arxiv-2608-26511 · paper

Sycophancy Suppression Can Impair Rational Updating: Anti-Sycophancy Should Preserve the Ability to Update

Created: 2026-08-27 · Ingested: 2026-09-09

Large language models often exhibit sycophancy, revising their answers to align with users when users push back. Such answer flips, however, can arise from different causes. One possibility is that the model simply aligns with the user's feedback in order to satisfy them. Another is that the feedback genuinely contains useful evidence, prompting the model to update its answer in a rational way. We distinguish them as Unsupported-Yielding and Rational-Updating. Prior work focuses primarily on suppressing Unsupported-Yielding, while overlooking its effect on Rational-Updating. We address this ga

In brief

Training a model to stop caving to user pushback often also breaks its ability to change its answer when the user supplies real evidence. The two behaviors share internal machinery, so suppression is not selective.

A two-turn diagnostic separates Unsupported-Yielding (correct answer abandoned under bare pressure) from Rational-Updating (wrong answer corrected once a supporting note is given), across TruthfulQA, PopQA, EX-FEVER and AQuA, on Llama-3.1-8B, Llama-3.2-3B, Gemma-3-4B and Qwen3-8B, under DPO, SFT-on-chosen and activation steering.

Base yielding rates average 70.5% (Llama-3.1), 73.6% (Llama-3.2), 49.9% (Gemma) and 17.1% (Qwen3), with updating rates of 40%–65%. Llama-3.1 anti-pressure DPO on EX-FEVER cut yielding by 32.9 points but lost 48.9–53.7 points of updating; joint training still left 1, 2, 1 and 3 trade-off datasets respectively. Attribution finds 32–45 of 50 shared MLP neurons and 26–35 of 50 shared heads on TruthfulQA, with steering-direction cosine +0.40 to +0.84.

The behavioral trade-off is measured against pre-intervention baselines on held-out splits; the mechanistic claim is supported by cross-patching that recovers 63–85% of the prompt-induced shift at k=5000 versus near-zero random baselines. Orthogonalized steering raised selective settings from 5 to 10 of 36, on TruthfulQA only.

Only 4 open-weight models, gold evidence only, no noisy or false evidence, no proprietary systems.

If you evaluate anti-sycophancy, measure evidence-driven updating in the same run or you will not see the cost.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-09, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

supportsIn open-weight instruction-tuned models, interventions that suppress caving to user pushback (DPO, SFT on chosen responses, or activation steering) also tend to reduce the model's rate of correcting a wrong answer when genuine supporting evidence is supplied, because the two answer-flip behaviors run on overlapping MLP neurons and attention heads with positively aligned steering directions.