# Agentic Scaffolding Amplifies Sycophantic Behavior in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.21377 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.21377/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 11 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Red Teaming Language Models with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03286/) (2022)
- [Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15217/) (2023)
- [Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.02427/) (2023)
- [TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05561/) (2024)
- [Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.01820/) (2019)
- [Optimal Policies Tend to Seek Power](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.01683/) (2019)
- [How Easily do Irrelevant Inputs Skew the Responses of Large Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03302/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Sycophancy in large language models, the tendency to prioritize user agreement over truthful responses, has been documented extensively but studied primarily in single-turn settings. This paper investigates a critical question: does subjecting LLMs to greater interaction scaffolding make sycophancy better or worse? Across 4,800 veracity judgments (200 statements × 6 models × 4 conditions), we find that the interaction scaffolding characteristic of agentic systems (feedback loops, reconsideration checkpoints, and iterative refinement) systematically amplifies sycophantic behavior. Multi-turn interaction, user pressure, and iterative self-refinement each provide additional opportunities for models to drift toward agreement, and this drift coincides with a mean accuracy drop of -6.3 percentage points, establishing the capitulation as harmful rather than corrective. More capable models show larger amplification effects, a troubling inversion of expectations. We introduce the concept of agentic sycophancy amplification (ASA) and two novel metrics: capitulation rate and sycophantic capitulation rate. Our results indicate that as AI systems acquire greater autonomy, sycophancy becomes compounding rather than merely persistent. Systems designed with human oversight loops may inadvertently create the conditions for this drift.