Decomposing Factual Sycophancy in Language Models: How Size and Instruction Tuning Shape Robustness
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Factual sycophancy occurs when a language model abandons a correct, verifiable answer under social pressure. Because a flip occurs only when pressure toward a false answer exceeds the model's neutral preference for the truth, flip rates conflate two mechanisms: the strength of that baseline preference (truth margin), and how far pressure shifts it (manipulation sensitivity). We decompose factual sycophancy into these channels and use them to separate the effects of size and instruction tuning across 56 open-weight models spanning 0.3B-32B parameters and 13 manipulation types. We find that vulnerability is governed mainly by size, but instruction tuning changes how size acts: small instruction-tuned models can become less robust, whereas large instruction-tuned models usually become more robust. Instruction tuning primarily increases truth margin, but its behavioral effect depends on manipulation type. Scaling also changes the two channels differently: base models gain margin but become mildly more manipulation-sensitive, whereas instruction-tuned models gain margin faster and become less sensitive. Factual sycophancy is therefore not a single scalar property. Evaluations should report channel-specific, manipulation-specific, and size-conditioned robustness rather than flip rates alone.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 2026.
Builds on
13 of 25 references.
References · 13
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
- 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,023
- 2025ELEPHANT: Measuring and understanding social sycophancy in LLMscited by 115
- 2024Taming Overconfidence in LLMs: Reward Calibration in RLHFcited by 105
- 2025SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancycited by 101
- 2024Sycophancy in Large Language Models: Causes and Mitigationscited by 97
- 2025Measuring Sycophancy of Language Models in Multi-turn Dialoguescited by 91
- 2023When Large Language Models contradict humans? Large Language Models' Sycophantic Behaviourcited by 61
- 2025The MASK Benchmark: Disentangling Honesty From Accuracy in AI Systemscited by 57
- 2024How Susceptible are LLMs to Influence in Prompts?cited by 32
- 2025PARROT: Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth -- A Sycophancy Robustness Benchmark for LLMscited by 8
- 2025Wrong Answers Can Also Be Useful: PlausibleQA -- A Large-Scale QA Dataset with Answer Plausibility Scorescited by 5
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026The Memory Trust Gap: Capability-Dependent Failures in Persistent-Memory Agentscited by 1
- 2026MyMentorLLM: A psychotherapy GenAI environment with multimodal voice/text patients, trainees and experts for deliberate practicecited by 0
- 2026The Delegation Danger Band: Why Mid-Capability Sub-Agents Over-Trust Inherited Stale Statecited by 0
- 2026The Delegation Danger Band: Why Mid-Capability Sub-Agents Over-Trust Inherited Stale State3 Sep 2026
- 2026The Memory Trust Gap: Capability-Dependent Failures in Persistent-Memory Agents1 Sep 2026
- 2026MyMentorLLM: A psychotherapy GenAI environment with multimodal voice/text patients, trainees and experts for deliberate practice28 Jul 2026