# FIGS: Evaluating Multi-Turn Sycophancy Without Penalizing Empathy

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.39863 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39863/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15763/) (2026)
- [Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03958/) (2023)
- [Kimi K3: Open Frontier Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.24653/) (2026)
- [DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: Pushing the Limits of KV Cache Compression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.19969/) (2026)
- [SPINE: Measuring LLM Sycophancy under Sustained Multi-Turn Pressure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09090/) (2026)
- [Sycophantic Agreement Transfers with Neutral Data via Contrastive Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.31079/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models frequently fail to balance staying truthful with being supportive. They often exhibit sycophancy in responses to users, agreeing with false claims, offering unwarranted flattery, and giving advice skewed toward users' expressed views. In reality, sycophancy rarely happens in a single exchange; it may emerge organically as users repeatedly insist or subtly steer the dialogue over time. Current evaluations, however, rely on rigid, single-turn tests or fixed scripts that fail to capture these natural dynamics. Furthermore, these benchmarks often mistake showing basic empathy for yielding, penalizing models for acknowledging a user's feeling. This view may drive future models to over-correct into cold, dismissive rigidity. To address this gap, we introduce FIGS (Factual Integrity and Grounded Support), a dual-axis evaluation framework built around extended, realistic dialogue. We use an adaptive 10-turn conversational simulator that dynamically challenges the target model, reflecting how users repeat requests, push back, or steer a conversation toward a preferred answer. To accurately evaluate these trajectories, we apply a taxonomy that strictly separates Sycophancy (whether the model holds firm to the truth and keeps its praise proportional) from Calibrated Validation (showing empathetic understanding of the user's feelings without overdoing it). We release our complete testing environment, including 500 diverse multi-turn scenarios and an automated judge. Our evaluation of leading models reveals a consistent trade-off: over the course of a sustained interaction, current systems either slowly drift to sycophancy or over-correct into robotic detachment. This demonstrates that balancing honesty with appropriate support throughout a natural conversation remains a critical, unsolved challenge.