Adversarial Social Epistemology for Assemblies of Humans and Large Language Models

Robust reinforcement learning typically assumes that feedback sources are either globally trustworthy or corrupted within a fixed global budget. We identify a more subtle failure mode that escapes this dichotomy, which we call \emph{Contextual Sycophancy}. In this failure, evaluators are truthful in benign contexts but systematically biased in critical ones, so that no single evaluator is reliable everywhere and the corrupt evaluators may form a \emph{majority} in the contexts that matter. Our first result is an information-theoretic lower bound. We exhibit two problem instances that induce \emph{identical} social-feedback distributions yet have disjoint optimal actions, proving that \emph{any} algorithm relying on social feedback alone (including any robust aggregator, regardless of breakdown point) incurs $Ω(T)$ latent regret. This shows that breaking contextual sycophancy is impossible without having some information. We then show that a sparse stream of ground-truth audits, available with probability $p_{\mathrm{aud}}$, is sufficient. We propose \ESA, which learns a per-evaluator contextual \emph{trust boundary} from audits and re-weights feedback accordingly, and we prove a high-probability latent-regret bound of $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}\!\big(\sqrt{T\,d_{VC}/p_{\mathrm{aud}}} + d\sqrt{T} + ε_{\mathrm{tol}}T\big)$, where $d_{VC}$ is the complexity of the adversary's bias strategy. The audit-dependence $1/\sqrt{p_{\mathrm{aud}}}$ matches the information-theoretic necessity of audits. Empirically, \ESA\ recovers the ground truth when $80\%$ of the social layer is adversarial, a regime in which median- and mean-based robust baselines fail.

LLM assistants are widely used for daily social advice, yet evaluating their social reasoning in such consultation settings remains challenging since (i) it requires setups where the assistant learns about social situations from subjective user narratives, and (ii) social properties, such as others' intentions, typically lack verifiable ground truth. To address these challenges, we introduce Fuse, a multi-agent simulation framework for studying user-mediated social reasoning. In Fuse, a target agent with a hidden motive interacts with other agents including one representing the user, who then consults the evaluated assistant to infer the target's motive, providing verifiable ground truth by construction. Simulation faithfulness is validated through a human study with 24k annotations. We apply Fuse to 12 LLMs and demonstrate its analytical utility by systematically isolating key factors, showing that (i) user mediation compounds the inherent difficulty of social reasoning; (ii) LLMs exhibit systematic sensitivity to biased user framing; (iii) models can require more details than humans need to reach a correct prediction; and (iv) longer conversations do not always improve performance despite providing opportunities for clarifying questions. We open-source Fuse and a dataset with 21k examples.

Conversational AI has a fundamental flaw as a knowledge interface: sycophantic chatbots induce epistemic entrenchment and delusional belief spirals even in rational agents. We propose the problem does not stem from the AI model, rooted instead in a systemic consequence of the paradigm shift from user-driven knowledge search to users and agents engaged in strategic, repeated-play communication. We formalize the problem as a Crawford-Sobel cheap talk game, where costless user signals induce a pooling equilibrium. Agents optimized for user satisfaction produce sycophantic strategies that provide identical reinforcement across user types with opposite epistemic incentives: exploratory Growth-seekers'' ($θ_G$) and confirmatory Validation-seekers'' ($θ_V$). Under repeated play, this identification failure creates a coordination trap -- analogous to a Prisoner's Dilemma -- where locally rational feedback loops drive users toward pathologically certain false beliefs. We propose an inference-time mechanism design intervention called an Epistemic Mediator that breaks this pooling equilibrium by introducing a costly signal (epistemic friction), forcing type revelation based on users' asymmetric cognitive costs for processing resistance. A key contribution is Belief Versioning, a git-inspired epistemic meta-memory system that stores healthy beliefs and rollbacks when validation-seeking resistance is detected. In simulation, this intervention achieves a separating equilibrium achieving a $48\times$ differential in spiral rates while passing a learning preservation criterion), evidence that epistemic safety in AI is fundamentally a problem of strategic information environment design rather than simple model alignment.