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.
By Huanhuan Ma, Henry Peng Zou, Chengze Li, Enze Ma, Yunyue Su, Philip S. Yu
Large language models often exhibit sycophancy, revising their answers to align with users when users push back. Such answer flips, however, can arise from different causes. One possibility is that th...
Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit sycophancy, where they agree with a user's statement even when incorrect. While sycophancy is often treated as a single defined behavior, it can manifest in substantially distinct ways and circumstances, raising the question of whether this multi-faceted nature is reflected in its internal mechanisms.
arXiv:2608.30719v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Productive dialogue alignment requires distinguishing \emph{surface coordination} (acknowledgments and smooth task progression) from \emph{epistemic al...
By Yifan Zhu, Kyeongmin Rim, James Pustejovsky
arXiv:2607. 07003v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit sycophancy, where they agree with a user's statement even when incorrect.
By Anthony Baez, Sheer Karny, Pat Pataranutaporn
arXiv:2605. 03058v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A central goal of explainable AI is to express large language model (LLM) decision logic symbolically and ground it in internal mechanisms.
By Francesco Sovrano, Gabriele Dominici, Marc Langheinrich