CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Sycophancy under Pressure: Evaluating and Mitigating Sycophantic Bias via Adversarial Dialogues in Scientific QA

Zhang, Kaiwei, Jia, Qi, Chen, Zijian, Sun, Wei, Zhu, Xiangyang, Li, Chunyi, Zhu, Dandan, Zhai, Guangtao·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2508.13743arXiv 2508.13743
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs), while increasingly used in domains requiring factual rigor, often display a troubling behavior: sycophancy, the tendency to align with user beliefs regardless of correctness. This tendency is reinforced by preference-based alignment techniques that optimize for user satisfaction but can undermine truthfulness. While relatively benign in casual dialogue, sycophancy poses serious risks in high-stakes settings such as scientific question answering (QA), where model outputs may shape collaborative reasoning, decision-making, and knowledge formation. Despite its importance, this phenomenon remains underexamined in factual QA contexts. We address this gap by introducing a unified evaluation framework to quantify the impact of sycophantic context on model behavior in scientific QA, measuring how much user-imposed social pressure distorts model outputs. The framework incorporates adversarial prompting setups and targeted metrics, such as misleading resistance and sycophancy resistance, that capture a model's ability to maintain factual consistency under misleading cues. Systematic evaluations across open-source and proprietary models reveal pervasive sycophantic tendencies, driven more by alignment strategy than by model size. To mitigate this issue, we propose Pressure-Tune, a lightweight post-training method that fine-tunes models on synthetic adversarial dialogues paired with chain-of-thought rationales. These rationales reject user misinformation while reinforcing factual commitments. Experiments on challenging scientific QA benchmarks show that Pressure-Tune significantly enhances sycophancy resistance without compromising accuracy or responsiveness to valid feedback, offering a practical pathway toward more truthful and principled model behavior.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2508.13743

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 persistence becomes more severe as model scale increases and instruction tuning intensifies alignment toward social preference signals.

    “This persistence becomes more severe as model scale increases and instruction tuning intensifies alignment toward social preference signals, indicating that the behavior is reinforced by systemic properties of the representation space and training distribution rather than being eliminated by localized edits (Perez et al., 2023;Zhang et al., 2025;Cheng et al., 2025;Liu et al., 2025).”

    From Good Arguments Against the People Pleasers: How Reasoning Mitigates (Yet Masks) LLM Sycophancy (2026) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2025

    The Evaluation Results and Analysis (p. 5) explicitly says model size has no clear correlation with sycophancy and that even small models can exhibit severe sycophancy, contrary to the claimed increase with scale. The Introduction (p. 1) links preference-based alignment to behavioral bias, but the Introduction (p. 2) also reports that targeted post-training improves resistance rather than ruling out localized interventions. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Achiam, J.; Adler, S.; Agarwal, S.; Ahmad, L.; Akkaya, I.; Aleman, F. L.; Almeida, D.; Altenschmidt, J.; Altman, S.; Anadkat, S.; et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 . · arXiv
  2. Bai, Y.; Jones, A.; Ndousse, K.; Askell, A.; Chen, A.; DasSarma, N.; Drain, D.; Fort, S.; Ganguli, D.; Henighan, T.; et al. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862 . · arXiv
  3. Chen, W.; Huang, Z.; Xie, L.; Lin, B.; Li, H.; Lu, L.; Tian, X.; Cai, D.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W.; et al. 2024. From yes-men to truth-tellers: addressing sycophancy in large language models with pinpoint tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01658 . · arXiv
  4. Cheng, M.; Yu, S.; Lee, C.; Khadpe, P.; Ibrahim, L.; and Jurafsky, D. 2025. Social sycophancy: A broader understanding of llm sycophancy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13995 . · arXiv
  5. Chowdhery, A.; Narang, S.; Devlin, J.; Bosma, M.; Mishra, G.; Roberts, A.; Barham, P.; Chung, H. W.; Sutton, C.; Gehrmann, S.; et al. 2023. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 24(240): 1-113.
  6. Christiano, P. F.; Leike, J.; Brown, T.; Martic, M.; Legg, S.; and Amodei, D. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30.
  7. Clark, C.; Lee, K.; Chang, M.-W.; Kwiatkowski, T.; Collins, M.; and Toutanova, K. 2019. Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10044 . · arXiv
  8. Clark, P.; Cowhey, I.; Etzioni, O.; Khot, T.; Sabharwal, A.; Schoenick, C.; and Tafjord, O. 2018. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457 . · arXiv
  9. Fanous, A.; Goldberg, J.; Agarwal, A. A.; Lin, J.; Zhou, A.; Daneshjou, R.; and Koyejo, S. 2025. Syceval: Evaluating llm sycophancy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08177 . · arXiv
  10. Guo, D.; Yang, D.; Zhang, H.; Song, J.; Zhang, R.; Xu, R.; Zhu, Q.; Ma, S.; Wang, P.; Bi, X.; et al. 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 . · arXiv
  11. Hong, J.; Byun, G.; Kim, S.; and Shu, K. 2025. Measuring Sycophancy of Language Models in Multi-turn Dialogues. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23840 . · arXiv
  12. Laban, P.; Murakhovs' ka, L.; Xiong, C.; and Wu, C.-S. 2023. Are you sure? challenging llms leads to performance drops in the flipflop experiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08596 . · arXiv
  13. Liang, K.; Hu, H.; Zhao, X.; Song, D.; Griffiths, T. L.; and Fisac, J. F. 2025. Machine Bullshit: Characterizing the Emergent Disregard for Truth in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07484 . · arXiv
  14. Lin, S.; Hilton, J.; and Evans, O. 2021. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07958 . · arXiv
  15. Liu, A.; Feng, B.; Xue, B.; Wang, B.; Wu, B.; Lu, C.; Zhao, C.; Deng, C.; Zhang, C.; Ruan, C.; et al. 2024. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437 . · arXiv
  16. Liu, J.; Jain, A.; Takuri, S.; Vege, S.; Akalin, A.; Zhu, K.; O'Brien, S.; and Sharma, V. 2025. TRUTH DECAY: Quantifying Multi-Turn Sycophancy in Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11656 . · arXiv
  17. Lu, P.; Mishra, S.; Xia, T.; Qiu, L.; Chang, K.-W.; Zhu, S.C.; Tafjord, O.; Clark, P.; and Kalyan, A. 2022. Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35: 2507-2521.
  18. Malmqvist, L. 2024. Sycophancy in large language models: Causes and mitigations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15287 . · arXiv
  19. Miehling, E.; Nagireddy, M.; Sattigeri, P.; Daly, E. M.; Piorkowski, D.; and Richards, J. T. 2024. Language models in dialogue: Conversational maxims for human-ai interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15115 . · arXiv
  20. Ouyang, L.; Wu, J.; Jiang, X.; Almeida, D.; Wainwright, C.; Mishkin, P.; Zhang, C.; Agarwal, S.; Slama, K.; Ray, A.; et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35: 27730-27744.
  21. Papadatos, H.; and Freedman, R. 2024. Linear probe penalties reduce llm sycophancy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00967 . · arXiv
  22. Perez, E.; Ringer, S.; Lukosiute, K.; Nguyen, K.; Chen, E.; Heiner, S.; Pettit, C.; Olsson, C.; Kundu, S.; Kadavath, S.; et al. 2023. Discovering language model behaviors with model-written evaluations. In Findings of the association for computational linguistics: ACL 2023 , 13387-13434.
  23. Rafailov, R.; Sharma, A.; Mitchell, E.; Manning, C. D.; Ermon, S.; and Finn, C. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in neural information processing systems , 36: 53728-53741.
  24. Rein, D.; Hou, B. L.; Stickland, A. C.; Petty, J.; Pang, R. Y .; Dirani, J.; Michael, J.; and Bowman, S. R. 2024. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. In First Conference on Language Modeling .
  25. Shao, Z.; Wang, P.; Zhu, Q.; Xu, R.; Song, J.; Bi, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, M.; Li, Y.; Wu, Y.; et al. 2024. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300 . · arXiv
  26. Sharma, M.; Tong, M.; Korbak, T.; Duvenaud, D.; Askell, A.; Bowman, S. R.; Cheng, N.; Durmus, E.; HatfieldDodds, Z.; Johnston, S. R.; et al. 2023. Towards understanding sycophancy in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13548 . · arXiv
  27. Team, G.; Kamath, A.; Ferret, J.; Pathak, S.; Vieillard, N.; Merhej, R.; Perrin, S.; Matejovicova, T.; Ram´ e, A.; Rivi` ere, M.; et al. 2025. Gemma 3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786 . · arXiv
  28. Wei, J.; Huang, D.; Lu, Y.; Zhou, D.; and Le, Q. V. 2023. Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03958 . · arXiv
  29. Welbl, J.; Liu, N. F.; and Gardner, M. 2017. Crowdsourcing multiple choice science questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06209 . · arXiv
  30. Yang, A.; Yang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, B.; Zhou, C.; Li, C.; Li, C.; Liu, D.; Huang, F.; Dong, G.; Wei, H.; Lin, H.; Tang, J.; Wang, J.; Yang, J.; Tu, J.; Zhang, J.; Ma, J.; Xu, J.; Zhou, J.; Bai, J.; He, J.; Lin, J.; Dang, K.; Lu, K.; Chen, K.; Yang, K.; Li, M.; Xue, M.; Ni, N.; Zhang, P.; Wang, P.; Peng, R.; Men, R.; Gao, R.; Lin, R.; Wang, S.; Bai, S.; Tan, S.; Zhu, T.; Li, T.; Liu, T.; Ge, W.; Deng, X.; Zhou, X.; Ren, X.; Zhang, X.; Wei, X.; Ren, X.; Fan, Y.; Yao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wan, Y.; Chu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Cui, Z.; Zhang, Z.; and Fan, Z. 2024. Qwen2 Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671 . · arXiv
  31. Zheng, Q.; Tang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, W.; and Huang, Y. 2022. UX research on conversational human-AI interaction: A literature review of the ACM digital library. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1-24.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, K., Jia, Q., Chen, Z., Sun, W., Zhu, X., Li, C., Zhu, D., & Zhai, G.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2508.13743
arXiv
2508.13743
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

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