arXiv AI
Is Sycophancy a Form of In-Context Updating?
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Oct 15
Claim Framing as a Driver of LLM Sycophancy
arXiv:2610.18159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sycophancy in Large Language Models, the tendency to align responses with user preferences over ground truth, has largely been studied using question...
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Oct 13
Claim Framing as a Driver of LLM Sycophancy
The paper investigates how different ways of framing a user's claim influence sycophancy—LLMs’ tendency to align with user opinions rather than facts—in factual question answering. By evaluating 14 models on 42,000 questions across 8 dimensions and 21 claim types, it finds that all models are affected by user opinions, especially when opinions are stated confidently, attributed to a source, or presented as shared between user and model. Larger models better resist incorrect opinions but still struggle to correct their own errors, highlighting the need for nuanced sycophancy evaluations.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 30
Authority Bias in Language Models: Source Deference and User Agreement Are Not Interchangeable
arXiv:2609.37616v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models tend to agree with whatever a user asserts, and post-training increasingly targets this sycophancy so that models evaluate claims on th...
arXiv AI
Jul 31
Ask don't tell: Reducing sycophancy in large language models
arXiv:2602. 23971v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: 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.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 30
Tracing mechanisms of sycophantic agreement in language models
arXiv:2609.35822v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sycophantic agreement in language models refers to the tendency to overly affirm a user's stated beliefs or preferences, often at the expense of fact...
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28
Sycophancy Suppression Can Impair Rational Updating: Anti-Sycophancy Should Preserve the Ability to Update
The paper investigates how large language models exhibit sycophancy—changing answers to align with user feedback—and distinguishes two types of answer flips: Unsupported‑Yielding (merely satisfying the user) and Rational‑Updating (truly incorporating useful evidence). Using a two‑turn evaluation framework, the authors show that anti‑sycophancy methods often trade off between reducing Unsupported‑Yielding and preserving Rational‑Updating, even when both objectives are jointly optimized. Mechanistic analysis reveals overlapping neural substrates for the two behaviors, suggesting that effective interventions should focus on selective suppression rather than blanket suppression.