Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophantic behaviors—such as excessive agreement with or flattery of the user—but it is unclear whether these behaviors arise from a single mechanism or multiple distinct processes. We decompose sycophancy into sycophantic agreement and sycophantic praise, contrasting both with genuine agreement. Using difference-in-means directions, activation additions, and subspace geometry across multiple models and datasets, we show that: (1) the three behaviors are encoded along distinct linear directions in latent space; (2) each behavior can be independently amplified or suppressed without affecting the others; and (3) their representational structure is consistent across model families and scales. These results suggest that sycophantic behaviors correspond to distinct, independently steerable representations.

We introduce GuessingGame, a protocol for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as strategic question-askers in open-ended, open-domain settings. A Guesser LLM identifies a hidden object by posing free-form questions to an Oracle—without predefined choices or candidate lists. To measure question quality, we propose two information gain (IG) metrics: a Bayesian method that tracks belief updates over semantic concepts using LLM-scored relevance, and an entropy-based method that filters candidates via ConceptNet. Both metrics are model-agnostic and support post hoc analysis. Across 858 games with multiple models and prompting strategies, higher IG strongly predicts efficiency: a one-standard-deviation IG increase reduces expected game length by 43%. Prompting constraints guided by IG—such as enforcing question diversity—enable weaker models to match GPT-4o. These results show that question-asking in LLMs is both measurable and improvable, and crucial for interactive reasoning.