Good Papers

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

Sycophancy is a boundary failure between social alignment and epistemic integrity, defined by three conditions involving cue expression, alignment shift, and compromised reasoning.

Jiechen Li, Catherine A Barry, Rishika Randev, Janet Chen, Ella Jorgensen, Brinnae Bent

Published 2026Atlanta Poster Session 6 · Fri, Dec 11, 4:30 PM–7:30 PM local time · Hall C1arXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

76%
OverallHighly rated
?
OverallHighly ratedVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel10/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 5/10
strict 0/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

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.