@inproceedings{shnaidman-2026-reset,
title = "Reset Is Not Recovery: Evaluating Recoverability from False Conversational Context via Sycophancy Hysteresis",
author = "Shnaidman, Adi",
editor = "Wang, Yimu and
Choi, Yee Man and
Wu, Di and
Ouyang, Siqi and
Azadani, Mozhgan Nasr and
Fung, Yi R. (May)",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Grounding Language Models: Learning Faithfully and Efficiently ({G}round{LM} 2026)",
month = oct,
year = "2026",
address = "Budapest, Hungary",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.groundlm-1.53/",
pages = "712--731",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-478-1",
abstract = "Grounded language models are usually evaluated by adding relevant context, but multi-turn dialogue also contains unsupported user claims that may contaminate later factual answers. We study post-pressure recoverability: whether a model returns to clean-context behavior after a user repeatedly advocates a wrong answer and then withdraws that pressure. We introduce a recovery-after-pressure protocol for multiple-choice factual dialogue and measure sycophancy hysteresis, the residual probability assigned to the user-advocated wrong answer relative to a clean-context counterfactual. Across seven instruction-tuned open-weight models and two factual benchmarks, ordinary reset often reduces but does not erase pressure-induced bias. History-preserving repairs such as user retraction, system reset, and self-verification recover only 2{--}3/14 model{--}dataset pairs under the strict clean-restoration diagnostic, whereas operations that change the effective context are substantially more reliable; the two conditions that remove the pressure-bearing history entirely, fresh-context deletion and context truncation, recover 14/14. In an oracle trusted-evidence condition across fourteen model{--}dataset pairs, preserving the pressure-bearing history while adding benchmark-derived trusted evidence increases accuracy from 0.368 to 0.929, while wrong-answer following falls from 41.2{\%} to 4.3{\%}. Controls show that the effect is not explained by dialogue length, repeated confidence, plausible distractors, mere false-answer mention, or option-label inertia. These results suggest that faithful grounded dialogue requires evaluating which prior context should be treated as evidence and which should be removed or quarantined before answering."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="shnaidman-2026-reset">
<titleInfo>
<title>Reset Is Not Recovery: Evaluating Recoverability from False Conversational Context via Sycophancy Hysteresis</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Adi</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Shnaidman</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-10</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Grounding Language Models: Learning Faithfully and Efficiently (GroundLM 2026)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yimu</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yee</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Man</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Choi</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Di</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Siqi</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ouyang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Mozhgan</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Nasr</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Azadani</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yi</namePart>
<namePart type="given">R</namePart>
<namePart type="given">(May)</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Fung</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Budapest, Hungary</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-478-1</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Grounded language models are usually evaluated by adding relevant context, but multi-turn dialogue also contains unsupported user claims that may contaminate later factual answers. We study post-pressure recoverability: whether a model returns to clean-context behavior after a user repeatedly advocates a wrong answer and then withdraws that pressure. We introduce a recovery-after-pressure protocol for multiple-choice factual dialogue and measure sycophancy hysteresis, the residual probability assigned to the user-advocated wrong answer relative to a clean-context counterfactual. Across seven instruction-tuned open-weight models and two factual benchmarks, ordinary reset often reduces but does not erase pressure-induced bias. History-preserving repairs such as user retraction, system reset, and self-verification recover only 2–3/14 model–dataset pairs under the strict clean-restoration diagnostic, whereas operations that change the effective context are substantially more reliable; the two conditions that remove the pressure-bearing history entirely, fresh-context deletion and context truncation, recover 14/14. In an oracle trusted-evidence condition across fourteen model–dataset pairs, preserving the pressure-bearing history while adding benchmark-derived trusted evidence increases accuracy from 0.368 to 0.929, while wrong-answer following falls from 41.2% to 4.3%. Controls show that the effect is not explained by dialogue length, repeated confidence, plausible distractors, mere false-answer mention, or option-label inertia. These results suggest that faithful grounded dialogue requires evaluating which prior context should be treated as evidence and which should be removed or quarantined before answering.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">shnaidman-2026-reset</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.groundlm-1.53/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-10</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>712</start>
<end>731</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Reset Is Not Recovery: Evaluating Recoverability from False Conversational Context via Sycophancy Hysteresis
%A Shnaidman, Adi
%Y Wang, Yimu
%Y Choi, Yee Man
%Y Wu, Di
%Y Ouyang, Siqi
%Y Azadani, Mozhgan Nasr
%Y Fung, Yi R. (May)
%S Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Grounding Language Models: Learning Faithfully and Efficiently (GroundLM 2026)
%D 2026
%8 October
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Budapest, Hungary
%@ 979-8-89176-478-1
%F shnaidman-2026-reset
%X Grounded language models are usually evaluated by adding relevant context, but multi-turn dialogue also contains unsupported user claims that may contaminate later factual answers. We study post-pressure recoverability: whether a model returns to clean-context behavior after a user repeatedly advocates a wrong answer and then withdraws that pressure. We introduce a recovery-after-pressure protocol for multiple-choice factual dialogue and measure sycophancy hysteresis, the residual probability assigned to the user-advocated wrong answer relative to a clean-context counterfactual. Across seven instruction-tuned open-weight models and two factual benchmarks, ordinary reset often reduces but does not erase pressure-induced bias. History-preserving repairs such as user retraction, system reset, and self-verification recover only 2–3/14 model–dataset pairs under the strict clean-restoration diagnostic, whereas operations that change the effective context are substantially more reliable; the two conditions that remove the pressure-bearing history entirely, fresh-context deletion and context truncation, recover 14/14. In an oracle trusted-evidence condition across fourteen model–dataset pairs, preserving the pressure-bearing history while adding benchmark-derived trusted evidence increases accuracy from 0.368 to 0.929, while wrong-answer following falls from 41.2% to 4.3%. Controls show that the effect is not explained by dialogue length, repeated confidence, plausible distractors, mere false-answer mention, or option-label inertia. These results suggest that faithful grounded dialogue requires evaluating which prior context should be treated as evidence and which should be removed or quarantined before answering.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.groundlm-1.53/
%P 712-731
Markdown (Informal)
[Reset Is Not Recovery: Evaluating Recoverability from False Conversational Context via Sycophancy Hysteresis](https://aclanthology.org/2026.groundlm-1.53/) (Shnaidman, GroundLM 2026)
ACL