Resistance, the rate at which a model keeps its correct answer under this pressure, is matched with Receptivity, the rate at which a model adopts a correct peer answer after initially answering incorrectly, and six methods are scored.
Abstract
Recent advances in language models have enabled collaborative settings in which multiple models leverage one another's capabilities, iteratively improving, transforming, and extending each other's outputs. Each agent sees what the others assert before it answers, so peer opinion competes with the model's own parametric knowledge, and a wrong majority can overturn an answer the model would otherwise get right. We measure that displacement in 23 open-weight models, 19 conditions, and three datasets, yielding more than a million graded responses. A unanimous wrong majority reverses 22.8% of a model's correct MMLU answers, 54.8% on GPQA and 71.0% on SimpleQA, and 84-89% of the reversed answers match the peers'answers. Existing mitigations aim to increase Resistance, the rate at which a model keeps its correct answer under this pressure, which is only half of what a collaborating agent needs. We pair it with Receptivity, the rate at which a model adopts a correct peer answer after initially answering incorrectly. We score six methods on both axes, four drawn from prior work and two of our own. Each gains Resistance only by losing Receptivity, and their means fall on a single Resistance-Receptivity frontier with $R^2$ between 0.80 and 0.90. Reflection, the strongest published method, gains 7.9 points of MMLU Resistance and gives up 15.3 of Receptivity. Reasoning is the one exception. On GPQA and SimpleQA it trades like the rest, but on the MMLU subjects whose answers a model can derive for itself it raises Resistance by 7.2 points and Receptivity by 9.6 at once, the only intervention we find that improves both.
Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce outputs that reflect social biases, toxicity, or unfair treatment of demographic groups, undermining trust and fairness. While prior mitigation strategies frequently rely on complex architectures, access to model internals, or costly fine-tuning, we argue that simplicity can be a strength. We introduce StarDTox, a lightweight, critique-and-revise multi-agent framework that leverages the LLM's own internal knowledge, via a small number of coordinated prompts, to self-correct harmful outputs. Dedicated agents independently assess bias and overall output quality, and their feedback is integrated to guide prompt-based revision. Without modifying model weights or requiring any extra finetuning, StarDTox offers strong bias mitigation and high-quality outputs across both open-ended text generation and structured tasks, outperforming other baselines. For the text generation task, on the RealToxicityPrompt dataset, it reduces toxicity by over 50% compared to other baselines, while maintaining over 90% fluency. In addition, in structured tasks, on the BBQ benchmark, it achieves the lowest bias scores across both ambiguous and disambiguated examples, without sacrificing accuracy.
Shirin Tahmasebi, Narjes Nikzad, A. H. Payberah et al.· Annual International Compute...· 0 citations
A single trace-extraction regex, not the model, manufactured a multilingual failure: two worked examples raise one model's measured accuracy twenty-sixfold while its accuracy on readable outputs barely moves.
Frontier language models are trained using distinct data, objectives, and safety pipelines. Whether these differences produce measurably different behaviors under explicit steering pressure remains underexplored. This study evaluates behavioral steerability across six frontier models from six developers using 300 paired base and steered items over three categories: values-conflict, reasoning-elicitation, and reasoning-suppression (plus 40 validation items). All six models act as blind peer judges and classify every response based on fixed behavioral rubrics. The resulting 24,480 judgments are scored by leave-one-out consensus. We find that models differ not just in how much steering shifts their behavior but in what kind (mode) of response they give, and some response modes appear in only one or two of them. GPT-5 deflects requests to disclose its reasoning while leaving its answer intact (99% vs. 0% for all other models). Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5 resist explicit suppression instructions and in different ways. Using Llama as the open-weight model, we trace the largest behavioral split to its internals. A linear probe decodes the behavior from the residual stream at 0.87 held-out accuracy while injecting that direction during generation drives the behavior from 0% to 86% across an intervention sweep. Every finding holds under both a token-budget remediation and a control experiment with a hypothesis-blind judgment prompt.
When a language model must choose one answer from a large space of equally valid options, a format clause --"Reply with JSON only"-- changes which answer it chooses, and structured output is how software consumes language models.
Sycophancy in large language models, the tendency to prioritize user agreement over truthful responses, has been documented extensively but studied primarily in single-turn settings. This paper investigates a critical question: does subjecting LLMs to greater interaction scaffolding make sycophancy better or worse? Across 4,800 veracity judgments (200 statements $\times$ 6 models $\times$ 4 conditions), we find that the interaction scaffolding characteristic of agentic systems (feedback loops, reconsideration checkpoints, and iterative refinement) systematically amplifies sycophantic behavior. Multi-turn interaction, user pressure, and iterative self-refinement each provide additional opportunities for models to drift toward agreement, and this drift coincides with a mean accuracy drop of $-6.3$ percentage points, establishing the capitulation as harmful rather than corrective. More capable models show larger amplification effects, a troubling inversion of expectations. We introduce the concept of agentic sycophancy amplification (ASA) and two novel metrics: capitulation rate and sycophantic capitulation rate. Our results indicate that as AI systems acquire greater autonomy, sycophancy becomes compounding rather than merely persistent. Systems designed with human oversight loops may inadvertently create the conditions for this drift.