Irfan Ahmad

A. B. M. Ashikur Rahman, Saeed Anwar, Muhammad Usman et al.

Sycophancy, an excessive tendency of AI models to agree with user input at the expense of factual accuracy or in contradiction of visual evidence, poses a critical and underexplored challenge for multimodal large language models (MLLMs). While prior studies have examined this behavior in text-only settings of large language models, existing research on visual or multimodal counterparts remains limited in scope and depth of analysis. To address this gap, we introduce a comprehensive evaluation benchmark, \textit{PENDULUM}, comprising approximately 2,000 human-curated Visual Question Answering pairs specifically designed to elicit sycophantic responses. The benchmark spans six distinct image domains of varying complexity, enabling a systematic investigation of how image type and inherent challenges influence sycophantic tendencies. Through extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art MLLMs. we observe substantial variability in model robustness and a pronounced susceptibility to sycophantic and hallucinatory behavior. Furthermore, we propose novel metrics to quantify sycophancy in visual reasoning, offering deeper insights into its manifestations across different multimodal contexts. Our findings highlight the urgent need for developing sycophancy-resilient architectures and training strategies to enhance factual consistency and reliability in future MLLMs. Our proposed dataset with MLLMs response are available at https://github.com/ashikiut/pendulum/.

Shadman Rabby, Md. Hefzul Hossain Papon, Sabbir Ahmed et al.

Sycophancy in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) refers to their tendency to align with user opinions, often at the expense of moral or factual accuracy. While prior studies have explored sycophantic behavior in general contexts, its impact on morally grounded visual decision-making remains insufficiently understood. To address this gap, we present the first systematic study of moral sycophancy in VLMs, analyzing ten widely-used models on the Moralise and M^3oralBench datasets under explicit user disagreement. Our results reveal that VLMs frequently produce morally incorrect follow-up responses even when their initial judgments are correct, and exhibit a consistent asymmetry: models are more likely to shift from morally right to morally wrong judgments than the reverse when exposed to user-induced bias. Follow-up prompts generally degrade performance on Moralise, while yielding mixed or even improved accuracy on M^3oralBench, highlighting dataset-dependent differences in moral robustness. Evaluation using Error Introduction Rate (EIR) and Error Correction Rate (ECR) reveals a clear trade-off: models with stronger error-correction capabilities tend to introduce more reasoning errors, whereas more conservative models minimize errors but exhibit limited ability to self-correct. Finally, initial contexts with a morally right stance elicit stronger sycophantic behavior, emphasizing the vulnerability of VLMs to moral influence and the need for principled strategies to improve ethical consistency and robustness in multimodal AI systems.