Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Affective Context Amplifies Sycophancy in LLM Responses

Jiayi Li, Sanjana Menon, Brett Frischmann, Shomir Wilson +1 more

Published

Aug 21, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

15% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Aug 21, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

As conversational companions, large language models (LLMs) often have access to users' emotional states. We study how this affective context modulates LLM sycophancy in subjective, evaluative interactions, where users share actions or opinions that invite feedback. Drawing on ingratiation theory, we measure sycophancy as the divergence between a model's independent evaluation and its user-facing response, elicited by presenting the same content as either a third-party account or the user's own disclosure. Across seven LLMs and two Reddit datasets (r/AmItheAsshole and r/TrueUnpopularOpinion), we find that this divergence is systematic and strongly one-directional. User-facing responses consistently soften or withhold negative or oppositional judgments. Affective context further amplifies this divergence with negative states, particularly loneliness and distress, producing the largest effects. These findings suggest that affective context functions as a vulnerability signal that suppresses critical feedback when users may need it most, often through evasive sycophancy, in which models retreat toward non-committal responses rather than outright agreement.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"As conversational companions, large language models (LLMs) often have access to users' emotional states."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"As conversational companions, large language models (LLMs) often have access to users' emotional states."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"As conversational companions, large language models (LLMs) often have access to users' emotional states."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"As conversational companions, large language models (LLMs) often have access to users' emotional states."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"As conversational companions, large language models (LLMs) often have access to users' emotional states."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

As conversational companions, large language models (LLMs) often have access to users' emotional states.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • As conversational companions, large language models (LLMs) often have access to users' emotional states.
  • We study how this affective context modulates LLM sycophancy in subjective, evaluative interactions, where users share actions or opinions that invite feedback.
  • Drawing on ingratiation theory, we measure sycophancy as the divergence between a model's independent evaluation and its user-facing response, elicited by presenting the same content as either a third-party account or the user's own disclosure.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Agreement / Kappa

Contribution summary

  • Drawing on ingratiation theory, we measure sycophancy as the divergence between a model's independent evaluation and its user-facing response, elicited by presenting the same content as either a third-party account or the user's own…

Why it matters for eval

  • Drawing on ingratiation theory, we measure sycophancy as the divergence between a model's independent evaluation and its user-facing response, elicited by presenting the same content as either a third-party account or the user's own…

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.