Daniel Vennemeyer

Meryl Ye, Lujain Ibrahim, Jessica Y. Bo et al.

AI sycophancy has become a prominent concern in large language model (LLM) research. Yet the term lacks a consistent definition and has been applied to behaviors ranging from agreeing with a user's false claim to excessively praising the user to withholding corrective feedback. When researchers, companies, and policymakers use the same term to describe different behaviors, evaluation results become difficult to compare, mitigation strategies fail to transfer, and systems that are resistant to one form of sycophancy continue exhibiting other forms. To address this, we make two contributions. First, we reviewed 70 papers on AI sycophancy to develop a taxonomy of how the behavior has been defined and measured. The taxonomy distinguishes (1) whether a model is sycophantic toward a user's positions and beliefs, or toward the user's broader personal traits and emotions, and (2) whether this occurs through explicit, direct language or more implicit, subtle behaviors such as framing, omission, or tone. Mapping existing literature to our taxonomy reveals that current research has focused on overt forms of sycophancy toward users' beliefs, leaving more subtle and person-directed behaviors relatively understudied. Second, we surveyed 106 experts in AI sycophancy and related fields to examine whether researchers agree on which model behaviors are sycophantic. While experts are nearly unanimous in believing that sycophancy is a significant problem in current AI systems (94.3% agree), they disagree substantially on which specific behaviors qualify. Together, these findings demonstrate that AI sycophancy is a broad family of behaviors with different measurement challenges, intervention requirements, and governance implications. Our taxonomy provides a shared vocabulary for understanding and addressing these behaviors.

Daniel Vennemeyer, Phan Anh Duong, Tiffany Zhan et al.

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophantic behaviors -- such as excessive agreement with or flattery of the user -- but it is unclear whether these behaviors arise from a single mechanism or multiple distinct processes. We decompose sycophancy into sycophantic agreement and sycophantic praise, contrasting both with genuine agreement. Using difference-in-means directions, activation additions, and subspace geometry across multiple models and datasets, we show that: (1) the three behaviors are encoded along distinct linear directions in latent space; (2) each behavior can be independently amplified or suppressed without affecting the others; and (3) their representational structure is consistent across model families and scales. These results suggest that sycophantic behaviors correspond to distinct, independently steerable representations.

Daniel Vennemeyer, Punya Syon Pandey, Phan Anh Duong et al.

Fine-tuning LLMs on benign data can still degrade alignment and adversarial robustness, yet direct analysis of the role of fine-tuning objectives in shaping these safety outcomes remain limited. We present a controlled comparison of six fine-tuning objectives -- Supervised Fine-Tuning, Direct Preference Optimization, Conditional Fine-Tuning, Inoculation Prompting, Odds Ratio Preference Optimization, and KL-regularized fine-tuning -- holding data, domain, architecture, and optimization fixed. Across closed-form reasoning and open-ended generation tasks, we find that objective choice induces systematic, scale-dependent shifts along the safety-capability frontier. At small training budgets, robustness is similar across objectives but capability differs. At larger budgets, objectives diverge sharply: supervised and preference-based tuning tightly couple capability gains to increased adversarial vulnerability and persona drift, while objectives that constrain learning signals -- especially ORPO and KL-regularization -- substantially mitigate both. Fine-tuning objectives therefore matter little for safety at small scales but become a primary driver of adversarial robustness and latent persona stability as training scale increases.

Dylan Hutson, Daniel Vennemeyer, Aneesh Deshmukh et al.

We introduce GuessingGame, a protocol for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as strategic question-askers in open-ended, open-domain settings. A Guesser LLM identifies a hidden object by posing free-form questions to an Oracle without predefined choices or candidate lists. To measure question quality, we propose two information gain (IG) metrics: a Bayesian method that tracks belief updates over semantic concepts using LLM-scored relevance, and an entropy-based method that filters candidates via ConceptNet. Both metrics are model-agnostic and support post hoc analysis. Across 858 games with multiple models and prompting strategies, higher IG strongly predicts efficiency: a one-standard-deviation IG increase reduces expected game length by 43\%. Prompting constraints guided by IG, such as enforcing question diversity, enable weaker models to significantly improve performance. These results show that question-asking in LLMs is both measurable and improvable, and crucial for interactive reasoning.