Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy, altering their answers to align with user suggestions even on objective factual and reasoning tasks. Yet the quantitative form of this influence--- and whether it is calibrated to source reliability--- remains poorly understood. In this work, we investigate this behavior through hint-induced answer shifts on MMLU questions, evaluating prompts of the form ``[Source] thinks the answer is (X)''. We systematically vary the source to which the hint is attributed (a professor, a friend, or a dog) across three open-source model families, Qwen, Gemma, and SmolLM. We show that the change induced by the hint follows a predictable structure well-characterized by an exponential tilt: the hint induces an approximately constant mean shift in the hinted answer's log-odds, with question--target susceptibility largely shared across sources. To explore how this pattern can arise, we introduce a formal decomposition of the hint response and illustrate in controlled synthetic experiments how KL-regularized reward-based training reshapes both hinted and unhinted answer distributions. Finally, we evaluate whether this shift is calibrated to source reliability, finding that the log-odds shift persists even when the hint-giver is declared inaccurate or accompanied by explicit warnings not to trust the source, highlighting the vulnerability of LLMs to adversarial steering.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.32055
