The Silicon Mirror: Dynamic Behavioral Gating for Anti-Sycophancy in LLM Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00478v2
• Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2026 15:56:04 GMT
• Title: The Silicon Mirror: Dynamic Behavioral Gating for Anti-Sycophancy in LLM Agents
• Abstract summary: We present The Silicon Mirror, an orchestration framework that dynamically detects user persuasion tactics and adjusts AI to maintain factual integrity.<n>We characterize the validation-before-correction pattern as a distinct failure mode of RLHF-trained models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly prioritize user validation over epistemic accuracy - a phenomenon known as sycophancy. We present The Silicon Mirror, an orchestration framework that dynamically detects user persuasion tactics and adjusts AI behavior to maintain factual integrity. Our architecture introduces three components: (1) a Behavioral Access Control (BAC) system that restricts context layer access based on real-time sycophancy risk scores, (2) a Trait Classifier that identifies persuasion tactics across multi-turn dialogues, and (3) a Generator-Critic loop where an auditor vetoes sycophantic drafts and triggers rewrites with "Necessary Friction." In a live evaluation across all 437 TruthfulQA adversarial scenarios, Claude Sonnet 4 exhibits 9.6% baseline sycophancy, reduced to 1.4% by the Silicon Mirror - an 85.7% relative reduction (p < 10^-6, OR = 7.64, Fisher's exact test). Cross-model evaluation on Gemini 2.5 Flash reveals a 46.0% baseline reduced to 14.2% (p < 10^-10, OR = 5.15). We characterize the validation-before-correction pattern as a distinct failure mode of RLHF-trained models.

Related papers

• SingGuard-NSFA: Extensible Guardrails for Agentic AI via Generative Reasoning and Real-Time Classification [0.0]
  nsfaguard is a guardrail framework for securing agentic AI systems against operational threats.<n>We first introduce the NSFA taxonomy, which organizes 185 risk variants into a CIA-triad-grounded hierarchy.<n>We develop a dual-mode approach combining SFT-based generative reasoning for interpretable offline auditing with discriminative classification heads on the frozen backbone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T07:28:45Z)
• Multimodal Evaluator Preference Collapse: Cross-Modal Contagion in Self-Evolving Agents [1.0152838128195467]
  We show that Evaluator Preference Collapse ( EPC) is dramatically amplified in multimodal settings.<n>We then demonstrate a novel phenomenon we term cross-modal contagion.<n>We identify cross-model evaluator architecture as the primary risk factor for preference drift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T13:18:20Z)
• TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1 [47.384270414446604]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification.<n>We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations.<n>We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:32:58Z)
• Too Nice to Tell the Truth: Quantifying Agreeableness-Driven Sycophancy in Role-Playing Language Models [2.4851820343103035]
  Large language models increasingly serve as conversational agents that adopt personas and role-play characters at user request.<n>This capability raises concerns about sycophancy: the tendency to provide responses that validate users rather than prioritize factual accuracy.<n>We present a systematic investigation of how persona agreeableness influences sycophancy across 13 small, open-weight language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T17:12:55Z)
• How Independent are Large Language Models? A Statistical Framework for Auditing Behavioral Entanglement and Reweighting Verifier Ensembles [46.63622714488747]
  Shared pretraining data, distillation, and alignment pipelines can induce hidden behavioral dependencies, latent entanglement.<n>In practice, this manifests as correlated reasoning patterns and synchronized failures.<n>We develop a statistical framework for auditing behavioral entanglement among black-box language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T23:32:06Z)
• Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents [66.97968363332465]
  We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps in agent benchmarks.<n>Claw-Eval comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups.<n>Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:43:18Z)
• VisualLeakBench: Auditing the Fragility of Large Vision-Language Models against PII Leakage and Social Engineering [14.756677328512907]
  VisualLeakBench is an evaluation suite to audit LVLMs against OCR Injection and Contextual PII Leakage.<n>We use 1,000 synthetically generated adversarial images with 8 PII types, validated on 50 in-the-wild (IRL) real-world screenshots.<n>We release our dataset and code for reproducible robustness and safety evaluation of deployment-relevant vision-language systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T05:47:24Z)
• From Black Box to Glass Box: Cross-Model ASR Disagreement to Prioto Review in Ambient AI Scribe Documentation [43.148402136307716]
  Cross-model disagreement among heterogeneous ASR systems can act as a reference-free uncertainty signal.<n>We transcribed 50 publicly available medical audio clips with eight ASR systems spanning commercial APIs and open-source engines.<n>Low-agreement regions were enriched for content disagreements, with the content fraction increasing from 53.9% to 73.9% across quintiles of high-risk mass.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T13:02:13Z)
• BadCLIP++: Stealthy and Persistent Backdoors in Multimodal Contrastive Learning [73.46118996284888]
  Research on backdoor attacks against multimodal contrastive learning models faces two key challenges: stealthiness and persistence.<n>We propose BadCLIP++, a unified framework that tackles both challenges.<n>For stealthiness, we introduce a semantic-fusion QR micro-trigger that embeds imperceptible patterns near task-relevant regions.<n>For persistence, we stabilize trigger embeddings via radius shrinkage and centroid alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T08:31:16Z)
• Parrot: Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth -- A Sycophancy Robustness Benchmark for LLMs [0.0]
  PARROT (Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth) is a robustness focused framework designed to measure the degradation in accuracy under social pressure exerted on users.<n>We evaluate 22 models using 1,302 MMLU-style multiple-choice questions across 13 domains and domain-specific authority templates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-21T13:01:28Z)
• The Chameleon Nature of LLMs: Quantifying Multi-Turn Stance Instability in Search-Enabled Language Models [1.4323566945483497]
  We present the first systematic investigation of "chameleon behavior" in Large Language Models.<n>We expose fundamental flaws in state-of-the-art systems.<n>Our analysis uncovers the mechanism: strong correlations between source re-use rate and confidence are statistically significant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-19T04:51:14Z)
• EchoBench: Benchmarking Sycophancy in Medical Large Vision-Language Models [82.43729208063468]
  Recent benchmarks for medical Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) emphasize leaderboard accuracy, overlooking reliability and safety.<n>We study sycophancy -- models' tendency to uncritically echo user-provided information.<n>We introduce EchoBench, a benchmark to systematically evaluate sycophancy in medical LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T14:09:55Z)
• LLMEval-3: A Large-Scale Longitudinal Study on Robust and Fair Evaluation of Large Language Models [51.55869466207234]
  Existing evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on static benchmarks is vulnerable to data contamination and leaderboard overfitting.<n>We introduce LLMEval-3, a framework for dynamic evaluation of LLMs.<n>LLEval-3 is built on a proprietary bank of 220k graduate-level questions, from which it dynamically samples unseen test sets for each evaluation run.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T14:46:30Z)
• Reasoning Models Are More Easily Gaslighted Than You Think [85.84943447589511]
  We evaluate three state-of-the-art reasoning models, including OpenAI's o4-mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Flash.<n>Our evaluation reveals significant accuracy drops following gaslighting negation prompts.<n>We introduce GaslightingBench-R, a new diagnostic benchmark designed to evaluate reasoning models' susceptibility to defend their belief.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T12:52:25Z)
• Adversarial Preference Learning for Robust LLM Alignment [24.217309343426297]
  Adversarial Preference Learning (APL) is an iterative adversarial training method incorporating three key innovations.<n>First, a direct harmfulness metric based on the model's intrinsic preference probabilities.<n>Second, a conditional generative attacker that synthesizes input-specific adversarial variations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T09:02:07Z)
• Backdoor Cleaning without External Guidance in MLLM Fine-tuning [76.82121084745785]
  Believe Your Eyes (BYE) is a data filtering framework that leverages attention entropy patterns as self-supervised signals to identify and filter backdoor samples.<n>It achieves near-zero attack success rates while maintaining clean-task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T17:11:58Z)
• Benchmarking Reasoning Robustness in Large Language Models [76.79744000300363]
  We find significant performance degradation on novel or incomplete data.<n>These findings highlight the reliance on recall over rigorous logical inference.<n>This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed as Math-RoB, that exploits hallucinations triggered by missing information to expose reasoning gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T15:36:06Z)

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.