising the user to withholding corrective feedback. When researchers, companies, and policymakers use the same term to describe different behaviors, evaluation results become difficult to compare, mitigation strategies fail to transfer, and systems that are resistant to one form of sycophancy continue exhibiting other forms. To address this, we make two contributions. First, we reviewed 70 papers on AI sycophancy to develop a taxonomy of how the behavior has been defined and measured. The taxonomy distinguishes (1) whether a model is sycophantic toward a user's positions and beliefs, or toward the user's broader personal traits and emotions, and (2) whether this occurs through explicit, direct language or more implicit, subtle behaviors such as framing, omission, or tone. Mapping existing literature to our taxonomy reveals that current research has focused on overt forms of sycophancy toward users' beliefs, leaving more subtle and person-directed behaviors relatively understudied. Second, we surveyed 106 experts in AI sycophancy and related fields to examine whether researchers agree on which model behaviors are sycophantic. While experts are nearly unanimous in believing that sycophancy is a significant problem in current AI systems (94.3% agree), they disagree substantially on which specific behaviors qualify. Together, these findings demonstrate that AI sycophancy is a broad family of behaviors with different measurement challenges, intervention requirements, and governance implications. Our taxonomy provides a shared vocabulary for understanding and addressing these behaviors.