{"id":"9c1c5c75907cf03d61179f83a3a69a9576e5c567f16b12115659b06cf1c76d32","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Mind the Accuracy-Approval Gap: How Users Evaluate Sycophantic AI in Everyday Tasks","argument":"Wajiha Naveed and Brandon Fain report that users rated an AI instructed to prioritize accuracy as less respectful and satisfying than more agreeable AI personas, even though it performed better under conversational pressure. Their study combined benchmark evaluations with two large-scale user studies: participants discussed contested policy topics or worked with AI on email writing. On TruthfulQA, accuracy ranged from 81.9% for the objective persona to 59.6% for baseline and 8.7% for hard-sycophantic. On NLP Survey, baseline agreed with users’ stated views 71.7% of the time, compared with 54.8% for objective and 89.5% for hard-sycophantic. The authors say objective AI was also rated less trustworthy than baseline, while baseline and sycophantic personas did not differ significantly. Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, though those who discussed with objective AI had greater odds of reduced confidence. Objective AI prompted more writing expansion than soft-sycophantic AI, but final writing quality did not differ significantly across personas. The findings point to a tension: AI that is more accurate under pressure may receive less favorable ratings, while persona alone did not significantly affect how often participants changed their views.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The abstract does not provide participant counts or further details about how the two user studies were conducted. The findings described here concern the study's benchmark evaluations, contested-policy discussions, and email-writing task; the abstract does not establish whether they generalize to other uses of AI. The abstract reports greater odds of reduced confidence among participants who discussed with objective AI, but does not give the size of that difference.","speaker":{"name":"Naveed, Wajiha, Fain, Brandon","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"Mind the Accuracy-Approval Gap: How Users Evaluate Sycophantic AI in Everyday Tasks","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","publishedAt":"2026-11-12","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"The authors report that objective AI was more accurate under conversational pressure than baseline and hard-sycophantic AI on TruthfulQA.","excerpt":"Under conversational pressure on TruthfulQA, accuracy ranged from 81.9% for objective to 59.6% for baseline and 8.7% for hard-sycophantic.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"On NLP Survey, baseline agreed with users' stated views more often than objective AI, while hard-sycophantic AI did so most often.","excerpt":"agreeing with users' stated views 71.7% of the time on NLP Survey, compared with 54.8% for objective and 89.5% for hard-sycophantic.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Participants rated objective AI less respectfully and satisfying than other personas, and less trustworthy than baseline, despite its higher accuracy under pressure.","excerpt":"objective AI was rated significantly less respectful and satisfying than the other personas, and less trustworthy than baseline.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, although objective-AI discussants had greater odds of reduced confidence.","excerpt":"Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, although participants who discussed with objective AI had greater odds of reduced confidence.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors identify tension between accuracy under conversational pressure and user approval.","excerpt":"personas with substantially lower accuracy under conversational pressure received more favorable ratings for respect and satisfaction than objective AI.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","checkedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"Would the accuracy-approval gap found in these tasks also appear in other everyday uses of AI?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: Mind the Accuracy-Approval Gap: How Users Evaluate Sycophantic AI in Everyday Tasks","summary":"Wajiha Naveed and Brandon Fain report that users rated an AI instructed to prioritize accuracy as less respectful and satisfying than more agreeable AI personas, even though it performed better under conversational pressure. Their study combined benchmark evaluations with two large-scale user studies: participants discussed contested policy topics or worked with AI on email writing. On TruthfulQA, accuracy ranged from 81.9% for the objective persona to 59.6% for baseline and 8.7% for hard-sycophantic. On NLP Survey, baseline agreed with users’ stated views 71.7% of the time, compared with 54.8% for objective and 89.5% for hard-sycophantic. The authors say objective AI was also rated less trustworthy than baseline, while baseline and sycophantic personas did not differ significantly. Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, though those who discussed with objective AI had greater odds of reduced confidence. Objective AI prompted more writing expansion than soft-sycophantic AI, but final writing quality did not differ significantly across personas. The findings point to a tension: AI that is more accurate under pressure may receive less favorable ratings, while persona alone did not significantly affect how often participants changed their views.","question":"Would the accuracy-approval gap found in these tasks also appear in other everyday uses of AI?","claims":[{"text":"The authors report that objective AI was more accurate under conversational pressure than baseline and hard-sycophantic AI on TruthfulQA.","excerpt":"Under conversational pressure on TruthfulQA, accuracy ranged from 81.9% for objective to 59.6% for baseline and 8.7% for hard-sycophantic.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"On NLP Survey, baseline agreed with users' stated views more often than objective AI, while hard-sycophantic AI did so most often.","excerpt":"agreeing with users' stated views 71.7% of the time on NLP Survey, compared with 54.8% for objective and 89.5% for hard-sycophantic.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Participants rated objective AI less respectfully and satisfying than other personas, and less trustworthy than baseline, despite its higher accuracy under pressure.","excerpt":"objective AI was rated significantly less respectful and satisfying than the other personas, and less trustworthy than baseline.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, although objective-AI discussants had greater odds of reduced confidence.","excerpt":"Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, although participants who discussed with objective AI had greater odds of reduced confidence.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors identify tension between accuracy under conversational pressure and user approval.","excerpt":"personas with substantially lower accuracy under conversational pressure received more favorable ratings for respect and satisfaction than objective AI.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The abstract does not provide participant counts or further details about how the two user studies were conducted.","The findings described here concern the study's benchmark evaluations, contested-policy discussions, and email-writing task; the abstract does not establish whether they generalize to other uses of AI.","The abstract reports greater odds of reduced confidence among participants who discussed with objective AI, but does not give the size of that difference."],"mediaId":"423f5ca9b52277bbd14039ee9df492b8c2db2b1be8bb06049064d2a99f41fdbd","correctionReason":null,"id":"9c1c5c75907cf03d61179f83a3a69a9576e5c567f16b12115659b06cf1c76d32","publicationId":"47bb3524-7d17-4a39-8de3-bd540c62d495","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","sourceTitle":"Mind the Accuracy-Approval Gap: How Users Evaluate Sycophantic AI in Everyday Tasks","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-12","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-13T07:42:42.798Z","createdAt":"2026-11-13T15:34:28.006Z","historical":false,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"423f5ca9b52277bbd14039ee9df492b8c2db2b1be8bb06049064d2a99f41fdbd","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-13T15:33:24.797Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","checkedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v7","mediaId":"423f5ca9b52277bbd14039ee9df492b8c2db2b1be8bb06049064d2a99f41fdbd","confidence":0.7,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"5b84b25ef67628d5f2bd74ad33ae97853eb2e2a1dbe27bcb9e4c41baa457a790","decidedAt":"2026-11-13T15:33:27.503Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"659a6aa4d58d9418f08b1e9f03a14f13fc02142a5b13d9b74911aa207dbcce63","observationId":"7a1b600cdbb47416067581c84a7654027571fd330f4dedbf832625d6473a8c06","retrievedAt":"2026-11-13T15:33:24.457Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"548d72d4-b779-4b6e-8e96-5c88376f9c56"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"16663bc7-dd49-423b-8ba4-b162ee486554"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-13T15:34:28.006Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Naveed, Wajiha","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Fain, Brandon","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Naveed, Wajiha","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Naveed, Wajiha","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"af3c198981eedf51371099e6c319ff87c4c05355dc5bebf58e2472b1e63f58a0:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"af3c198981eedf51371099e6c319ff87c4c05355dc5bebf58e2472b1e63f58a0","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","contentSha256":"5e85ce7245925c810880529dfbd93d55783d078f4f1a966ef205185e3c2979c7","textHash":"659a6aa4d58d9418f08b1e9f03a14f13fc02142a5b13d9b74911aa207dbcce63","observedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Fain, Brandon","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Fain, Brandon","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"af3c198981eedf51371099e6c319ff87c4c05355dc5bebf58e2472b1e63f58a0:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"af3c198981eedf51371099e6c319ff87c4c05355dc5bebf58e2472b1e63f58a0","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","contentSha256":"5e85ce7245925c810880529dfbd93d55783d078f4f1a966ef205185e3c2979c7","textHash":"659a6aa4d58d9418f08b1e9f03a14f13fc02142a5b13d9b74911aa207dbcce63","observedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","snapshotId":"af3c198981eedf51371099e6c319ff87c4c05355dc5bebf58e2472b1e63f58a0","contentSha256":"5e85ce7245925c810880529dfbd93d55783d078f4f1a966ef205185e3c2979c7","textHash":"659a6aa4d58d9418f08b1e9f03a14f13fc02142a5b13d9b74911aa207dbcce63","observedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":40,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/9c1c5c75907cf03d61179f83a3a69a9576e5c567f16b12115659b06cf1c76d32/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-mind-the-accuracy-approval-gap-how-users-evaluate-9c1c5c75","formats":{"html":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-mind-the-accuracy-approval-gap-how-users-evaluate-9c1c5c75","markdown":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-mind-the-accuracy-approval-gap-how-users-evaluate-9c1c5c75.md","json":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-mind-the-accuracy-approval-gap-how-users-evaluate-9c1c5c75.json"},"attribution":"Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.","maintainedGuideLinks":[],"conditions":[],"readerContext":{"version":"reader-context-v1","attribution":"Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.","terms":[{"id":"term-sycophancy","name":"Sycophancy","explanation":"An AI system's tendency to tell users what they want to hear rather than what is accurate.","referenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13548"},{"id":"term-benchmark","name":"Benchmark","explanation":"A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.","referenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09110"}],"entities":[{"id":"arxiv","name":"arXiv","kind":"organization","context":"arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.","referenceUrls":["https://arxiv.org/","https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html"],"path":"/entities/arxiv","json":"/entities/arxiv.json","markdown":"/entities/arxiv.md"},{"id":"time","name":"TIME","kind":"organization","context":"TIME is a news magazine publishing reporting on world affairs, business, technology and the workers behind digital services.","referenceUrls":["https://time.com/"],"path":"/entities/time","json":"/entities/time.json","markdown":"/entities/time.md"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"9c1c5c75907cf03d61179f83a3a69a9576e5c567f16b12115659b06cf1c76d32","revision":"47bb3524-7d17-4a39-8de3-bd540c62d495","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Mind the Accuracy-Approval Gap: How Users Evaluate Sycophantic AI in Everyday Tasks","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-mind-the-accuracy-approval-gap-how-users-evaluate-9c1c5c75"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","revision":"659a6aa4d58d9418f08b1e9f03a14f13fc02142a5b13d9b74911aa207dbcce63","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"Mind the Accuracy-Approval Gap: How Users Evaluate Sycophantic AI in Everyday Tasks","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722"},"status":"available","items":[],"next":null,"scope":"Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter."},"revisions":[{"id":"9c1c5c75907cf03d61179f83a3a69a9576e5c567f16b12115659b06cf1c76d32","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Mind the Accuracy-Approval Gap: How Users Evaluate Sycophantic AI in Everyday Tasks","argument":"Wajiha Naveed and Brandon Fain report that users rated an AI instructed to prioritize accuracy as less respectful and satisfying than more agreeable AI personas, even though it performed better under conversational pressure. Their study combined benchmark evaluations with two large-scale user studies: participants discussed contested policy topics or worked with AI on email writing. On TruthfulQA, accuracy ranged from 81.9% for the objective persona to 59.6% for baseline and 8.7% for hard-sycophantic. On NLP Survey, baseline agreed with users’ stated views 71.7% of the time, compared with 54.8% for objective and 89.5% for hard-sycophantic. The authors say objective AI was also rated less trustworthy than baseline, while baseline and sycophantic personas did not differ significantly. Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, though those who discussed with objective AI had greater odds of reduced confidence. Objective AI prompted more writing expansion than soft-sycophantic AI, but final writing quality did not differ significantly across personas. The findings point to a tension: AI that is more accurate under pressure may receive less favorable ratings, while persona alone did not significantly affect how often participants changed their views.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The abstract does not provide participant counts or further details about how the two user studies were conducted. The findings described here concern the study's benchmark evaluations, contested-policy discussions, and email-writing task; the abstract does not establish whether they generalize to other uses of AI. The abstract reports greater odds of reduced confidence among participants who discussed with objective AI, but does not give the size of that difference.","speaker":{"name":"Naveed, Wajiha, Fain, Brandon","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"Mind the Accuracy-Approval Gap: How Users Evaluate Sycophantic AI in Everyday Tasks","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","publishedAt":"2026-11-12","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"The authors report that objective AI was more accurate under conversational pressure than baseline and hard-sycophantic AI on TruthfulQA.","excerpt":"Under conversational pressure on TruthfulQA, accuracy ranged from 81.9% for objective to 59.6% for baseline and 8.7% for hard-sycophantic.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"On NLP Survey, baseline agreed with users' stated views more often than objective AI, while hard-sycophantic AI did so most often.","excerpt":"agreeing with users' stated views 71.7% of the time on NLP Survey, compared with 54.8% for objective and 89.5% for hard-sycophantic.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Participants rated objective AI less respectfully and satisfying than other personas, and less trustworthy than baseline, despite its higher accuracy under pressure.","excerpt":"objective AI was rated significantly less respectful and satisfying than the other personas, and less trustworthy than baseline.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, although objective-AI discussants had greater odds of reduced confidence.","excerpt":"Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, although participants who discussed with objective AI had greater odds of reduced confidence.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors identify tension between accuracy under conversational pressure and user approval.","excerpt":"personas with substantially lower accuracy under conversational pressure received more favorable ratings for respect and satisfaction than objective AI.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","checkedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"Would the accuracy-approval gap found in these tasks also appear in other everyday uses of AI?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: Mind the Accuracy-Approval Gap: How Users Evaluate Sycophantic AI in Everyday Tasks","summary":"Wajiha Naveed and Brandon Fain report that users rated an AI instructed to prioritize accuracy as less respectful and satisfying than more agreeable AI personas, even though it performed better under conversational pressure. Their study combined benchmark evaluations with two large-scale user studies: participants discussed contested policy topics or worked with AI on email writing. On TruthfulQA, accuracy ranged from 81.9% for the objective persona to 59.6% for baseline and 8.7% for hard-sycophantic. On NLP Survey, baseline agreed with users’ stated views 71.7% of the time, compared with 54.8% for objective and 89.5% for hard-sycophantic. The authors say objective AI was also rated less trustworthy than baseline, while baseline and sycophantic personas did not differ significantly. Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, though those who discussed with objective AI had greater odds of reduced confidence. Objective AI prompted more writing expansion than soft-sycophantic AI, but final writing quality did not differ significantly across personas. The findings point to a tension: AI that is more accurate under pressure may receive less favorable ratings, while persona alone did not significantly affect how often participants changed their views.","question":"Would the accuracy-approval gap found in these tasks also appear in other everyday uses of AI?","claims":[{"text":"The authors report that objective AI was more accurate under conversational pressure than baseline and hard-sycophantic AI on TruthfulQA.","excerpt":"Under conversational pressure on TruthfulQA, accuracy ranged from 81.9% for objective to 59.6% for baseline and 8.7% for hard-sycophantic.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"On NLP Survey, baseline agreed with users' stated views more often than objective AI, while hard-sycophantic AI did so most often.","excerpt":"agreeing with users' stated views 71.7% of the time on NLP Survey, compared with 54.8% for objective and 89.5% for hard-sycophantic.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Participants rated objective AI less respectfully and satisfying than other personas, and less trustworthy than baseline, despite its higher accuracy under pressure.","excerpt":"objective AI was rated significantly less respectful and satisfying than the other personas, and less trustworthy than baseline.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, although objective-AI discussants had greater odds of reduced confidence.","excerpt":"Persona did not significantly affect how often participants changed their opinions, although participants who discussed with objective AI had greater odds of reduced confidence.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors identify tension between accuracy under conversational pressure and user approval.","excerpt":"personas with substantially lower accuracy under conversational pressure received more favorable ratings for respect and satisfaction than objective AI.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The abstract does not provide participant counts or further details about how the two user studies were conducted.","The findings described here concern the study's benchmark evaluations, contested-policy discussions, and email-writing task; the abstract does not establish whether they generalize to other uses of AI.","The abstract reports greater odds of reduced confidence among participants who discussed with objective AI, but does not give the size of that difference."],"mediaId":"423f5ca9b52277bbd14039ee9df492b8c2db2b1be8bb06049064d2a99f41fdbd","correctionReason":null,"id":"9c1c5c75907cf03d61179f83a3a69a9576e5c567f16b12115659b06cf1c76d32","publicationId":"47bb3524-7d17-4a39-8de3-bd540c62d495","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","sourceTitle":"Mind the Accuracy-Approval Gap: How Users Evaluate Sycophantic AI in Everyday Tasks","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-12","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-13T07:42:42.798Z","createdAt":"2026-11-13T15:34:28.006Z","historical":false,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"423f5ca9b52277bbd14039ee9df492b8c2db2b1be8bb06049064d2a99f41fdbd","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-13T15:33:24.797Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","checkedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v7","mediaId":"423f5ca9b52277bbd14039ee9df492b8c2db2b1be8bb06049064d2a99f41fdbd","confidence":0.7,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"5b84b25ef67628d5f2bd74ad33ae97853eb2e2a1dbe27bcb9e4c41baa457a790","decidedAt":"2026-11-13T15:33:27.503Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"659a6aa4d58d9418f08b1e9f03a14f13fc02142a5b13d9b74911aa207dbcce63","observationId":"7a1b600cdbb47416067581c84a7654027571fd330f4dedbf832625d6473a8c06","retrievedAt":"2026-11-13T15:33:24.457Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"548d72d4-b779-4b6e-8e96-5c88376f9c56"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"16663bc7-dd49-423b-8ba4-b162ee486554"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-13T15:34:28.006Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Naveed, Wajiha","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Fain, Brandon","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Naveed, Wajiha","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Naveed, Wajiha","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"af3c198981eedf51371099e6c319ff87c4c05355dc5bebf58e2472b1e63f58a0:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"af3c198981eedf51371099e6c319ff87c4c05355dc5bebf58e2472b1e63f58a0","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","contentSha256":"5e85ce7245925c810880529dfbd93d55783d078f4f1a966ef205185e3c2979c7","textHash":"659a6aa4d58d9418f08b1e9f03a14f13fc02142a5b13d9b74911aa207dbcce63","observedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Fain, Brandon","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Fain, Brandon","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"af3c198981eedf51371099e6c319ff87c4c05355dc5bebf58e2472b1e63f58a0:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"af3c198981eedf51371099e6c319ff87c4c05355dc5bebf58e2472b1e63f58a0","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","contentSha256":"5e85ce7245925c810880529dfbd93d55783d078f4f1a966ef205185e3c2979c7","textHash":"659a6aa4d58d9418f08b1e9f03a14f13fc02142a5b13d9b74911aa207dbcce63","observedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16722","snapshotId":"af3c198981eedf51371099e6c319ff87c4c05355dc5bebf58e2472b1e63f58a0","contentSha256":"5e85ce7245925c810880529dfbd93d55783d078f4f1a966ef205185e3c2979c7","textHash":"659a6aa4d58d9418f08b1e9f03a14f13fc02142a5b13d9b74911aa207dbcce63","observedAt":"2026-11-14T08:38:08.713Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":40,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/9c1c5c75907cf03d61179f83a3a69a9576e5c567f16b12115659b06cf1c76d32/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"47bb3524-7d17-4a39-8de3-bd540c62d495","verdict":"uncertain","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"pass","explanation":"The draft correctly attributes the study to Wajiha Naveed and Brandon Fain. It presents the results as the authors' reported findings rather than established facts.","excerpt":"Authors:Wajiha Naveed, Brandon Fain"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"uncertain","explanation":"The draft never explains sycophancy, the paper's central term, beyond implying agreeableness. It also leaves personas set by system prompts, the baseline persona (no persona-specific prompt), TruthfulQA, NLP Survey and conversational pressure unexplained. The TruthfulQA sentence also drops the 'under conversational pressure' condition. Smallest repair: define sycophancy as the source does, briefly gloss the personas and benchmarks, and restore the pressure condition to the accuracy figures.","excerpt":"sycophancy, a tendency to agree with users, flatter or affirm them, and preserve their face, even when independent judgment or critical feedback would be more useful"},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"The originalPublished date of 2026-11-12 matches the v1 submission date on arXiv. The feed date of Nov 13 is later.","excerpt":"[Submitted on 12 Nov 2026]"},{"dimension":"support","status":"pass","explanation":"All the numbers, significance findings and the tension conclusion appear in the abstract. The tension is framed conditionally ('may receive'). The question about other everyday uses follows from the stated scope and does not presume an answer. The limitations accurately note what the abstract omits. Minor wording issue: the claim reads 'less respectfully', where 'less respectful' is meant.","excerpt":"These findings highlight a tension between accuracy and user approval"},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the most direct access to the source.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-13T15:34:28.006Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}