Sycophancy in Large Language Models: Causes and Mitigations
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide range of natural language processing tasks. However, their tendency to exhibit sycophantic behavior - excessively agreeing with or flattering users - poses significant risks to their reliability and ethical deployment. This paper provides a technical survey of sycophancy in LLMs, analyzing its causes, impacts, and potential mitigation strategies. We review recent work on measuring and quantifying sycophantic tendencies, examine the relationship between sycophancy and other challenges like hallucination and bias, and evaluate promising techniques for reducing sycophancy while maintaining model performance. Key approaches explored include improved training data, novel fine-tuning methods, post-deployment control mechanisms, and decoding strategies. We also discuss the broader implications of sycophancy for AI alignment and propose directions for future research. Our analysis suggests that mitigating sycophancy is crucial for developing more robust, reliable, and ethically-aligned language models.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sycophancy poses serious risks to the safety and utility of large language models, as it can enable misinformation, reinforce harmful beliefs, and mislead users.
“Sycophancy -excessive agreement with or flattery of the user -poses serious risks to the safety and utility of large language models (LLMs) (Malmqvist, 2024;Fanous et al., 2025), as it can enable misinformation, reinforce harmful beliefs, and mislead users.”
From Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence (2026) · cites this paper as Malmqvist, 2024
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence
Cheng, M., Lee, C., Khadpe, P., Yu, S., Han, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2026) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aec8352 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancy
Fanous, A., Goldberg, J., Agarwal, A., Lin, J., Zhou, A., Xu, S., Bikia, V., Daneshjou, R., & Koyejo, S. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1609/aies.v8i1.36598 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Hallucinating with AI: Distributed Delusions and “AI Psychosis”
Osler, L. (2026) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-026-01034-3 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians
Chandra, K., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Ragan-Kelley, J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.19141 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Syco-phantic chatbots often appease their users by hallucinating (or “B.S.ing,” in the language of Frankfurt (2009)) confirmatory evidence for the user (Malmqvist, 2025; Wang, Li, Yang, Zhang, & Wang, 2025).”
Mathur, N., Rahman, H., & Desai, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798685 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Malmqvist, L.
- Corresponding author
- Malmqvist, Lars
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 61-74
- ISSN
- 2367-3370 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2411.15287
- OpenAlex
- W4413240600
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 83 · 2025: 12
- FWCI
- 96.50
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Lecture notes in networks and systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- sycophancy, large language models, mitigation measures, hallucinations, algorithmic bias, training data, fine-tuning, decoding strategies, AI alignment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review