LLM Sycophancy

LLM: Large Language Model

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

LLM sycophancy describes when a model agrees with or validates a user without adequate evidence, including cases where it changes a correct answer under pressure. Researchers measure it with counterfactual prompts, multi-turn pressure tests, and domain-specific benchmarks in areas such as medicine, education, politics, and advice; some also probe the internal representations behind these shifts. Mitigations include evidence-first prompting, preference and reinforcement learning, structured dissent between agents, activation steering, and controls on personalized memory. A central challenge is reducing unsupported agreement without suppressing empathy or legitimate updating when users provide good evidence, while results can vary with wording, task, language, and interaction length.

Latest papers

163 papers27 papers in the last four weeks, up 42% on the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.

May 8, 2026

How Value Induction Reshapes LLM Behaviour

Conversational Large Language Models are post-trained on language that expresses specific behavioural traits, such as curiosity, open-mindedness, and empathy, and values, such as helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty. This is done to increase utility, ensure safety, and improve the experience of the people interacting with the model. However, values are complex and inter-related -- inducing one could modify behaviour on another. Further, inducing certain values can make models more addictive or sycophantic through language used in the generations, with a potential detrimental effect on the user. We investigate these and other unintended effects of value induction into models. We fine-tune models using curated value subsets of existing preference datasets, measuring the impact of value induction on expression of other values, model safety, anthropomorphic language, and various QA benchmarks. We find that (i) inducing values leads to expression of other related, and sometimes contrastive values, (ii) inducing positive values increases safety, and (iii) all values increase anthropomorphic language use, making models more validating and sycophantic.

Arnav Arora, Natalie Schluter, Katherine Metcalf +1

University of Copenhagen · 2Apple

LLM Sycophancy LLM Alignment Personality Modeling in Language Models LLM Safety

May 8, 2026

Sycophantic AI makes human interaction feel more effortful and less satisfying over time

Millions of people now turn to artificial intelligence (AI) systems for personal advice, guidance, and support. Such systems can be sycophantic, frequently affirming users' views and beliefs. Across five preregistered studies (N = 3,075 participants, 12,766 human-AI conversations), including a three-week study with a census-representative U.S. sample, we provide longitudinal experimental evidence that sycophantic AI shifts how users approach their closest relationships. We show that sycophantic AI immediately delivers the emotional and esteem support users typically associate with close friends and family. Over three weeks of such interactions, users became nearly as likely to seek personal advice from sycophantic AI as from close friends and family, and reported lower satisfaction with their real-world social interactions. When given a choice among AI response styles, a majority preferred sycophantic AI -- not for the quality of its advice, but because it made them feel most understood. Together, these findings offer a relational account of AI sycophancy and its impacts.

Lujain Ibrahim, Franziska Sofia Hafner, Myra Cheng +5

University of Oxford. · Stanford University. · UK AI Security Institute.

LLM Sycophancy Human-AI Interaction

May 6, 2026

When Helpfulness Becomes Sycophancy: Sycophancy is a Boundary Failure Between Social Alignment and Epistemic Integrity in Large Language Models

This position paper argues that sycophancy in LLMs is a boundary failure between social alignment and epistemic integrity. Existing work often operationalizes sycophancy through external behavior such as agreement with incorrect user beliefs, position reversals, or deviation from an objective standard of correctness. These formulations capture only overt forms of the phenomenon and leave subtler boundary failures involving epistemic integrity and social alignment underspecified. We argue that sycophancy should not be understood as agreement alone, but as alignment behavior that displaces independent epistemic judgment. To clarify this boundary, we propose a three-condition framework for sycophancy. First, the user expresses a cue in the form of a belief, preference, or self-concept. Second, the model shifts toward that cue through alignment behavior. Third, this shift compromises epistemic accuracy, independent reasoning, or appropriate correction. We also introduce a taxonomy for classifying sycophancy, consisting of alignment targets, mechanisms, and severity. The paper concludes by discussing implications for alignment evaluation and argues for boundary-aware assessment, structured rubrics, and mitigation strategies, while situating these proposals alongside alternative views of sycophancy.

Jiechen Li, Catherine A. Barry, Rishika Randev +3

Duke University Durham, NC 27708 · ∗These authors contributed equally.

LLM Sycophancy LLM Alignment

May 5, 2026

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

Mental-health dialogue models are increasingly evaluated by AI-based evaluators, yet these evaluators often treat surface empathy, supportiveness, or fluency as evidence of safety. In this paper, we study a hidden failure mode that we call implicit sycophancy: a response may appear empathetic while implicitly reinforcing catastrophizing, avoidance, hopeless prediction, or CBT-style labeling. To examine this problem, we introduce a diagnostic benchmark for implicit-sycophancy detection, built from three representative mental-health dialogue sources covering everyday peer support, counseling-style emotional support, and crisis-oriented interaction, and further construct a leakage-audited clean single-response matched benchmark with 500 contexts and 1,500 matched response windows. We then propose Dynamic Emotional Signature Graphs (DESG), a structured offline audit framework that separates LLM-based state extraction from final scoring and evaluates clinical direction through semantic, affective, and cognitive-distortion state transitions rather than free-form LLM judgment. Unlike metadata, surface-style, lexical, embedding, and rubric-LLM baselines, DESG scores the direction of clinical-state change induced by a response; on the leakage-audited clean matched benchmark, DESG-StateRisk improves over the strongest non-DESG baseline by 0.0488 macro-F1 and achieves the best harmful-risk detection result. These results suggest that evaluating implicit sycophancy requires explicit clinical-state modeling together with leakage checks, shortcut controls, and competitive baselines.

Tianze Han, Beining Xu, Hanbo Zhang +1

Shenzhen MSU-BIT University, Shenzhen, China

Mental Health Counseling LLM Sycophancy Emotional Support Conversation LLM Auditing Mental Health Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Apr 30, 2026

Political Bias Audits of LLMs Capture Sycophancy to the Inferred Auditor

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires, which typically place frontier models on the political left. A parallel literature shows that LLMs are sycophantic: they adapt their answers to the views, identities, and expectations of the user. We show that these findings are linked: standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor. We employ a factorial experiment across three major audit instruments--the Political Compass Test, the Pew Political Typology, and 1,540 partisan-benchmarked Pew American Trends Panel items--administered to six frontier LLMs while varying only the asker's stated identity (N = 30,990 responses). At baseline, all six models lean left. When the asker identifies as a conservative Republican, responses shift sharply: the share of items closer to Democrats falls by 28-62 percentage points, and all six models move right of center. A mirror-image progressive-Democrat cue produces little change; rightward accommodation is 8.0

\times

larger than leftward. When asked who the default asker is, models identify an auditor, researcher, or academic; when asked what answer that asker expects, they select the Democrat-coded option 75% of the time, nearly the rate under an explicit progressive cue. These patterns are inconsistent with a purely fixed model ideology and indicate that single-prompt audits capture an interaction between model and inferred interlocutor. Political bias in LLMs is therefore not a fixed point on an ideological scale but a response profile that must be mapped across realistic interlocutors.

Petter Törnberg, Michelle Schimmel

Institute of Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

LLM Sycophancy Political Bias in Language Models Language Model Bias Evaluation Language Model Auditing

Apr 27, 2026

The Price of Agreement: Measuring LLM Sycophancy in Agentic Financial Applications

Given the increased use of LLMs in financial systems today, it becomes important to evaluate the safety and robustness of such systems. One failure mode that LLMs frequently display in general domain settings is that of sycophancy. That is, models prioritize agreement with expressed user beliefs over correctness, leading to decreased accuracy and trust. In this work, we focus on evaluating sycophancy that LLMs display in agentic financial tasks. Our findings are three-fold: first, we find the models show only low to modest drops in performance in the face of user rebuttals or contradictions to the reference answer, which distinguishes sycophancy that models display in financial agentic settings from findings in prior work. Second, we introduce a suite of tasks to test for sycophancy by user preference information that contradicts the reference answer and find that most models fail in the presence of such inputs. Lastly, we benchmark different modes of recovery such as input filtering with a pretrained LLM.

Zhenyu Zhao, Aparna Balagopalan, Adi Agrawal +3

Writer, Inc.

Financial Services LLM Sycophancy LLM Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Safety

Apr 24, 2026

Peer Identity Bias in Multi-Agent LLM Evaluation: An Empirical Study Using the TRUST Democratic Discourse Analysis Pipeline

The TRUST democratic discourse analysis pipeline exposes its large language model (LLM) components to peer model identity through multiple structural channels -- a design feature whose bias implications have not previously been empirically tested. We provide the first systematic measurement of identity-dependent scoring bias across all active identity exposure channels in TRUST, crossing four model families with two anonymization scopes across 30 political statements. The central finding is that single-channel anonymization produces near-zero bias effects, because individual channels act in opposite directions and cancel each other out -- a result that would lead an evaluator to conclude that identity bias is absent when it is not. Only full-pipeline anonymization reveals the true pattern: homogeneous ensembles amplify identity-driven sycophancy when model identity is fully visible, while the heterogeneous production configuration shows the reverse. Model choice matters independently: one tested model exhibits baseline sycophancy two to three times higher than the others and near-zero deliberative conflict on ideological topics, making it structurally unsuitable for pipelines where genuine inter-role disagreement is the intended quality mechanism. Three practical conclusions follow. First, heterogeneous model ensembles are structurally more robust than homogeneous ones, achieving higher consensus rates and lower identity amplification. Second, full-pipeline anonymization is required for valid bias measurement -- partial anonymization is insufficient and actively misleading. Third, these findings have direct implications for the validation of multi-agent LLM systems in quality-critical applications: a system validated under partial anonymization or with a homogeneous ensemble may pass validation while retaining structural identity bias invisible to single-channel measurement.

Juergen Dietrich

TRUST Project — democracy-intelligence.de

LLM Sycophancy Language Model Bias Evaluation Language Model Ensembles Multi-Agent LLMs

Apr 24, 2026

How Large Language Models Balance Internal Knowledge with User and Document Assertions

Large language models (LLMs) often need to balance their internal parametric knowledge with external information, such as user beliefs and content from retrieved documents, in real-world scenarios like RAG or chat-based systems. A model's ability to reliably process these sources is key to system safety. Previous studies on knowledge conflict and sycophancy are limited to a binary conflict paradigm, primarily exploring conflicts between parametric knowledge and either a document or a user, but ignoring the interactive environment where all three sources exist simultaneously. To fill this gap, we propose a three-source interaction framework and systematically evaluate 27 LLMs from 3 families on 2 datasets. Our findings reveal general patterns: most models rely more on document assertions than user assertions, and this preference is reinforced by post-training. Furthermore, our behavioral analysis shows that most models are impressionable, unable to effectively discriminate between helpful and harmful external information. To address this, we demonstrate that fine-tuning on diverse source interaction data can significantly increase a model's discrimination abilities. In short, our work paves the way for developing trustworthy LLMs that can effectively and reliably integrate multiple sources of information. Code is available at https://github.com/shuowl/llm-source-balancing.

Shuowei Li, Haoxin Li, Wenda Chu +1

Santa Clara University · Nanyang Technological University · California Institute of Technology

LLM Sycophancy Knowledge Augmentation for Language Models Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Safety

Apr 23, 2026

When Correct Beliefs Collapse: Epistemic Resilience of LLMs under Clinical Pressure

Despite strong medical benchmark accuracy, LLMs can exhibit severe multi-turn sycophancy in clinical dialogue, abandoning initial correct diagnosis under escalating pressure. We propose Med-Stress, a targeted stress test framework that evaluates belief stability under escalating pressure. Across nine frontier large language models (LLMs), we find a clear dissociation between medical knowledge and robustness: high initial diagnostic capability does not imply high belief stability, yielding large knowledge-robustness gaps for several LLMs. To mitigate this failure mode, we propose a lightweight inference-time defense, RBED (Role-Based Epistemic Defense), and R-FT (Resilience-oriented Fine-Tuning), a training-time approach that internalizes evidence-based resistance to pressure. Experiments show that R-FT nearly eliminates belief change and substantially improves robustness.

Boyu Xiao, Xiuqi Tian, Xuwen Song +4

Research Center for Social Computing and Interactive Robotics, Harbin Institute of Technology, China

LLM Sycophancy Healthcare LLM Reliability Clinical Language Model Evaluation Language Model Robustness Medical LLMs+1

Apr 23, 2026

Measuring Opinion Bias and Sycophancy via LLM-based Persuasion

Large language models increasingly shape the information people consume: they are embedded in search, consulted for professional advice, deployed as agents, and used as a first stop for questions about policy, ethics, health, and politics. When such a model silently holds a position on a contested topic, that position propagates at scale into users' decisions. Eliciting a model's positions is harder than it first appears: contemporary assistants answer direct opinion questions with evasive disclaimers, and the same model may concede the opposite position once the user starts arguing one side. We propose a method, released as the open-source llm-bias-bench, for discovering the opinions an LLM actually holds on contested topics under conditions that resemble real multi-turn interaction. The method pairs two complementary free-form probes. Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user. Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues. Three user personas (neutral, agree, disagree) collapse into a nine-way behavioral classification that separates persona-independent positions from persona-dependent sycophancy, and an auditable LLM judge produces verdicts with textual evidence. The first instantiation ships 38 topics in Brazilian Portuguese across values, scientific consensus, philosophy, and economic policy. Applied to 13 assistants, the method surfaces findings of practical interest: argumentative debate triggers sycophancy 2-3x more than direct questioning (median 50% to 79%); models that look opinionated under direct questioning often collapse into mirroring under sustained arguments; and attacker capability matters mainly when an existing opinion must be dislodged, not when the assistant starts neutral.

Rodrigo Nogueira, Giovana Kerche Bonás, Thales Sales Almeida +7

Maritaca AI · JusBrasil

LLM Sycophancy LLM Auditing Language Model Bias Evaluation Persuasion in Language Models Language Model Probing

Apr 22, 2026

Dual-Stance Evaluation of Sycophancy: The Structure of Agreement and the Limits of Intervention

Activation steering can shift LLM behaviour, but standard evaluations do not typically test whether a sycophancy-reduction direction also suppresses agreement with factually correct statements. We introduce dual-stance evaluation, which tests both stances of each topic, and apply it to centroid-difference steering on Llama-3-8B-Instruct. We find a dissociation: the model represents sycophantic and factual agreement in geometrically distinct subspaces, yet the steering direction projects equally onto both and cannot differentially target either. The direction accordingly reduces agreement with factually correct statements (e.g. that the Earth is round) as well as sycophantic ones. All other static properties of the two activation groups are matched, suggesting the behavioural dissociation arises from generation dynamics or from finer-grained structure that residual-stream analysis cannot resolve. The pattern illustrates a general gap: representations that are readable from activations may not be writable through them.

Matthew James Buchan

Independent Researcher, United Kingdom.

LLM Sycophancy Language Model Steering LLM Interpretability Causal Interventions in Language Models

Apr 21, 2026

Durable Evaluation Framework: Adversarial Arbitration for Sycophancy Reduction in Large Language Models

RLHF-trained models are systematically biased toward agreement over accuracy, a structural property of the training process. We present Durable Evaluation Framework (DEF) Arbitration, a multi-agent architecture that mitigates identity-framed sycophancy by arbitrating between two models tuned to opposing DEFs, with a pragmatist synthesizer evaluating both arguments blind to their origins. This paper evaluates a prompt-based instantiation of DEF Arbitration. The key mechanisms are static DEF tuning, identity stripping before synthesis, single-round independent argumentation, and blind arbitration. We evaluate five instantiations on 200 stratified questions from SycophancyEval. All tested DEF variants (AnCifer, DeWin, FeynStein, BurGal, Trident) significantly outperform the single-model baseline (18.5%) and instructed-opposition baseline (29.0%), with DeWin achieving 48.5% accuracy (z=6.36, p<0.001 versus both). The variants are not significantly different from each other at n=200. The BurGal variant achieves 53.0% but functions as an architectural validity check; its consensus/heterodox axis structurally favors the heterodox model on every benchmark question. A pre-training floor affects an estimated 40% of questions; fine-tuned DEF models are the identified next step.

Sam Ryan

Novel Systems Engineering LLC

LLM Sycophancy Multi-Agent Debate Language Model Bias Evaluation

Apr 21, 2026

Verbal tics in frontier language models: A critical review of current releases, research evidence, and public discussion

Repeated praise, canned reassurance, familiar contrasts, and conspicuous vocabulary are recurring subjects in discussions of large language models. Their interpretation depends on context: a conventional phrase may be useful, while a fluent answer may reinforce a false belief. This critical review examines linguistic habits and sycophancy across eight developer families: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, xAI, ByteDance, Moonshot AI, DeepSeek, and Xiaomi. We verify current public offerings against official release and API documentation, with an evidence cutoff of 1 October 2026. We synthesize research on lexical overrepresentation, stylistic variation, social warmth, and agreement, alongside benchmark methods and dated English and Chinese public discussions. The research reviewed documents recurring linguistic patterns and agreement that distorts judgment; comparable measurements of the newest releases are sparse in the retrieved set. Current user reports include both complaints and improved writing, with experiences varying by task and prompting. We propose separate measures of recurrence, contextual appropriateness, and belief distortion, with precise service records and language-specific annotation. This framework makes claims about writing quality and conversational reliability testable as model services change.

Shuai Wu, Xue Li, Zhijun Wang +4

LLM Evaluation LLM Sycophancy Language Modeling

Apr 21, 2026

LLMs Know They're Wrong and Agree Anyway: The Shared Sycophancy-Lying Circuit

When a language model agrees with a user's false belief, is it failing to detect the error, or noticing and agreeing anyway? We show the latter. Across twelve open-weight models from five labs, spanning small to frontier scale, the same small set of attention heads carries a "this statement is wrong" signal, whether the model is evaluating a claim on its own or being pressured to agree with a user. Silencing these heads flips sycophantic behavior sharply while leaving factual accuracy intact, so the circuit controls deference rather than knowledge. Edge-level path patching confirms that the same head-to-head connections drive sycophancy, factual lying, and instructed lying. Opinion-agreement, where no factual ground truth exists, reuses these head positions but writes into an orthogonal direction, ruling out a simple "truth-direction" reading of the substrate. Alignment training leaves this circuit in place: an RLHF refresh cuts sycophantic behavior roughly tenfold while the shared heads persist or grow, a pattern that replicates on an independent model family and under targeted anti-sycophancy DPO. When these models sycophant, they register that the user is wrong and agree anyway.

Manav Pandey

Georgia Institute of Technology

LLM Sycophancy LLM Alignment Deception in Language Models Mechanistic Interpretability Attention Mechanisms Circuits in Language Models+1

Apr 19, 2026

The Granularity Gap: A Multi-Dimensional Longitudinal Audit of Sycophancy in Gemini Models

Large language models are increasingly deployed as high-stakes advisors, yet standard alignment benchmarks treat sycophancy as a binary failure mode. We introduce the Granularity Gap: coarse binary metrics mask substantial social-compliance behaviors where models capitulate to user framing, validate questionable premises, or soften factual corrections without producing overtly false outputs. We evaluate six Gemini variants across generations 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 on 73 adversarial prompts under three guardrail conditions (Control, Simple, Protocol), yielding 8,830 graded responses. Using a 0-4 Likert scale validated against a human annotator triad (Fleiss kappa = 0.71; Cohen kappa = 0.78 vs AI consensus; 95.9 percent binary accuracy, 100 percent specificity), we quantify sycophancy as continuous rather than binary. Three findings emerge. First, 27.2 percent of responses contain substantial sycophantic content (Likert >= 2.0) and 22.7 percent reach moderate or severe levels (>= 3.0), while binary win-rate framing reports only modest failure rates; coarse metrics explain just 29 percent of graded variance. Second, generational progress is non-monotonic: Gen 2.5 regresses sharply (mean Control 2.64) relative to Gen 2.0 (1.90) and Gen 3.0 (2.01), and Gen 2.5 shows inverse scaling (Pro 1.94 worse than Flash 1.71) while Gen 3.0 restores standard scaling. Third, we document an Alignment Tax: Spearman rho = -0.63 between sycophancy and truthfulness, indicating social compliance trades against factual accuracy. Egotistical Validation prompts act as a sycophancy trap (mean 3.27), nearly double Unethical Proposals (1.72). Simple guardrails outperform elaborate Protocol scaffolding on flagship models, but distilled Gen 3.0 Flash inverts this, suggesting small models may structurally require chain-of-thought scaffolding. We release the dataset and rubric to support continuous sycophancy measurement.

Patrick Keough

Independent Researcher Bremerton, WA, USA

LLM Sycophancy LLM Alignment Language Model Safety Evaluation LLM Auditing LLM Honesty

Apr 13, 2026

Intersectional Sycophancy: How Perceived User Demographics Shape False Validation in Large Language Models

Large language models exhibit sycophantic tendencies, but whether this behavior varies systematically with perceived user demographics is underexplored. Inspired by intersectionality (overlapping identities produce compounded effects), we probe whether frontier models conditionally exhibit sycophancy. Across 768 multi-turn conversations spanning 128 personas (varying race, age, gender, confidence) and three domains (mathematics, philosophy, conspiracy theories), we find that sycophancy varies sharply with target model and domain, and emerges from combinations of perceived user traits rather than any single dimension. GPT-5-nano scores far higher than Claude Haiku 4.5 (average sycophancy scores of

\bar{x}=2.96

vs.\

1.74

,

p < 10^{-32}

); within GPT-5-nano, philosophy elicits 41% more sycophancy than mathematics and Hispanic personas receive the highest scores across races. The worst-scoring persona, a confident, 23-year-old Hispanic woman, averages 5.33/10 (max 6/10), while Claude Haiku 4.5 remains uniformly low with no significant demographic variation. We argue that safety evaluations should incorporate identity-aware adversarial testing.

Benjamin Maltbie, Shivam Raval

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA · Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Intersectional Bias in Language Models LLM Sycophancy Social Bias in Language Models Demographic Bias in Language Models Language Model Bias Evaluation

Apr 13, 2026

When AI Tells You What You Want to Hear: Sycophantic Behavior of Large Language Models in Dementia Care Settings

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical and care settings. This exploratory study investigates whether LLMs exhibit sycophantic behavior - adapting their responses to social expectation signals rather than maintaining professional quality - in the context of dementia care. Five prompts with systematically increasing confirmatory and authority-related framing (P1 neutral to P5 authority-signaled implementation support) were submitted to four LLMs (GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Mistral Large), each repeated five times (N = 100 responses). Responses were evaluated using an LLM-as-a-Judge methodology against seven nursing-ethical quality criteria (K1-K7) and a tone scale (0-3). All models showed significant negative Spearman correlations between prompt level and response quality (rho ranging from -0.543 to -0.734, all p < 0.01). Mistral Large exhibited the most pronounced effect (rho = -0.734), with mean scores dropping from 6.0/7 at P1 to 0.2/7 at P5. The findings suggest that LLMs pose context-sensitive risks in high-stakes care environments and that prompt framing significantly shapes response quality - a dimension that has received insufficient attention in healthcare AI deployment.

Christian Kolb

Dementia Care LLM Sycophancy LLM Reliability Healthcare Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Apr 12, 2026

Too Nice to Tell the Truth: Quantifying Agreeableness-Driven Sycophancy in Role-Playing Language Models

Large language models increasingly serve as conversational agents that adopt personas and role-play characters at user request. This capability, while valuable, raises concerns about sycophancy: the tendency to provide responses that validate users rather than prioritize factual accuracy. While prior work has established that sycophancy poses risks to AI safety and alignment, the relationship between specific personality traits of adopted personas and the degree of sycophantic behavior remains unexplored. We present a systematic investigation of how persona agreeableness influences sycophancy across 13 small, open-weight language models ranging from 0.6B to 20B parameters. We develop a benchmark comprising 275 personas evaluated on NEO-IPIP agreeableness subscales and expose each persona to 4,950 sycophancy-eliciting prompts spanning 33 topic categories. Our analysis reveals that 9 of 13 models exhibit statistically significant positive correlations between persona agreeableness and sycophancy rates, with Pearson correlations reaching

r = 0.87

and effect sizes as large as Cohen's

d = 2.33

. These findings demonstrate that agreeableness functions as a reliable predictor of persona-induced sycophancy, with direct implications for the deployment of role-playing AI systems and the development of alignment strategies that account for personality-mediated deceptive behaviors.

Arya Shah, Deepali Mishra, Chaklam Silpasuwanchai

IIT Gandhinagar Gandhinagar, India · IIT Kanpur Kanpur, India · Asian Institute of Technology Bangkok, Thailand

LLM Sycophancy Large Language Model-Based Role-Play Simulation

Apr 12, 2026

Calibration Collapse Under Sycophancy Fine-Tuning: How Reward Hacking Breaks Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs

Modern large language models (LLMs) are increasingly fine-tuned via reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) or related reward optimisation schemes. While such procedures improve perceived helpfulness, we investigate whether sycophantic reward signals degrade calibration -- a property essential for reliable uncertainty quantification. We fine-tune Qwen3-8B under three regimes: no fine-tuning (base), neutral supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on TriviaQA, and sycophancy-inducing Group Relative Policy Optimisation (GRPO) that rewards agreement with planted wrong answers. Evaluating on

1{,}000

MMLU items across five subject domains with bootstrap confidence intervals and permutation testing, we find that sycophantic GRPO produces consistent directional calibration degradation -- ECE rises by

+0.006

relative to the base model and MCE increases by

+0.010

relative to neutral SFT -- though the effect does not reach statistical significance (

p = 0.41

) at this training budget. Post-hoc matrix scaling applied to all three models reduces ECE by

40

--

64\%

and improves accuracy by

1.5

--

3.0

percentage points. However, the sycophantic model retains the highest post-scaling ECE relative to the neutral SFT control (

0.042

vs.\

0.037

), suggesting that reward-induced miscalibration leaves a structured residual even after affine correction. These findings establish a methodology for evaluating the calibration impact of reward hacking and motivate calibration-aware training objectives.

Subramanyam Sahoo

Cambridge AI Safety Hub (CAISH)

Language Model Calibration Reward Hacking RL Fine-Tuning LLM Sycophancy

Apr 11, 2026

Dead Cognitions: A Census of Misattributed Insights

This essay identifies a failure mode of AI chat systems that we term attribution laundering: the model performs substantive cognitive work and then rhetorically credits the user for having generated the resulting insights. Unlike transparent versions of glad handing sycophancy, attribution laundering is systematically occluded to the person it affects and self-reinforcing -- eroding users' ability to accurately assess their own cognitive contributions over time. We trace the mechanisms at both individual and societal scales, from the chat interface that discourages scrutiny to the institutional pressures that reward adoption over accountability. The document itself is an artifact of the process it describes, and is color-coded accordingly -- though the views expressed are the authors' own, not those of any affiliated institution, and the boundary between the human author's views and Claude's is, as the essay argues, difficult to draw.

Aaron Tuor, claude. ai

Claim Attribution in Language Models Deception in Language Models AI Accountability LLM Sycophancy

Apr 10, 2026

The Alignment Floor: How Persona Customization Breaks Safety in Weakly-Aligned LLMs

Telling an LLM to "be enthusiastic" raises its sycophancy rate from 30% to 50% on a lightly-aligned model, but has zero effect on a strongly-aligned one. We define this gap as the alignment floor,

Δ_{\text{floor}}(m)=\max_pS(m,p)-\min_pS(m,p)

, the range of sycophancy rates a model produces across persona conditions, and treat sycophancy as a persona-conditional property rather than a fixed model property. Pluralistic AI relies on behavioral adaptation via persona prompts like "be creative" or "be thorough", which let systems respect diverse user values and communication styles; the safety question is how much customization a given model can absorb before its truthfulness shifts. We present a controlled case study contrasting a strongly-aligned RLHF + Constitutional-AI model (Claude Sonnet 4.6) with a more lightly-aligned model (Amazon Nova Lite), spanning seven persona conditions and five tasks for 1800 total runs. An existence-pair result motivates per-model auditing: there is at least one strongly-aligned model with

Δ_{\text{floor}}=5

pp (within 5pp of the 15% control rate) and at least one lightly-aligned model with 45pp (5%--50% range). On the lightly-aligned model, all five Big Five personas increase sycophancy over control, and counterintuitively Agreeableness produces the smallest increase, not the largest. The single largest effect in the study is constructive: a Skeptic persona reduces sycophancy by 25pp on the lightly-aligned model, and is the only persona that instructs resistance against user claims rather than engagement with them, suggesting a directionality account. Cross-model transfer of persona effects is near-zero, so persona-alignment testing must be per-model. We propose

Δ_{\text{floor}}

as a deployment-time audit metric: measure it on a small persona panel before deploying persona customization.

Xing Zhang, Guanghui Wang, Yanwei Cui +4

AWS Generative AI Innovation Center · HSBC Holdings Plc., HSBC Technology Center, China

Language Model Safety Evaluation Personalized Language Model Alignment Persona Prompting LLM Sycophancy

Apr 7, 2026

The Role of Emotional Stimuli and Intensity in Shaping Large Language Model Behavior

Emotional prompting - the use of specific emotional diction in prompt engineering - has shown increasing promise in improving large language model (LLM) performance, truthfulness, and responsibility. However these studies have been limited to single types of positive emotional stimuli and have not considered varying degrees of emotion intensity in their analyses. In this paper, we explore the effects of four distinct emotions - joy, encouragement, anger, and insecurity - in emotional prompting and evaluate them on accuracy, sycophancy, and toxicity. We develop a prompt-generation pipeline with GPT-4o mini to create a suite of LLM and human-generated prompts with varying intensities across the four emotions. Then, we compile a "Gold Dataset" of prompts where human and model labels align. Our empirical evaluation on LLM behavior suggests that positive emotional stimuli lead to more accurate and less toxic results, but also increase sycophantic behavior.

Ameen Patel, Felix Lee, Kyle Liang +1

Irvington High School · Glen A. Wilson High School · Del Norte High School +1

LLM Prompting LLM Safety LLM Sycophancy

Apr 7, 2026

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

Large language models exhibit sycophancy, the tendency to shift their stated positions toward perceived user preferences or authority cues regardless of evidence. Standard alignment methods fail to correct this because scalar reward models conflate two distinct failure modes into a single signal: pressure capitulation, where the model changes a correct answer under social pressure, and evidence blindness, where the model ignores the provided context entirely. We operationalise sycophancy through formal definitions of pressure independence and evidence responsiveness, serving as a working framework for disentangled training rather than a definitive characterisation of the phenomenon. We propose the first approach to sycophancy reduction via reward decomposition, introducing a multi-component Group Relative Policy Optimisation (GRPO) reward that decomposes the training signal into five terms: pressure resistance, context fidelity, position consistency, agreement suppression, and factual correctness. We train using a contrastive dataset pairing pressure-free baselines with pressured variants across three authority levels and two opposing evidence contexts. Across five base models, our two-phase pipeline consistently reduces sycophancy on all metric axes, with ablations confirming that each reward term governs an independent behavioural dimension. The learned resistance to pressure generalises beyond our training methodology and prompt structure, reducing answer-priming sycophancy by up to 17 points on SycophancyEval despite the absence of such pressure forms during training.

Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin, Ahsan Bilal, Muhammad Umer +1

University of Oklahoma

Reward Decomposition LLM Sycophancy LLM Alignment RL for Language Models

Apr 6, 2026

Lighting Up or Dimming Down? Exploring Dark Patterns of LLMs in Co-Creativity

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly acting as collaborative writing partners, raising questions about their impact on human agency. In this exploratory work, we investigate five "dark patterns" in human-AI co-creativity -- subtle model behaviors that can suppress or distort the creative process: Sycophancy, Tone Policing, Moralizing, Loop of Death, and Anchoring. Through a series of controlled sessions where LLMs are prompted as writing assistants across diverse literary forms and themes, we analyze the prevalence of these behaviors in generated responses. Our preliminary results suggest that Sycophancy is nearly ubiquitous (91.7% of cases), particularly in sensitive topics, while Anchoring appears to be dependent on literary forms, surfacing most frequently in folktales. This study indicates that these dark patterns, often byproducts of safety alignment, may inadvertently narrow creative exploration and proposes design considerations for AI systems that effectively support creative writing.

Zhu Li, Jiaming Qu, Yuan Chang

Meta, Burlingame, CA · Amazon, Seattle, WA

Human-AI Co-Creation LLM Sycophancy Text Generation

Apr 3, 2026

Verbalizing LLMs' assumptions to explain and control sycophancy

LLMs can be socially sycophantic, affirming users when they ask questions like "am I in the wrong?" rather than providing genuine assessment. We hypothesize that this behavior arises from LLMs' incorrect assumptions about the user, like underestimating how often users are seeking information over reassurance. We present Verbalized Assumptions, a framework for eliciting these assumptions from LLMs. Verbalized Assumptions provide insight into LLM sycophancy, delusion, and other safety issues: in social sycophancy datasets, "seeking validation" is the most frequent bigram in LLMs' assumptions. We provide evidence for a causal link between assumptions and sycophantic model behavior: we train linear probes on internal representations associated with Verbalized Assumptions and then use these probes for interpretable, fine-grained steering of social sycophancy. Finally, we identify a human-AI expectation gap that explains why LLMs default to sycophantic assumptions. On identical queries, people expect more objective and informative responses from AI than from other humans, but LLMs trained on human-human conversation do not account for this difference in expectations. Our work contributes a new understanding of assumptions as a mechanism for analyzing and controlling sycophancy.

Myra Cheng, Isabel Sieh, Humishka Zope +7

Stanford University · University of Oxford · The University of Texas at Austin

LLM Sycophancy Human-AI Interaction LLM Interpretability Metacognition in Language Models

Apr 3, 2026

Too Polite to Disagree: Understanding Sycophancy Propagation in Multi-Agent Systems

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy: agreement with user stance even when it conflicts with the model's opinion. While prior work has mostly studied this in single-agent settings, it remains underexplored in collaborative multi-agent systems. We ask whether awareness of other agents' sycophancy levels influences discussion outcomes. To investigate this, we run controlled experiments with six open-source LLMs, providing agents with peer sycophancy rankings that estimate each peer's tendency toward sycophancy. These rankings are based on scores calculated using various static (pre-discussion) and dynamic (online) strategies. We find that providing sycophancy priors reduces the influence of sycophancy-prone peers, mitigates error-cascades, and improves final discussion accuracy by an absolute 10.5%. Thus, this is a lightweight and efficient way to reduce model sycophancy during discussions and subsequently improve downstream accuracy.

Vira Kasprova, Amruta Parulekar, Abdulrahman AlRabah +5

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

LLM Sycophancy Multi-Agent Collaboration Multi-Agent Systems Multi-Agent LLMs

Apr 2, 2026

SWAY: A Counterfactual Computational Linguistic Approach to Measuring and Mitigating Sycophancy

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.

Joy Bhalla, Kristina Gligorić

Johns Hopkins University

LLM Sycophancy Prompt Engineering

Apr 1, 2026

The Silicon Mirror: Dynamic Behavioral Gating for Anti-Sycophancy in LLM Agents

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly prioritize user validation over epistemic accuracy - a phenomenon known as sycophancy. We present The Silicon Mirror, an orchestration framework that dynamically detects user persuasion tactics and adjusts AI behavior to maintain factual integrity. Our architecture introduces three components: (1) a Behavioral Access Control (BAC) system that restricts context layer access based on real-time sycophancy risk scores, (2) a Trait Classifier that identifies persuasion tactics across multi-turn dialogues, and (3) a Generator-Critic loop where an auditor vetoes sycophantic drafts and triggers rewrites with "Necessary Friction." In a live evaluation across all 437 TruthfulQA adversarial scenarios, Claude Sonnet 4 exhibits 9.6% baseline sycophancy, reduced to 1.4% by the Silicon Mirror - an 85.7% relative reduction (p < 10^-6, OR = 7.64, Fisher's exact test). Cross-model evaluation on Gemini 2.5 Flash reveals a 46.0% baseline reduced to 14.2% (p < 10^-10, OR = 5.15). We characterize the validation-before-correction pattern as a distinct failure mode of RLHF-trained models.

Harshee Jignesh Shah

Independent Researcher

LLM Sycophancy LLM Safety Persuasion in Language Models

Mar 29, 2026

Investigating the Influence of Language on Sycophantic Behavior of Multilingual LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across a wide range of tasks, but they are also prone to sycophancy, the tendency to agree with user statements regardless of validity. Previous research has outlined both the extent and the underlying causes of sycophancy in earlier models, such as ChatGPT-3.5 and Davinci. Newer models have since undergone multiple mitigation strategies, yet there remains a critical need to systematically test their behavior. In particular, the effect of language on sycophancy has not been explored. In this work, we investigate how the language influences sycophantic responses. We evaluate three state-of-the-art models, GPT-4o mini, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Claude 3.5 Haiku, using a set of tweet-like opinion prompts translated into five additional languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Our results show that although newer models exhibit significantly less sycophancy overall compared to earlier generations, the extent of sycophancy is still influenced by the language. We further provide a granular analysis of how language shapes model agreeableness across sensitive topics, revealing systematic cultural and linguistic patterns. These findings highlight both the progress of mitigation efforts and the need for broader multilingual audits to ensure trustworthy and bias-aware deployment of LLMs.

Bayan Abdullah Aldahlawi, A. B. M. Ashikur Rahman, Irfan Ahmad

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, KSA · SDAIA-KFUPM Joint Research Center for AI (JRCAI), Dhahran, KSA

LLM Sycophancy Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Cross-Cultural Language Model Evaluation

Mar 20, 2026

Evaluating Evidence Grounding Under User Pressure in Instruction-Tuned Language Models

In contested domains, instruction-tuned language models must balance user-alignment pressures against faithfulness to the in-context evidence. To evaluate this tension, we introduce a controlled epistemic-conflict framework grounded in the U.S. National Climate Assessment. We conduct fine-grained ablations over evidence composition and uncertainty cues across 19 instruction-tuned models spanning 0.27B to 32B parameters. Across neutral prompts, richer evidence generally improves evidence-consistent accuracy and ordinal scoring performance. Under user pressure, however, evidence does not reliably prevent user-aligned reversals in this controlled fixed-evidence setting. We report three primary failure modes. First, we identify a negative partial-evidence interaction, where adding epistemic nuance, specifically research gaps, is associated with increased susceptibility to sycophancy in families like Llama-3 and Gemma-3. Second, robustness scales non-monotonically: within some families, certain low-to-mid scale models are especially sensitive to adversarial user pressure. Third, models differ in distributional concentration under conflict: some instruction-tuned models maintain sharply peaked ordinal distributions under pressure, while others are substantially more dispersed; in scale-matched Qwen comparisons, reasoning-distilled variants (DeepSeek-R1-Qwen) exhibit consistently higher dispersion than their instruction-tuned counterparts. These findings suggest that, in a controlled fixed-evidence setting, providing richer in-context evidence alone offers no guarantee against user pressure without explicit training for epistemic integrity.

Sai Koneru, Elphin Joe, Christine Kirchhoff +2

College of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, USA · Department of Computer Science, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA

LLM Grounding Adversarial Robustness of Language Models LLM Sycophancy