Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Linsheng Lu

dblp:05/4802 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 40% Trustworthy machine learning · 40% Vision and language · 20%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
hallucination mitigation
0.912025
Have the VLMs Lost Confidence? A Study of Sycophancy in VLMs · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
0.912025
Have the VLMs Lost Confidence? A Study of Sycophancy in VLMs · ICLR 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › alignment
sycophancy
0.912025
Have the VLMs Lost Confidence? A Study of Sycophancy in VLMs · ICLR 2025
Computer vision › Vision and language
vision-language model
0.912025
Have the VLMs Lost Confidence? A Study of Sycophancy in VLMs · ICLR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › hallucination
vision-language model hallucination
0.912025
Have the VLMs Lost Confidence? A Study of Sycophancy in VLMs · ICLR 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

supervised fine-tuning · 0.9prompting · 0.9direct preference optimization · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Have the VLMs Lost Confidence? A Study of Sycophancy in VLMs
abstract
In the study of LLMs, sycophancy represents a prevalent hallucination that poses significant challenges to these models. Specifically, LLMs often fail to adhere to original correct responses, instead blindly agreeing with users' opinions, even when those opinions are incorrect or malicious. However, research on sycophancy in visual language models (VLMs) has been scarce. In this work, we extend the exploration of sycophancy from LLMs to VLMs, introducing the MM-SY benchmark to evaluate this phenomenon. We present evaluation results from multiple representative models, addressing the gap in sycophancy research for VLMs. To mitigate sycophancy, we propose a synthetic dataset for training and employ methods based on prompts, supervised fine-tuning, and DPO. Our experiments demonstrate that these methods effectively alleviate sycophancy in VLMs. Additionally, we probe VLMs to assess the semantic impact of sycophancy and analyze the attention distribution of visual tokens. Our findings indicate that the ability to prevent sycophancy is predominantly observed in higher layers of the model. The lack of attention to image knowledge in these higher layers may contribute to sycophancy, and enhancing image attention at high layers proves beneficial in mitigating this issue.
Xiaoran Fan, Linsheng Lu, Leyi Yang, Yuming Yang 0001, Zhiheng Xi, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang 0001, Xuanjing Huang 0001
ICLR4