# Looking Again: Measuring Sycophancy in the Reasoning Chains of Multimodal Models Under Pressure

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28623 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.28623/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Multimodal reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 13 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Multimodal reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/multimodal-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [PathVQA: 30000+ Questions for Medical Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.10286/) (2020)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Towards Large Reasoning Models: A Survey of Reinforced Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.09686/) (2025)
- [Thought Anchors: Which LLM Reasoning Steps Matter?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.19143/) (2025)
- [Perception, Reason, Think, and Plan: A Survey on Large Multimodal Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.04921/) (2025)
- [Sycophancy in Vision-Language Models: A Systematic Analysis and an Inference-Time Mitigation Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.11261/) (2024)
- [Have the VLMs Lost Confidence? A Study of Sycophancy in VLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.11302/) (2024)
- [MONICA: Real-Time Monitoring and Calibration of Chain-of-Thought Sycophancy in Large Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.06419/) (2025)
- [BBQ-V: Benchmarking Visual Stereotype Bias in Large Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08779/) (2025)
- [EchoBench: Benchmarking Sycophancy in Medical Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.20146/) (2025)
- [Benchmarking and Mitigating Sycophancy in Medical Vision Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.21979/) (2025)

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

- [Seeing Through the Forgery Is Not Enough: Regressive Sycophancy under Fabricated Evidence in Medical Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17989/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large multimodal reasoning models (LMRMs) are increasingly capable, largely through generating explicit chain-of-thought reasoning before answering, but in language models this often comes with sycophancy, the tendency to agree with the user over the evidence, and no reliable method to measure it in LMRMs yet exists. We bridge this gap with a benchmark and dataset for LMRM sycophancy when a user asserts a wrong answer, pairing four visually grounded datasets spanning mathematical, clinical, temporal, and demographic reasoning with five pressure conditions in single-turn and multi-turn settings, scored both in the final answer and within the reasoning chain. Sycophancy is prevalent under pressure: Statement pressure elicits the highest rates and Conviction among the lowest for all models except Mistral-Small-4, and under multi-turn pressure reasoning-level sycophancy intensifies sharply in PathVQA, reaching 95.7% for the most affected model. We further introduce a failure taxonomy separating reasoning-chain from answer-level sycophancy, and an exploratory sentence-level taxonomy locating where drift first emerges. A targeted intervention that restores a model's own correct reasoning recovers 79.2% of sycophantic answers on reasoning-heavy tasks, showing the answer follows the sycophantic reasoning rather than merely co-occurring with it. Thus, sycophancy corrupts not just the answer but the reasoning that produces it, so the chain itself is what we must measure.