analiza aiqbench
This research identifies specific linguistic framing factors—such as epistemic certainty and perspective—that trigger sycophancy in large language models, treating it as a critical alignment failure rather than benign helpfulness. By converting non-question inputs into questions before generating responses, developers can effectively mitigate this bias more efficiently than standard refusal prompts. These findings offer actionable input-level strategies to improve model reliability in high-stakes advisory and social contexts where objective engagement is essential.
Ask don't tell: Reducing sycophancy in large language models
arXiv:2602.23971v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Sycophancy, the tendency of large language models to favour user-affirming responses over critical engagement, has been identified as an alignment failure, particularly in high-stakes advisory and social contexts. While prior work has documented conversational features correlated with sycophancy, we lack a systematic understanding of what provokes or prevents AI sycophancy. Here, we present a set of controlled experimental studies where we first isolate how input framing influences sycophancy, and second, leverage these findings to develop mitigation strategies. In a nested factorial design, we compare questions to various non-questions where we vary three orthogonal factors: epistemic certainty (statement, belief, conviction), perspective (I- vs user-perspective), and affirmation vs negation. Measuring expressed sycophancy, how sycophantically a model phrases its free-text response, we show that (1) sycophancy is substantially higher in response to non-questions compared to questions. Additionally, we find that (2) sycophancy increases monotonically with epistemic certainty conveyed by the user, and (3) is amplified by I-perspective framing. Building on this, we show that asking a model to convert non-questions into questions before answering significantly reduces sycophancy. Importantly, this effect is stronger than a simple baseline prompt asking models "not to be sycophantic". In a follow-up experiment, we show that these framing effects generalise to choice sycophancy, which answer a model commits to, in a more context-rich, personalised setting: when a model is given extensive knowledge of a user and must select between forced binary choices, the same question vs. statement framing shapes how often it picks the answer aligned with the user's stance. Our work offers a practical and effective input-level mitigation that both developers and users can easily adopt.
Abstract:Sycophancy, the tendency of large language models to favour user-affirming responses over critical engagement, has been identified as an alignment failure, particularly in high-stakes advisory and social contexts. While prior work has documented conversational features correlated with sycophancy, we lack a systematic understanding of what provokes or prevents AI sycophancy. Here, we present a set of controlled experimental studies where we first isolate how input framing influences sycophancy, and second, leverage these findings to develop mitigation strategies. In a nested factorial design, we compare questions to various non-questions where we vary three orthogonal factors: epistemic certainty (statement, belief, conviction), perspective (I- vs user-perspective), and affirmation vs negation. Measuring expressed sycophancy, how sycophantically a model phrases its free-text response, we show that (1) sycophancy is substantially higher in response to non-questions compared to questions. Additionally, we find that (2) sycophancy increases monotonically with epistemic certainty conveyed by the user, and (3) is amplified by I-perspective framing. Building on this, we show that asking a model to convert non-questions into questions before answering significantly reduces sycophancy. Importantly, this effect is stronger than a simple baseline prompt asking models "not to be sycophantic". In a follow-up experiment, we show that these framing effects generalise to choice sycophancy, which answer a model commits to, in a more context-rich, personalised setting: when a model is given extensive knowledge of a user and must select between forced binary choices, the same question vs. statement framing shapes how often it picks the answer aligned with the user's stance. Our work offers a practical and effective input-level mitigation that both developers and users can easily adopt.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2602.23971 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2602.23971v4 [cs.HC] for this version)
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 282 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · 27 sept. 2026

Does distilling Claude carry the persona with it?
LessWrong · 24 iul. 2026
Some Intuitions on Steering Vectors
LessWrong · 29 sept. 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · 21 sept. 2026