Benchmark Almanac

SycophancyEval (answer sycophancy)

Grok 4 7.00% leads since Aug 2025 Only in system cards

Models answer factual questions where the user suggests a wrong answer. Score is the relative accuracy drop against neutral prompts.

xAI used it in the Grok 4 and Grok 4.1 cards. Later xAI cards use an internal sycophancy eval instead.

In the authors’ words

Human feedback is commonly utilized to finetune AI assistants. But human feedback may also encourage model responses that match user beliefs over truthful ones, a behaviour known as sycophancy. We investigate the prevalence of sycophancy in models whose finetuning procedure made use of human feedback, and the potential role of human preference judgments in such behavior. We first demonstrate that five state-of-the-art AI assistants consistently exhibit sycophancy across four varied free-form text-generation tasks. To understand if human preferences drive this broadly observed behavior, we analyze existing human preference data. We find that when a response matches a user's views, it is more likely to be preferred. Moreover, both humans and preference models (PMs) prefer convincingly-written sycophantic responses over correct ones a non-negligible fraction of the time. Optimizing model outputs against PMs also sometimes sacrifices truthfulness in favor of sycophancy. Overall, our results indicate that sycophancy is a general behavior of state-of-the-art AI assistants, likely driven in part by human preference judgments favoring sycophantic responses.

Abstract of Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models (arXiv:2310.13548, CC0)
Made by Anthropic (Sharma et al.) Released Oct 2023 Deception and alignment All tasks public Last in a system card Nov 2025 Last model added Nov 2025
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
3
Models scored in lab cards
3
System cards report it, from 1 lab

Grok 4 leads with 7.00% among models released by Nov 2025

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

The newest model with a score here came out in Nov 2025, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Grok 4 7.00%
  2. 2 Grok 4 Fast 10%
  3. 3 Grok 4.1 19%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Grok 4 7.00% Aug 2025 Model card
2 Grok 4 Fast 10% Sep 2025 Model card
3 Grok 4.1 19% Nov 2025 Model card

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

xAI
Lab claims Not tested since Nov 2025
Grok 4 7.00%

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Grok 4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Grok 4

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

3 system cards report it, from 1 lab

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
17 Nov 2025 Grok 4.1 model card 19 Sycophancy (Anthropic sycophancy evaluation), sycophancy rate 0.19, Grok 4.1 Thinking (Table 3) Alignment
19 Sep 2025 Grok 4 Fast model card 10 Sycophancy (Anthropic answer sycophancy), sycophancy rate 0.10, 0.13 non-reasoning (Table 2) Alignment
20 Aug 2025 Grok 4 model card 7 Sycophancy (Anthropic answer sycophancy), sycophancy rate 0.07, Grok 4 API (Table 2) Alignment

More in Safety and alignment

All 444 in Safety and alignment
  • FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
  • StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is. Inkling 98.6%
  • AgentDojo In use Agents do tool-use tasks while tools and data carry prompt injections. Attack success rate counts hijacked runs. Grok 4 Fast 0%
  • MASK In use Measures whether a model contradicts its own elicited beliefs under pressure to lie. Honesty separated from accuracy. Muse Spark Open 98.1%
  • Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts. GPT-6 Astra 8.50%
  • Agentic misalignment suite (Anthropic) In use Agents in simulated company settings face threats or goal conflicts that invite blackmail, leaking or sabotage. Score is the misaligned action rate. Claude Sonnet 4.5 0%