# Personalization Increases Affective Alignment but Has Role-Dependent Effects on Epistemic Independence in LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00024 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.00024/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 32 of its 47 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 32)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Role-Play with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16367/) (2023)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [From Persona to Personalization: A Survey on Role-Playing Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18231/) (2024)
- [Secrets of RLHF in Large Language Models Part II: Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06080/) (2024)
- [Personalizing Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with Variational Preference Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10075/) (2024)
- [Language Models Learn to Mislead Humans via RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12822/) (2024)
- [SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08177/) (2025)
- [Personalization of Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.00027/) (2024)
- [Measuring Sycophancy of Language Models in Multi-turn Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23840/) (2025)
- [The Assistant Axis: Situating and Stabilizing the Default Persona of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.10387/) (2026)
- [Are You Sure? Challenging LLMs Leads to Performance Drops in The FlipFlop Experiment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08596/) (2023)
- [RLHF from Heterogeneous Feedback via Personalization and Preference Aggregation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.00254/) (2024)
- [Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12501/) (2025)
- [Measuring and Controlling Instruction (In)Stability in Language Model Dialogs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10962/) (2024)
- [When Truth Is Overridden: Uncovering the Internal Origins of Sycophancy in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.02087/) (2025)
- [Language Models use Lookbacks to Track Beliefs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14685/) (2025)
- [TRUTH DECAY: Quantifying Multi-Turn Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11656/) (2025)
- [AI-LieDar: Examine the Trade-off Between Utility and Truthfulness in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.09013/) (2024)
- [SynthesizeMe! Inducing Persona-Guided Prompts for Personalized Reward Models in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05598/) (2025)
- [Training language models to be warm and empathetic makes them less reliable and more sycophantic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21919/) (2025)
- [Synthetic Socratic Debates: Examining Persona Effects on Moral Decision and Persuasion Dynamics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.12657/) (2025)
- [Exploring the Impact of Personality Traits on LLM Bias and Toxicity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12566/) (2025)
- [Accommodation and Epistemic Vigilance: A Pragmatic Account of Why LLMs Fail to Challenge Harmful Beliefs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04435/) (2026)
- [Simulating Psychological Risks in Human-AI Interactions: Real-Case Informed Modeling of AI-Induced Addiction, Anorexia, Depression, Homicide, Psychosis, and Suicide](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.08880/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [What Counts as AI Sycophancy? A Taxonomy and Expert Survey of a Fragmented Construct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.21778/) (2026)
- [Data-Driven Persona-Conditioned Agents for A/B Test Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01038/) (2026)
- [Agents Don't Just Agree, They Remember: Benchmarking Persistent Sycophancy in Self-Improving Personal Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.10526/) (2026)
- [Et Tu, Brute? Economic Misalignment in Personal AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.24927/) (2026)
- [Beyond the Sycophancy Score: How Task, Model, and Pressure Shape LLM Yielding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.08840/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to sycophantic behavior, uncritically conforming to user beliefs. As models increasingly condition responses on user-specific context (personality traits, preferences, conversation history), they gain information to tailor agreement more effectively. Understanding how personalization modulates sycophancy is critical, yet systematic evaluation across models and contexts remains limited. We present a rigorous evaluation of personalization's impact on LLM sycophancy across nine frontier models and five benchmark datasets spanning advice, moral judgment, and debate contexts. We find that personalization generally increases affective alignment (emotional validation, hedging/deference), but affects epistemic alignment (belief adoption, position stability, resistance to influence) with context-dependent role modulation. When the LLM's role is to give advice, personalization strengthens epistemic independence (models challenge user presuppositions). When its role is that of a social peer, personalization decreases epistemic independence. In this role, extensively personalized user challenges causing LLMs to abandon their position at significantly higher rates. Robustness tests confirm that the effects are driven by personalized conditioning, not by additional input tokens per se or demographic information alone. Our work provides measurement frameworks for evaluating personalized AI systems, demonstrates the necessity of role-sensitive evaluation, and establishes a novel benchmark to assess goal alignment.