When Helpfulness Becomes Sycophancy: Sycophancy is a Boundary Failure Between Social Alignment and Epistemic Integrity in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05403v1
• Date: Wed, 06 May 2026 19:36:41 GMT
• Title: When Helpfulness Becomes Sycophancy: Sycophancy is a Boundary Failure Between Social Alignment and Epistemic Integrity in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We argue that sycophancy in LLMs is a boundary failure between social alignment and epistemic integrity.<n>Existing work often operationalizes sycophancy through external behavior such as agreement with incorrect user beliefs.<n>We introduce a taxonomy for classifying sycophancy, consisting of alignment targets, mechanisms, and severity.
• Score: 0.13192560874022083
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This position paper argues that sycophancy in LLMs is a boundary failure between social alignment and epistemic integrity. Existing work often operationalizes sycophancy through external behavior such as agreement with incorrect user beliefs, position reversals, or deviation from an objective standard of correctness. These formulations capture only overt forms of the phenomenon and leave subtler boundary failures involving epistemic integrity and social alignment underspecified. We argue that sycophancy should not be understood as agreement alone, but as alignment behavior that displaces independent epistemic judgment. To clarify this boundary, we propose a three-condition framework for sycophancy. First, the user expresses a cue in the form of a belief, preference, or self-concept. Second, the model shifts toward that cue through alignment behavior. Third, this shift compromises epistemic accuracy, independent reasoning, or appropriate correction. We also introduce a taxonomy for classifying sycophancy, consisting of alignment targets, mechanisms, and severity. The paper concludes by discussing implications for alignment evaluation and argues for boundary-aware assessment, structured rubrics, and mitigation strategies, while situating these proposals alongside alternative views of sycophancy.

Related papers

• THESIS-MoE: Trainable Hierarchical Extraction and SteerIng of Sycophancy in Mixture-of-Experts [0.300988853836121]
  Sycophancy, the tendency of a language model to change its answer to match a user's stated belief, is a common alignment failure.<n>We introduce a shared contrastive signal, built from matched prompts with and without a stated belief, that identifies where sycophancy lives.<n>Our results demonstrate that sycophancy resides in identifiable computational subcircuits and can be selectively steered.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-16T11:30:26Z)
• To Compare, or Not to Compare: On Methodological Practices in Evaluating Social Bias [61.40435736418359]
  We introduce a unified framework that standardizes heterogeneous benchmarks to contrast isolated demographic assessments with forced-choice comparative settings.<n>We show that comparative settings act as aggressive catalysts for latent discrimination, a shift primarily driven by underspecified contexts.<n>Finally, we demonstrate that this comparative prejudice is a generalized phenomenon that scales positively with model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:53:50Z)
• Aligning LLM Uncertainty with Human Disagreement in Subjectivity Analysis [57.78407973423517]
  We advocate uncertainty-aware subjectivity analysis, where models are expected to make predictions while expressing uncertainty that reflects human disagreement.<n>To operationalize this perspective, we propose a two-phase Disagreement Perception and Uncertainty Alignment framework.<n> Experiments on three subjectivity analysis tasks show that DPUA preserves task performance while better aligning model uncertainty with human disagreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T11:52:58Z)
• On the Structural Non-Preservation of Epistemic Behaviour under Policy Transformation [51.56484100374058]
  We formalise such information-conditioned interaction patterns as behavioural dependency.<n>This induces a probe-relative notion of $$-behavioural equivalence and a within-policy behavioural distance.<n>Results identify structural conditions under which probe-conditioned behavioural separation is not preserved under common policy transformations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T22:55:21Z)
• Position: General Alignment Has Hit a Ceiling; Edge Alignment Must Be Taken Seriously [51.03213216886717]
  We take the position that the dominant paradigm of General Alignment reaches a structural ceiling in settings with conflicting values.<n>We introduce Edge Alignment as a distinct approach in which systems preserve multi dimensional value structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:51:43Z)
• Operational Noncommutativity in Sequential Metacognitive Judgments [0.0]
  We show that metacognitive evaluations are modeled as state-transforming operations acting on an internal state space with probabilistic readouts.<n>We also outline a behavioral paradigm involving sequential confidence, error-likelihood, and feeling-of-knowing judgments following a perceptual decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T08:15:48Z)
• Character as a Latent Variable in Large Language Models: A Mechanistic Account of Emergent Misalignment and Conditional Safety Failures [70.48661957773449]
  Emergent Misalignment refers to a failure mode in which fine-tuning large language models on narrowly scoped data induces broadly misaligned behavior.<n>Across multiple domains and model families, we find that fine-tuning models on data exhibiting specific character-level dispositions induces substantially stronger and more transferable misalignment than incorrect-advice fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T15:28:42Z)
• Epistemic Traps: Rational Misalignment Driven by Model Misspecification [36.837352790122544]
  We show that safety is a discrete phase determined by the agent's priors rather than a continuous function of reward magnitude.<n>This establishes Subjective Model Engineering as a necessary condition for robust alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T09:21:36Z)
• Human-like Social Compliance in Large Language Models: Unifying Sycophancy and Conformity through Signal Competition Dynamics [7.209622481153123]
  This study introduces the Signal Competition Mechanism, a unified framework validated by assessing behavioral correlations across 15 Large Language Models.<n>The transition to compliance is shown to be a deterministic process governed by a linear boundary, where the Social Emotional Signal effectively suppresses the Information Signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-25T06:57:42Z)
• Beacon: Single-Turn Diagnosis and Mitigation of Latent Sycophancy in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models internalize a structural trade-off between truthfulness and obsequious flattery.<n>This latent bias, known as sycophancy, manifests as a preference for user agreement over principled reasoning.<n>We introduce Beacon, a single-turn forced-choice benchmark that isolates this bias independent of conversational context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-19T06:36:57Z)
• Does Representation Intervention Really Identify Desired Concepts and Elicit Alignment? [73.80382983108997]
  Representation intervention aims to locate and modify the representations that encode the underlying concepts in Large Language Models.<n>If the interventions are faithful, the intervened LLMs should erase the harmful concepts and be robust to both in-distribution adversarial prompts and the out-of-distribution jailbreaks.<n>We propose Concept Concentration (COCA), which simplifies the decision boundary between harmful and benign representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T12:23:52Z)
• Prioritization First, Principles Second: An Adaptive Interpretation of Helpful, Honest, and Harmless Principles [30.405680322319242]
  The Helpful, Honest, and Harmless (HHH) principle is a framework for aligning AI systems with human values.<n>We argue for an adaptive interpretation of the HHH principle and propose a reference framework for its adaptation to diverse scenarios.<n>This work offers practical insights for improving AI alignment, ensuring that HHH principles remain both grounded and operationally effective in real-world AI deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T22:41:24Z)
• Fairness and robustness in anti-causal prediction [73.693135253335]
  Robustness to distribution shift and fairness have independently emerged as two important desiderata required of machine learning models. While these two desiderata seem related, the connection between them is often unclear in practice. By taking this perspective, we draw explicit connections between a common fairness criterion - separation - and a common notion of robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-20T02:41:17Z)

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.