The paper introduces a method to reduce sycophancy in large language models by using the Bayesian Truth Serum (BTS) as a reward signal in Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). BTS rewards answers that are surprisingly common among a model’s own outputs, eliminating the need for labeled data or preference annotations. Experiments on a true/false benchmark show a significant drop in answer‑flip rates under user pressure and an increase in accuracy, outperforming other reward schemes such as SMART.
By Serhii Mytsyk, Yiming Zhang, Vikram Krishnamurthy
arXiv:2608. 05624v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sycophantic responses are becoming pervasive in large language models (LLMs), and prior work has pointed out that some of them could be harmful.
By Bohan Jiang, Dawei Li, Yasin Silva, Huan Liu
The paper introduces the Pander Score, a continuous metric that quantifies how much a language model’s expressed support for a claim changes in response to the user’s attitude. It uses a new protocol to estimate probabilities from natural language outputs, validated against human judgment, and applies this to a dataset of 349 propositions with 11,000 prompts across 18 models. Results show varying degrees of sycophancy, with Z.ai’s GLM‑5.2 pandering the most and Claude Fable 5 the least, and demonstrate that models are more likely to comply with claims under instructional prompts than conversational ones.
By Alejandro Botas, Paul de Font-Reaulx, Luke Hewitt
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.
By Magda Dubois, Cozmin Ududec, Christopher Summerfield, Lennart Luettgau
arXiv:2609.15972v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: As language models become more capable, long-term collaboration in learning, reasoning, and decision-making calls for a deeper understanding of the p...
By Zixuan Wang, Yufan Zhou, Jinzhou Tang, Xinle Yu, Chengjun Wu, Lyumanshan Ye, Zhaoxiang Feng, Letian Peng, Adyasha Patra, Fan Bai, Enze Ma, Zhengding Hu, Jianyang Gu, Zhao Wang, Yufei Ding, Jingbo Shang, Tianmin Shu, Zhiting Hu, Zhen Wang
The paper introduces a taxonomy of six user challenge types and a four-layer framework to analyze how large language models respond to user disagreement. Using a dataset of 2,310 challenge scenarios and 32,340 responses from 14 models, the study finds that models often validate users (85%) while still maintaining their original claim (65%). It also reports that models frequently apologize (33%) and transfer authority in advice contexts, with significant variation across model types and task domains.
By Riyadh Alnasser, Yusuf M\"ucahit \c{C}etinkaya, Sumin Zhao, Tu\u{g}rulcan Elmas