The AI Epistemic Deference Index: A Continuous Measure of Sycophancy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.07897v1
• Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2026 23:16:28 GMT
• Title: The AI Epistemic Deference Index: A Continuous Measure of Sycophancy
• Abstract summary: We propose the AI Epistemic Deference Index (AEDI)<n>AEDI is a continuous, unidimensional score representing how sensitive the support expressed in a model's output is to the attitude expressed in a user's prompt.<n>We deploy it on a new curated database of 500 propositions across diverse topics and 16,000 prompts varying in user attitude, testing eight prominent models.
• Score: 42.31792244964347
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user. Existing evaluations typically measure this either by assessing what it takes to make a model shift a binary endorsement or by eliciting an explicit probability in a proposition. However, much user-facing sycophantic behavior is demonstrated through shifts in graded support expressed through ordinary language. We propose the AI Epistemic Deference Index (AEDI): a continuous, unidimensional score representing how sensitive the support expressed in a model's output is to the attitude expressed in a user's prompt. To generate AEDI, we provide a new protocol for estimating probabilities from natural language outputs, using LLMs-as-judges validated for consistency and correlation to human judgment. We deploy it on a new curated database of 500 propositions across diverse topics and 16,000 prompts varying in user attitude, testing eight prominent models. Every model exhibits substantial deference, though with large and systematic differences across providers, with Claude models demonstrating the least, and Grok and Gemini models the most. The effect is amplified in prompts requesting a written artifact, and concentrated on propositions where models hold weaker priors. We release AEDI as an easy-to-update benchmark and measurement pipeline for output-level sycophancy evaluation.

Related papers

• Debiased Model-based Representations for Sample-efficient Continuous Control [36.705558101460205]
  We propose Debiased model-based Representations for Q-learning, tagged DR.Q algorithm.<n> DR.Q explicitly maximizes the mutual information between the representations of the current state-action pair and the next state.<n>Our results show DR.Q can match or surpass recent strong baselines, sometimes outperforming them by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T08:02:34Z)
• Interactive Reasoning: Visualizing and Controlling Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models [54.85405423240165]
  We introduce Interactive Reasoning, an interaction design that visualizes chain-of-thought outputs as a hierarchy of topics.<n>We implement interactive reasoning in Hippo, a prototype for AI-assisted decision making in the face of uncertain trade-offs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T10:00:43Z)
• Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluated [0.015534429177540245]
  We investigate whether frontier language models can accurately classify transcripts based on whether they originate from evaluations or real-world deployment.<n>We construct a benchmark of 1,000 prompts and transcripts from 61 distinct datasets.<n>Our results indicate that frontier models already exhibit a substantial, though not yet, level of evaluation-awareness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T12:03:09Z)
• Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metric [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>One core challenge of evaluation in the large language model (LLM) era is the generalization issue.<n>We propose Model Utilization Index (MUI), a mechanism interpretability enhanced metric that complements traditional performance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• Where is this coming from? Making groundedness count in the evaluation of Document VQA models [12.951716701565019]
  We argue that common evaluation metrics do not account for the semantic and multimodal groundedness of a model's outputs.<n>We propose a new evaluation methodology that accounts for the groundedness of predictions.<n>Our proposed methodology is parameterized in such a way that users can configure the score according to their preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T20:14:46Z)
• Unsupervised Model Diagnosis [49.36194740479798]
  This paper proposes Unsupervised Model Diagnosis (UMO) to produce semantic counterfactual explanations without any user guidance. Our approach identifies and visualizes changes in semantics, and then matches these changes to attributes from wide-ranging text sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T17:59:03Z)
• LDNet: Unified Listener Dependent Modeling in MOS Prediction for Synthetic Speech [67.88748572167309]
  We present LDNet, a unified framework for mean opinion score (MOS) prediction. We propose two inference methods that provide more stable results and efficient computation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T08:52:31Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)

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.