# Internal Reasoning vs. External Control: A Thermodynamic Analysis of Sycophancy in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03263 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03263/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 22 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Dec 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Concrete Problems in AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06565/) (2016)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15217/) (2023)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [AI safety via debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.00899/) (2018)
- [Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.05802/) (2022)
- [AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06942/) (2023)
- [Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.09479/) (2023)
- [Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03958/) (2023)
- [On the Measure of Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.01547/) (2019)
- [Eight Things to Know about Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.00612/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Multi-Agent Debate for Explainable Trading: Reasoning, Consensus, and Performance in Simulated Markets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.29701/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models exhibit sycophancy: prioritizing agreeableness over correctness. Current remedies evaluate reasoning outcomes: RLHF rewards correct answers, self-correction critiques outputs. All require ground truth, which is often unavailable at inference time and vulnerable to the same biases. We explore evaluating the reasoning process instead. Regulated Causal Anchoring (RCA) verifies whether outputs follow from their reasoning traces, without requiring ground truth. Sycophancy manifests as trace-output inconsistency: models derive one answer but output another to please users. RCA detects this inconsistency, achieving 0.0% sycophancy while accepting 88% of valid hints. We identify two failures invisible to outcome evaluation: Inverse Scaling (frontier models sycophant more because rationalization requires capability) and the Final Output Gap (correct reasoning precedes sycophantic output). Traditional self-correction reduces these failures to 7-9% but cannot eliminate them because the model critiques itself with the same biases. RCA's process evaluation operates at inference time, requires no ground truth, and uses an independent judge that breaks the self-reinforcing bias loop: three properties that outcome evaluation lacks.