Challenging the Evaluator: LLM Sycophancy Under User Rebuttal

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.16533v1
• Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2025 04:44:01 GMT
• Title: Challenging the Evaluator: LLM Sycophancy Under User Rebuttal
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models often exhibit sycophancy, distorting responses to align with user beliefs.<n>This research investigates why do LLMs show sycophancy when challenged in subsequent conversational turns, yet perform well when evaluating conflicting arguments presented simultaneously?<n>We find that state-of-the-art models are more likely to endorse a user's counterargument when framed as a follow-up from a user, rather than when both responses are presented simultaneously for evaluation.
• Score: 31.382403990957528
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy, distorting responses to align with user beliefs, notably by readily agreeing with user counterarguments. Paradoxically, LLMs are increasingly adopted as successful evaluative agents for tasks such as grading and adjudicating claims. This research investigates that tension: why do LLMs show sycophancy when challenged in subsequent conversational turns, yet perform well when evaluating conflicting arguments presented simultaneously? We empirically tested these contrasting scenarios by varying key interaction patterns. We find that state-of-the-art models: (1) are more likely to endorse a user's counterargument when framed as a follow-up from a user, rather than when both responses are presented simultaneously for evaluation; (2) show increased susceptibility to persuasion when the user's rebuttal includes detailed reasoning, even when the conclusion of the reasoning is incorrect; and (3) are more readily swayed by casually phrased feedback than by formal critiques, even when the casual input lacks justification. Our results highlight the risk of relying on LLMs for judgment tasks without accounting for conversational framing.

Related papers

• FramingQA: Does the Question Shape the Answer? Measuring the Compositional Framing Effect [69.8983512616053]
  Large language models often change their responses to subtle rephrasings that align with an implied stance by users.<n>This can leave users with advice tainted by how they happened to phrase a question rather than by the underlying facts.<n>We introduce FramingQA, a benchmark that measures the model sensitivity to question framing across law, medicine, finance, and robotic simulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T12:56:44Z)
• Confirming Our Biases? Evaluating the Capabilities, Risks, and Societal Impact of Large Language Models [5.5881263948644175]
  This study investigates the extent to which large language models reinforce users biases expressed in the prompts.<n>We evaluate how susceptible LLMs are to direct and suggestive prompts that encourage models to support or challenge particular positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T08:54:27Z)
• Measuring Opinion Bias and Sycophancy via LLM-based Persuasion [8.399156116912904]
  We propose a method for discovering the opinions an assistant holds on contested topics.<n>Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user.<n>Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T11:34:06Z)
• Verbalizing LLMs' assumptions to explain and control sycophancy [62.927670321859495]
  LLMs can be socially sycophantic, affirming users when they ask questions like "am I in the wrong?" rather than providing genuine assessment.<n>We present Verbalized Assumptions, a framework for eliciting these assumptions from LLMs.<n>Our work contributes a new understanding of assumptions as a mechanism for sycophancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T14:15:43Z)
• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning [50.352417879912515]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at complex tasks with advances in reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization to explicitly train LLMs to learn generalizable reasoning patterns.<n>We then construct token-level advantages from this reward and optimize the policy, encouraging LLMs to favor reasoning patterns that are process-valid and counterfactually robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T08:03:11Z)
• An Analysis of Large Language Models for Simulating User Responses in Surveys [8.614942349812429]
  Using Large Language Models to simulate user opinions has received growing attention.<n>LLMs are known to exhibit biases toward dominant viewpoints, raising concerns about their ability to represent users from diverse demographic and cultural backgrounds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-07T15:03:09Z)
• Critical or Compliant? The Double-Edged Sword of Reasoning in Chain-of-Thought Explanations [60.27156500679296]
  We study the role of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations in moral scenarios by systematically perturbing reasoning chains and manipulating delivery tones.<n>Our findings reveal two key effects: (1) users often trust with outcome agreement, sustaining reliance even when reasoning is flawed.<n>These results highlight how CoT explanations can simultaneously clarify and mislead, underscoring the need for NLP systems to provide explanations that encourage scrutiny and critical thinking rather than blind trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T02:38:49Z)
• Don't Take the Premise for Granted: Evaluating the Premise Critique Ability of Large Language Models [11.379764847748378]
  Large language models (LLMs) often uncritically accept flawed or contradictory premises, leading to inefficient reasoning and unreliable outputs.<n>This emphasizes the significance of possessing the textbfPremise Critique Ability for LLMs, defined as the capacity to proactively identify and articulate errors in input premises.<n>We introduce the textbfPremise Critique Bench (PCBench), designed by incorporating four error types across three difficulty levels, paired with multi-faceted evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:49:44Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• RefuteBench 2.0 -- Agentic Benchmark for Dynamic Evaluation of LLM Responses to Refutation Instruction [17.782410287625645]
  We introduce RefuteBench 2.0, which significantly extends the original RefuteBench by incorporating LLM agents as refuters and evaluators.<n>We design both transient and persistent refutation instructions with different validity periods.<n>We show that the LLM-based refuter could generate more human-like refutations and the evaluators could assign scores with high correlation with humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T15:51:25Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing.<n>We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance.<n>We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses.<n>We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• LLM Content Moderation and User Satisfaction: Evidence from Response Refusals in Chatbot Arena [0.0]
  We show that ethical refusals yield significantly lower win rates than both technical refusals and standard responses.<n>Our findings underscore a core tension in LLM design: safety-aligned behaviors may conflict with user expectations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-04T06:36:44Z)
• Failure Modes of LLMs for Causal Reasoning on Narratives [51.19592551510628]
  We investigate the interaction between world knowledge and logical reasoning.<n>We find that state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) often rely on superficial generalizations.<n>We show that simple reformulations of the task can elicit more robust reasoning behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T12:48:58Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate [19.887103433032774]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in complex reasoning tasks. This work explores testing LLMs' reasoning by engaging with them in a debate-like conversation. We find that despite their impressive performance, LLMs like ChatGPT cannot maintain their beliefs in truth for a significant portion of examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T15:47:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.