Good Arguments Against the People Pleasers: How Reasoning Mitigates (Yet Masks) LLM Sycophancy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.16643v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:14:43 GMT
• Title: Good Arguments Against the People Pleasers: How Reasoning Mitigates (Yet Masks) LLM Sycophancy
• Abstract summary: We evaluate a range of models across objective and subjective tasks to investigate the issue.<n>Results show that reasoning generally reduces sycophancy in final decisions but also masks sycophancy in some samples.<n> LLMs are more prone to sycophancy in subjective tasks and under authority-bias.
• Score: 15.914340276284085
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Alignment techniques often inadvertently induce sycophancy in LLMs. While prior studies studied this behaviour in direct-answer settings, the role of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning remains under-explored: does it serve as a logical constraint that mitigates sycophancy, or a tool for post-hoc rationalization that masks it? We evaluate a range of models across objective and subjective tasks to investigate the issue. Results show that reasoning generally reduces sycophancy in final decisions but also masks sycophancy in some samples, where models construct deceptive justifications through logical inconsistencies, calculation errors, and one-sided arguments etc. Furthermore, LLMs are more prone to sycophancy in subjective tasks and under authority-bias. Our mechanistic analysis on three open-source models reveals that the tendency of sycophancy is dynamic during the reasoning process rather than being pre-determined at the input stage.

Related papers

• 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)
• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• 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)
• Stop Spinning Wheels: Mitigating LLM Overthinking via Mining Patterns for Early Reasoning Exit [114.83867400179354]
  Overthinking can degrade overall performance of large language models.<n>We categorize reasoning into three stages: insufficient exploration stage, compensatory reasoning stage, and reasoning convergence stage.<n>We develop a lightweight thresholding strategy based on rules to improve reasoning accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T03:17:17Z)
• BASIL: Bayesian Assessment of Sycophancy in LLMs [26.346357679861228]
  Sycophancy is critical to understand in the context of human-AI collaboration.<n>Existing methods for studying sycophancy in LLMs are either descriptive (study behavior change when sycophancy is elicited) or normative.<n>We introduce an Bayesian framework to study the normative effects of sycophancy on rationality in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-23T00:11:00Z)
• Chain-of-Code Collapse: Reasoning Failures in LLMs via Adversarial Prompting in Code Generation [0.3495246564946556]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in tasks requiring complex reasoning.<n>Do these models truly reason, or do they merely exploit shallow statistical patterns?<n>We introduce Chain-of-Code Collapse, where we investigate the robustness of reasoning LLMs by introducing a suite of semantically faithful yet adversarially structured prompt perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T02:43:46Z)
• Misaligning Reasoning with Answers -- A Framework for Assessing LLM CoT Robustness [3.9930400744726273]
  We design a novel evaluation framework, MATCHA, to investigate the relationship between answer and reasoning.<n>In domains like education and healthcare, reasoning is key for model trustworthiness.<n>Our results show that LLMs exhibit greater vulnerability to input perturbations for multi-step and commonsense tasks than compared to logical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T02:42:16Z)
• Does Reasoning Introduce Bias? A Study of Social Bias Evaluation and Mitigation in LLM Reasoning [21.921684911834447]
  We present the first systematic evaluation of social bias within large language models (LLMs)<n>We analyze both prediction accuracy and reasoning bias across a broad spectrum of models, including instruction-tuned and CoT-augmented variants of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT.<n>We propose Answer Distribution as Bias Proxy (ADBP), a lightweight mitigation method that detects bias by tracking how model predictions change across incremental reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T10:16:07Z)
• SoftCoT: Soft Chain-of-Thought for Efficient Reasoning with LLMs [48.28847964704554]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to solve complex reasoning tasks.<n>We propose a novel approach for continuous-space reasoning that does not require modifying the LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:52:29Z)
• Unveiling the Magic of Code Reasoning through Hypothesis Decomposition and Amendment [54.62926010621013]
  We introduce a novel task, code reasoning, to provide a new perspective for the reasoning abilities of large language models.<n>We summarize three meta-benchmarks based on established forms of logical reasoning, and instantiate these into eight specific benchmark tasks.<n>We present a new pathway exploration pipeline inspired by human intricate problem-solving methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T10:39:58Z)
• Sycophancy in Vision-Language Models: A Systematic Analysis and an Inference-Time Mitigation Framework [18.54098084470481]
  We analyze sycophancy across vision-language benchmarks and propose an inference-time mitigation framework.<n>Our framework effectively mitigates sycophancy across all evaluated models, while maintaining performance on neutral prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-21T01:03:21Z)
• Self-Contradictory Reasoning Evaluation and Detection [31.452161594896978]
  We investigate self-contradictory (Self-Contra) reasoning, where the model reasoning does not support its answers. We find that LLMs often contradict themselves in reasoning tasks involving contextual information understanding or commonsense. We find that GPT-4 can detect Self-Contra with a 52.2% F1 score, much lower compared to 66.7% for humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T06:22:17Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)

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.