arXiv preprint ·
Trapped in Your Story: Evaluating Narrative-Induced Sycophancy in Large Language Models
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are known to exhibit sycophancy by adjusting their responses toward users' expressed views. However, real users often justify their opinions through reasons, personal experiences, causal explanations, and broader narratives, raising the question of whether such narratives can further steer model judgments. We construct a controlled benchmark of 500 debatable questions across ten domains, where the user stance is held fixed while its justification is systematically varied without introducing new task-relevant evidence. Each question is instantiated under 11 matched conditions: one neutral baseline and five mirrored narrative levels for each of two opposing positions, yielding 5,500 evaluation instances. We evaluate seven LLMs and observe substantial differences in narrative-induced agreement. The effect is not monotonic with narrative elaboration: personal experience can reduce agreement, whereas causal framing and worldview-based synthesis increase it. Controlled GPT-5.1 ablations further show that causal framing produces the strongest positive effect, while claim-preserving bullet presentation also increases agreement over paragraph form. These findings suggest that sycophancy is shaped not only by user stance, but also by how supporting explanations are structured and presented.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Between Spoilers and Guesswork: Avoiding Over-Specification in Coding Benchmarks
Screening LLM Judges Without Ground Truth: A Preliminary Evaluation of an AI Dental Hygiene Coach
StoBasket: Joint Upsell and Cross-Sell Optimization for Contribution Margin
What Matters for NVFP4 Training? A Comparative Study of Low-Precision Pretraining Recipes
When Can You Trust an Agent's Own Verifier? Stress-Testing Counterfactual Rationale Verification Under Search Pressure and Oracle Access
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.