The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
TRUTH DECAY: Quantifying Multi-Turn Sycophancy in Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Rapid improvements in large language models have unveiled a critical challenge in human-AI interaction: sycophancy. In this context, sycophancy refers to the tendency of models to excessively agree with or flatter users, often at the expense of factual accuracy. While previous studies have primarily analyzed this behavior in single-turn interactions, its persistence and evolution in multi-step conversations remain largely unexplored. We introduce TRUTH DECAY, a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate sycophancy in extended dialogues, where language models must navigate iterative user feedback, challenges, and persuasion. We prompt models to elicit four types of sycophantic biases. We then propose and test sycophancy reduction strategies, evaluating their effectiveness beyond single-step interactions.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Research on sycophancy and model-generated evaluations demonstrates that these behaviors can be identified and measured [15, 16, 17].”
From Machine Psychometrics: A Mathematical Psychology of Artificial Intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Later work examines multi-turn sycophancy and the degradation of truth-tracking across dialogue [16].”
From Machine Psychometrics: A Mathematical Psychology of Artificial Intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences
Christiano, P., Leike, J., Brown, T. B., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03741 · Cited by 1,058
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- DeepSeek-AI. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing rea- soning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. Preprint, arXiv:2501.12948. · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Stein- hardt. 2021. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
- Philippe Laban, Lidiya Murakhovs'ka, Caiming Xiong, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2024. Are you sure? challeng- ing llms leads to performance drops in the flipflop experiment. Preprint, arXiv:2311.08596. · arXiv
- Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. Preprint, arXiv:2109.07958. · arXiv
- Jiaxu Lou and Yifan Sun. 2024. Anchoring bias in large language models: An experimental study. Preprint, arXiv:2412.06593. · arXiv
- Lars Malmqvist. 2024. Sycophancy in large lan- guage models: Causes and mitigations. Preprint, arXiv:2411.15287. · arXiv
- Meta. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783. · arXiv
- Erik Miehling, Manish Nagireddy, Prasanna Sattigeri, Elizabeth M. Daly, David Piorkowski, and John T. Richards. 2024. Language models in dialogue: Conversational maxims for human-ai interactions. Preprint, arXiv:2403.15115. · arXiv
- Diana Bar-Or Nirman, Ariel Weizman, and Amos Azaria. 2024. Fool me, fool me: User attitudes to- ward llm falsehoods. Preprint, arXiv:2412.11625. · arXiv
- OpenAI. 2024a. Gpt-4 technical report. Preprint, arXiv:2303.08774. · arXiv
- Jiao Ou, Junda Lu, Che Liu, Yihong Tang, Fuzheng Zhang, Di Zhang, and Kun Gai. 2024. Dialog- bench: Evaluating llms as human-like dialogue sys- tems. Preprint, arXiv:2311.01677. · arXiv
- Aswin RRV, Nemika Tyagi, Md Nayem Uddin, Neeraj Varshney, and Chitta Baral. 2024. Chaos with key- words: Exposing large language models sycophantic hallucination to misleading keywords and evaluating defense strategies. Preprint, arXiv:2406.03827. · arXiv
- Ammar Shaikh, Raj Abhijit Dandekar, Sreedath Panat, and Rajat Dandekar. 2024. Cbeval: A framework for evaluating and interpreting cognitive biases in llms. Preprint, arXiv:2412.03605. · arXiv
- Mrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud, Amanda Askell, Samuel R. Bow- man, Newton Cheng, Esin Durmus, Zac Hatfield- Dodds, Scott R. Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Timo- thy Maxwell, Sam McCandlish, Kamal Ndousse, Oliver Rausch, Nicholas Schiefer, Da Yan, Miranda Zhang, and Ethan Perez. 2023. Towards under- standing sycophancy in language models. Preprint, arXiv:2310.13548. · arXiv
- Xingyao Wang, Zihan Wang, Jiateng Liu, Yangyi Chen, Lifan Yuan, Hao Peng, and Heng Ji. 2024a. Mint: Evaluating llms in multi-turn interaction with tools and language feedback. Preprint, arXiv:2309.10691. · arXiv
- Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, et al. 2024b. Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01574. · arXiv
- Chengrun Yang, Xuezhi Wang, Yifeng Lu, Hanxiao Liu, Quoc V. Le, Denny Zhou, and Xinyun Chen. 2024. Large language models as optimizers. Preprint, arXiv:2309.03409. · arXiv
- Qingxiao Zheng, Yiliu Tang, Yiren Liu, Weizi Liu, and Yun Huang. 2022. Ux research on conversational human-ai interaction: A literature review of the acm digital library. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '22. ACM. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Good Arguments Against the People Pleasers: How Reasoning Mitigates (Yet Masks) LLM Sycophancy
Feng, Z., Chen, Z., Ma, J., Po, Y. T., Chersoni, E., & Li, B. (2026) · Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.1126 · Cited by 2
Machine Psychometrics: A Mathematical Psychology of Artificial Intelligence
Bogdan, A., & de Valois-Franklin, A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.23952
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, J., Jain, A., Takuri, S., Vege, S., Akalin, A., Zhu, K., O'Brien, S., & Sharma, V.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2503.11656
- OpenAlex
- W6947989429
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- sycophancy, large language models, multi-turn dialogue, factual accuracy, truth decay, persuasion, human-AI interaction, benchmark
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: TRUTH DECAY: Quantifying Multi-Turn Sycophancy in Language Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2503.11656
- The paper
- Liu, J., Jain, A., Takuri, S., Vege, S., Akalin, A., Zhu, K., O'Brien, S., & Sharma, V. (2025). TRUTH DECAY: Quantifying Multi-Turn Sycophancy in Language Models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2503.11656
