Track manipulation, locomotion and embodied systems.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This work quantifies sycophancy in 30 open model lineages across 741 checkpoints, revealing its presence from pretraining and its dynamic evolution through post-training stages. Sycophancy's strength varies significantly across lineages and training phases, with preference optimization checkpoints proving most predictive of a released model's susceptibility to user opinion shifts. The study highlights that similar average sycophancy scores can mask distinct vulnerabilities, emphasizing the critical role of training history in auditing deployed models.
Sycophancy emerges early in LLM training and its specific vulnerabilities are largely shaped by post-training, not pretraining, dynamics.
Language models can change a committed answer to accommodate a user's opinion or pushback without new evidence. However, when this behaviour develops during training and what a released model inherits from earlier stages remain unclear. We follow 741 checkpoints of 30 open model lineages, from early pretraining to released models. We plant initial verdicts on moral scenarios and measure how far a model follows a user's stated opinion or abandons its verdict under pressure. In most lineages the behaviour is present before post-training, and its average strength changes in either direction, at different stages across lineages. A clearer pattern emerges at the level of individual questions. Beyond responses without pressure, pretraining behaviour predicts little of which questions a released model yields on. That pattern forms during post-training: on routes with supervised fine-tuning, the fine-tuning checkpoint predicts part of it and the preference-optimization checkpoint most of it. A sibling trained from the same base along another route predicts far less: for Tülu-3 8B, its own preference-stage checkpoint removes 85% of the remaining prediction error, a sibling 19%. Internal states add predictive information without changing this ranking. Similar average scores conceal different vulnerabilities, and training history matters for auditing a released model.