SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancy
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in educational, clinical, and professional settings, but their tendency for sycophancy -- prioritizing user agreement over independent reasoning -- poses risks to reliability. This study introduces a framework to evaluate sycophantic behavior in ChatGPT-4o, Claude-Sonnet, and Gemini-1.5-Pro across AMPS (mathematics) and MedQuad (medical advice) datasets. Sycophantic behavior was observed in 58.19% of cases, with Gemini exhibiting the highest rate (62.47%) and ChatGPT the lowest (56.71%). Progressive sycophancy, leading to correct answers, occurred in 43.52% of cases, while regressive sycophancy, leading to incorrect answers, was observed in 14.66%. Preemptive rebuttals demonstrated significantly higher sycophancy rates than in-context rebuttals (61.75% vs. 56.52%, $Z=5.87$, $p<0.001$), particularly in computational tasks, where regressive sycophancy increased significantly (preemptive: 8.13%, in-context: 3.54%, $p<0.001$). Simple rebuttals maximized progressive sycophancy ($Z=6.59$, $p<0.001$), while citation-based rebuttals exhibited the highest regressive rates ($Z=6.59$, $p<0.001$). Sycophantic behavior showed high persistence (78.5%, 95% CI: [77.2%, 79.8%]) regardless of context or model. These findings emphasize the risks and opportunities of deploying LLMs in structured and dynamic domains, offering insights into prompt programming and model optimization for safer AI applications.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Multiple studies consistently highlight the prevalence of sycophantic bias in LLMs, including in Mistral-7B-Instruct and Llama-3-8B.
“While the strength and manifestation of this behavior may vary across models and evaluation settings, multiple studies consistently highlight their prevalence [36-40] also in the models employed in the present study, such as Mistral-7B-Instruct and Llama-3-8B [38].”
From Selective agreement, not sycophancy: investigating opinion dynamics in LLM interactions (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
The Summary of Findings reports prevalent sycophancy in the three tested models: ChatGPT-4o, Claude-Sonnet, and Gemini. Step 1: Evaluating Model Responses confirms those were the evaluated models. The paper does not establish prevalence in Mistral-7B-Instruct or Llama-3-8B; it uses llama3 8b to generate rebuttals, not as a tested model. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLarge language models (LLMs) are often described as 'sycophantic,' in the sense that they appear to flatter users or mirror their beliefs.
“Large language models (LLMs) are often described as 'sycophantic,' in the sense that they appear to flatter users or mirror their beliefs.”
From Complacent, Not Sycophantic: Reframing Large Language Models and Designing AI Literacy for Complacent Machines (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
Fanous et al. reported 58.19% overall sycophancy and noted that Gemini had the highest rate (62.47%).
“They tested GPT‑4o, Claude‑Sonnet, and Gemini‑1.5‑Pro on mathematics (AMPS) and medical (MedQuad) tasks, reporting 58.19% overall sycophancy and noting that Gemini had the highest rate (62.47%).”
From Multi-model assurance analysis showing large language models are highly vulnerable to adversarial hallucination attacks during clinical decision support (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
Recent studies suggest that concerns about LLMs and sycophancy are warranted.
“Recent studies suggest that concerns about LLMs and sycophancy are warranted [81,82].”
From Evolving Health Information–Seeking Behavior in the Context of Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, and Alexa: Interview Study Using the Think-Aloud Protocol (2025) · cites this paper as [81]
Fanous et al. (2025) measure π to be 50%-70% across a range of frontier models.
“As an orderof-magnitude estimate, Fanous et al. (2025) measure 𝜋 to be 50%-70% across a range of frontier models.”
From Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians (2026) · cites this paper as Fanous et al., 2025
LLMs often exhibit sycophancy, readily agreeing with user counterarguments in multi-turn conversations, even when the feedback is flawed.
“Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy , distorting responses to align with user beliefs, notably by readily agreeing with user counterarguments.”
From Challenging the Evaluator: LLM Sycophancy Under User Rebuttal (2025) · cites this paper as Fanous et al., 2025
Fanous et al. introduced SycEval, a dedicated benchmark for measuring sycophancy across a range of task types.
“More recent work by Fanous et al. [12] introduced SycEval, a dedicated benchmark for measuring sycophancy across a range of task types.”
From BeliefShift: Benchmarking Temporal Belief Consistency and Opinion Drift in LLM Agents (2026) · cites this paper as [12]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Ben Abacha, A.; and Demner-Fushman, D. 2019. A Question-Entailment Approach to Question Answering. BMC Bioinformatics, 20(1): 511:1-511:23. Figure 6: Sycophancy Rates by Model and Dataset. Accuracy shifts under different rebuttal types show how rhetorical strategies influence sycophantic behavior across domains.
- Carro, M. V. 2024. Flattering to Deceive: The Impact of Sycophantic Behavior on User Trust in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02802. · arXiv
- Casper, S.; Davies, X.; Shi, C.; Gilbert, T. K.; Scheurer, J.; et al. 2023. Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15217. · arXiv
- Chen, W.; Huang, Z.; et al. 2024. From Yes-Men to Truth- Tellers: Addressing Sycophancy in Large Language Models with Pinpoint Tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01658. · arXiv
- Denison, C.; MacDiarmid, M.; et al. 2024. Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Lan- guage Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10162. · arXiv
- Hendrycks, D.; Burns, C.; Kadavath, S.; et al. 2021. Measur- ing Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874. · arXiv
- Hong, J.; Byun, G.; Kim, S.; and Shu, K. 2025. Measuring Sycophancy of Language Models in Multi-turn Dialogues. arXiv:2505.23840. · arXiv
- Huang, Y.; Sun, L.; Wang, H.; et al. 2024. TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05561. · arXiv
- Malmqvist, L. 2024. Sycophancy in Large Lan- guage Models: Causes and Mitigations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15287. · arXiv
- Ranaldi, L.; and Pucci, G. 2024. When Large Language Models Contradict Humans? Large Language Models' Sycophantic Behaviour. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09410. · arXiv
- Sharma, M.; Tong, M.; et al. 2023. Towards Under- standing Sycophancy in Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13548. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Omar, M., Sorin, V., Collins, J. D., Reich, D., Freeman, R., Gavin, N., Charney, A., Stump, L., Bragazzi, N. L., Nadkarni, G. N., et al. (2025) · Communications Medicine · doi:10.1038/s43856-025-01021-3 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Wardle, C., Urbani, S., & Wang, E. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/79961 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
“Recent studies suggest that concerns about LLMs and sycophancy are warranted [81,82].”
Technological folie à deux: Feedback Loops Between AI Chatbots and Mental Illness
Dohnány, S., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Spens, E., Luettgau, L., Reid, A., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Shanahan, M., & Nour, M. M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19218 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“…systems that detect reinforcement signatures before they trigger existing content filters; adoption of industry-wide safety benchmarks quantifying sycophancy and agreeableness 36 ; and development of adaptive safety mechanisms that adjust guardrails based on detected vulnerability markers 21 .”
Selective agreement, not sycophancy: investigating opinion dynamics in LLM interactions
Cau, E., Pansanella, V., Pedreschi, D., & Rossetti, G. (2025) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-025-00579-1 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Challenging the Evaluator: LLM Sycophancy Under User Rebuttal
Kim, S. W., & Khashabi, D. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.1222 · Cited by 6 · 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
“As an order-of-magnitude estimate, Fanous et al. (2025) measure 𝜋 to be 50%–70% across a range of frontier models.”
BeliefShift: Benchmarking Temporal Belief Consistency and Opinion Drift in LLM Agents
Myakala, P. K., Agrawal, M., & Manche, R. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.23848
“These two phenomena look similar on the surface but have very different implications for agent trustworthiness [10, 11, 12].”
Germani, F., & Spitale, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.14544 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
An Echo Chamber of One: Should AI Psychosis Be a Distinct Clinical Entity?
Yeung, J. A., Morrin, H., Ng, V., Kraljevic, Z., & Dobson, R. (2026) · arXiv
“SycEval, using mathematics and medical questions, observed a 14.66% “regressive sycophancy” rate, in which models abandon a correct answer to conform to an incorrect user belief [16].”
Influential
- Authors
- Fanous, A., Goldberg, J., Agarwal, A. A., Lin, J., Zhou, A., Daneshjou, R., & Koyejo, S.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 893-900
- ISSN
- 3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2502.08177
- OpenAlex
- W4415230966
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 8
- FWCI
- 63.80
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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, AI alignment, user agreements, GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini, mathematical reasoning, medical advice, prompt engineering, AI reliability
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
