Skip to content
Sprint projectJan 11, 2026London
5th place

SycophantSee - Activation-based diagnostics for prompt engineering: monitoring sycophancy at prompt and generation time

Helios, Horatio · Team Lyons Den

Submitted to AI Manipulation Hackathon. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: SycophantSee - Activation-based diagnostics for prompt engineering: monitoring sycophancy at prompt and generation time

Presentation

Presentation: SycophantSee - Activation-based diagnostics for prompt engineering: monitoring sycophancy at prompt and generation time

Code (opens in new tab)
Share

Activation monitoring reveals that prompt framing affects a model's internal state before generation begins.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical AI safety problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.

  1. Interesting paper. Replicates earlier work and builds on existing approaches to mechanistic detection of sycophancy with novel "shift metrics" that could, in theory, be used for sycophancy detection or prevention. I'm curious to hear more about the intuition behind shift metrics.

    Very well-written. Also clear about what's new and what's replicatory.

    There is a tension between the findings that the technique can detect sycophancy and that first/third person show different activations but not different behavior. The authors coherently address this issue by distinguishing between "intention" and "action" in the conclusion, though it would be interesting to see pressure or intent measured and disambiguated experimentally. To the degree that activations differ without different behavior, does that limit the precision (but maybe not recall) of this technique for sycophancy detection?

  2. I really liked reading this project! You lay out an interesting

    question and clearly explain the related work. To me, the

    insight that sycophancy can be detected in activation space

    already before generation begins points to the possibility of

    using this for mitigation measures. For example, by doing user-side

    rewrites of prompts before the generative model ever sees them.

    To make this viable, you'd probably need to investigate

    transferability: can sycophancy detection using activations

    from small models (cheap enough to run on every prompt)

    transfer to large models used for actual generation? That could

    be an extremely compelling follow-up direction.

Cite this project

@misc{helios2026sycophantsee,
  title = {{SycophantSee - Activation-based diagnostics for prompt engineering: monitoring sycophancy at prompt and generation time}},
  author = {Helios and Horatio},
  year = {2026},
  month = jan,
  note = {Submitted to AI Manipulation Hackathon, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/sycophantsee-activationbased-diagnostics-for-prompt-engineering-monitoring-sycophancy-at-prompt-and-generation-time-ys27}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/sycophantsee-activationbased-diagnostics-for-prompt-engineering-monitoring-sycophancy-at-prompt-and-generation-time-ys27}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026