{"id":"9211ca01c8fe2f725854519cff4b6c611d169fd38c2c17b896f13eccb3d933f8","title":"arXiv cs.AI: When Imperfect Automated Fact-Checking Backfires","argument":"Authors Zixuan Liu and Ming Cao study when free, imperfect automated fact-checking can make social learning about misinformation worse. In their model, people can observe an article’s reliability and earlier users’ likes or dislikes, and can pay to check the article manually; manual checks are perfectly accurate. They measure welfare as the probability of a correct cascade, where people’s decisions converge on a correct judgment. The tool creates competing effects: wider access can help people escape a wrong cascade, but errors can mislead people who otherwise would have checked accurately. The authors report a proof that adding the tool strictly lowers welfare for articles of intermediate reliability under specified conditions: truthful articles are not too informative and manual checking is sufficiently costly. Their simulations find the tool can help on either side of that range, and that it improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy. The argument is not that automated checking always harms or helps: its effect depends on reliability, checking costs, and tool accuracy. The abstract does not give the threshold’s value or establish how the model’s results translate to social platforms in practice.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The evidence is an abstract describing a sequential social learning model and simulations; it does not report empirical results from social platforms. The abstract does not state the threshold accuracy or provide details needed to assess the model’s assumptions and simulations.","speaker":{"name":"Liu, Zixuan, Cao, Ming","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"When Imperfect Automated Fact-Checking Backfires: Social Learning in the Presence of Misinformation","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","publishedAt":"2026-11-05","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"Liu and Cao analyze free, imperfect automated fact-checking in a sequential social learning model, alongside costly, perfectly accurate manual checks.","excerpt":"We study when such tools can backfire in a sequential social learning model of misinformation.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"They define welfare as the probability of a correct cascade and identify opposing effects of broader checking and tool errors.","excerpt":"Two opposing effects arise. Broader use of fact-checking helps agents escape wrong cascades.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors prove that the tool strictly lowers welfare for intermediate-reliability articles under specified conditions on information and manual-checking costs.","excerpt":"We prove that adding the tool strictly lowers welfare for articles of intermediate reliability when truthful articles are not too informative and manual checking is sufficiently costly.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"In simulations, the tool can help on either side of the intermediate reliability range, and improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy.","excerpt":"Simulations show that the tool can help on either side of the intermediate range, and that it improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"What determines the threshold accuracy above which the tool improves on manual-only checking on average?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: When Imperfect Automated Fact-Checking Backfires","summary":"Authors Zixuan Liu and Ming Cao study when free, imperfect automated fact-checking can make social learning about misinformation worse. In their model, people can observe an article’s reliability and earlier users’ likes or dislikes, and can pay to check the article manually; manual checks are perfectly accurate. They measure welfare as the probability of a correct cascade, where people’s decisions converge on a correct judgment. The tool creates competing effects: wider access can help people escape a wrong cascade, but errors can mislead people who otherwise would have checked accurately. The authors report a proof that adding the tool strictly lowers welfare for articles of intermediate reliability under specified conditions: truthful articles are not too informative and manual checking is sufficiently costly. Their simulations find the tool can help on either side of that range, and that it improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy. The argument is not that automated checking always harms or helps: its effect depends on reliability, checking costs, and tool accuracy. The abstract does not give the threshold’s value or establish how the model’s results translate to social platforms in practice.","question":"What determines the threshold accuracy above which the tool improves on manual-only checking on average?","claims":[{"text":"Liu and Cao analyze free, imperfect automated fact-checking in a sequential social learning model, alongside costly, perfectly accurate manual checks.","excerpt":"We study when such tools can backfire in a sequential social learning model of misinformation.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"They define welfare as the probability of a correct cascade and identify opposing effects of broader checking and tool errors.","excerpt":"Two opposing effects arise. Broader use of fact-checking helps agents escape wrong cascades.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors prove that the tool strictly lowers welfare for intermediate-reliability articles under specified conditions on information and manual-checking costs.","excerpt":"We prove that adding the tool strictly lowers welfare for articles of intermediate reliability when truthful articles are not too informative and manual checking is sufficiently costly.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"In simulations, the tool can help on either side of the intermediate reliability range, and improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy.","excerpt":"Simulations show that the tool can help on either side of the intermediate range, and that it improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The evidence is an abstract describing a sequential social learning model and simulations; it does not report empirical results from social platforms.","The abstract does not state the threshold accuracy or provide details needed to assess the model’s assumptions and simulations."],"mediaId":"02cb67bc589015a4fc4d8eae9b75fb5a172e7007dbbda3d252013917a13597de","correctionReason":null,"id":"9211ca01c8fe2f725854519cff4b6c611d169fd38c2c17b896f13eccb3d933f8","publicationId":"24a0bbe0-d620-42bf-8576-93f6b0603e6b","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","sourceTitle":"When Imperfect Automated Fact-Checking Backfires: Social Learning in the Presence of Misinformation","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-05","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-06T05:00:54.742Z","createdAt":"2026-11-09T02:19:01.983Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"02cb67bc589015a4fc4d8eae9b75fb5a172e7007dbbda3d252013917a13597de","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T02:18:17.023Z","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/2611.08053","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["useful_perspective"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"02cb67bc589015a4fc4d8eae9b75fb5a172e7007dbbda3d252013917a13597de","confidence":0.6000000000000001,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"4b4692f51d0493eba76bf5ebe77cd7100dd32d608591f9c052a52561a5db2e77","decidedAt":"2026-11-09T02:18:19.734Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"3158ef1b588d9629e0062ccf6265e844ad342dd0ba6eca092b9512fcdc8b4744","observationId":"597851cfdd8bf3d0841695bab7bcd92cf226a8f1ef151672269384d056d3a0ac","retrievedAt":"2026-11-09T02:18:16.577Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"d00f7f5d-fd9e-4616-8c73-9cadd201d1ac"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"d0f5cf27-0c07-4dca-894e-e0c9e5e77824"}},"audit":{"status":"passed","reviewedAt":"2026-11-09T02:19:01.983Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Liu, Zixuan","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Cao, Ming","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Liu, Zixuan","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Liu, Zixuan","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"9ca4512a35e985e2ccb38e70696f6f541057bafd53b81ac2e7f42ed49ce0d28b:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"9ca4512a35e985e2ccb38e70696f6f541057bafd53b81ac2e7f42ed49ce0d28b","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","contentSha256":"cb39acc62787313fa9fb2f9c95bdfe19051dbd29ada725065435519b3cb5038c","textHash":"3158ef1b588d9629e0062ccf6265e844ad342dd0ba6eca092b9512fcdc8b4744","observedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Cao, Ming","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Cao, Ming","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"9ca4512a35e985e2ccb38e70696f6f541057bafd53b81ac2e7f42ed49ce0d28b:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"9ca4512a35e985e2ccb38e70696f6f541057bafd53b81ac2e7f42ed49ce0d28b","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","contentSha256":"cb39acc62787313fa9fb2f9c95bdfe19051dbd29ada725065435519b3cb5038c","textHash":"3158ef1b588d9629e0062ccf6265e844ad342dd0ba6eca092b9512fcdc8b4744","observedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","snapshotId":"9ca4512a35e985e2ccb38e70696f6f541057bafd53b81ac2e7f42ed49ce0d28b","contentSha256":"cb39acc62787313fa9fb2f9c95bdfe19051dbd29ada725065435519b3cb5038c","textHash":"3158ef1b588d9629e0062ccf6265e844ad342dd0ba6eca092b9512fcdc8b4744","observedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":43,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/9211ca01c8fe2f725854519cff4b6c611d169fd38c2c17b896f13eccb3d933f8/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-when-imperfect-automated-fact-checking-backfires-9211ca01","formats":{"html":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-when-imperfect-automated-fact-checking-backfires-9211ca01","markdown":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-when-imperfect-automated-fact-checking-backfires-9211ca01.md","json":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-when-imperfect-automated-fact-checking-backfires-9211ca01.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":[],"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":[],"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"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"9211ca01c8fe2f725854519cff4b6c611d169fd38c2c17b896f13eccb3d933f8","revision":"24a0bbe0-d620-42bf-8576-93f6b0603e6b","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"arXiv cs.AI: When Imperfect Automated Fact-Checking Backfires","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-when-imperfect-automated-fact-checking-backfires-9211ca01"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","revision":"3158ef1b588d9629e0062ccf6265e844ad342dd0ba6eca092b9512fcdc8b4744","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"When Imperfect Automated Fact-Checking Backfires: Social Learning in the Presence of Misinformation","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053"},"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":"9211ca01c8fe2f725854519cff4b6c611d169fd38c2c17b896f13eccb3d933f8","title":"arXiv cs.AI: When Imperfect Automated Fact-Checking Backfires","argument":"Authors Zixuan Liu and Ming Cao study when free, imperfect automated fact-checking can make social learning about misinformation worse. In their model, people can observe an article’s reliability and earlier users’ likes or dislikes, and can pay to check the article manually; manual checks are perfectly accurate. They measure welfare as the probability of a correct cascade, where people’s decisions converge on a correct judgment. The tool creates competing effects: wider access can help people escape a wrong cascade, but errors can mislead people who otherwise would have checked accurately. The authors report a proof that adding the tool strictly lowers welfare for articles of intermediate reliability under specified conditions: truthful articles are not too informative and manual checking is sufficiently costly. Their simulations find the tool can help on either side of that range, and that it improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy. The argument is not that automated checking always harms or helps: its effect depends on reliability, checking costs, and tool accuracy. The abstract does not give the threshold’s value or establish how the model’s results translate to social platforms in practice.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The evidence is an abstract describing a sequential social learning model and simulations; it does not report empirical results from social platforms. The abstract does not state the threshold accuracy or provide details needed to assess the model’s assumptions and simulations.","speaker":{"name":"Liu, Zixuan, Cao, Ming","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"When Imperfect Automated Fact-Checking Backfires: Social Learning in the Presence of Misinformation","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","publishedAt":"2026-11-05","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"Liu and Cao analyze free, imperfect automated fact-checking in a sequential social learning model, alongside costly, perfectly accurate manual checks.","excerpt":"We study when such tools can backfire in a sequential social learning model of misinformation.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"They define welfare as the probability of a correct cascade and identify opposing effects of broader checking and tool errors.","excerpt":"Two opposing effects arise. Broader use of fact-checking helps agents escape wrong cascades.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors prove that the tool strictly lowers welfare for intermediate-reliability articles under specified conditions on information and manual-checking costs.","excerpt":"We prove that adding the tool strictly lowers welfare for articles of intermediate reliability when truthful articles are not too informative and manual checking is sufficiently costly.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"In simulations, the tool can help on either side of the intermediate reliability range, and improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy.","excerpt":"Simulations show that the tool can help on either side of the intermediate range, and that it improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"What determines the threshold accuracy above which the tool improves on manual-only checking on average?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: When Imperfect Automated Fact-Checking Backfires","summary":"Authors Zixuan Liu and Ming Cao study when free, imperfect automated fact-checking can make social learning about misinformation worse. In their model, people can observe an article’s reliability and earlier users’ likes or dislikes, and can pay to check the article manually; manual checks are perfectly accurate. They measure welfare as the probability of a correct cascade, where people’s decisions converge on a correct judgment. The tool creates competing effects: wider access can help people escape a wrong cascade, but errors can mislead people who otherwise would have checked accurately. The authors report a proof that adding the tool strictly lowers welfare for articles of intermediate reliability under specified conditions: truthful articles are not too informative and manual checking is sufficiently costly. Their simulations find the tool can help on either side of that range, and that it improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy. The argument is not that automated checking always harms or helps: its effect depends on reliability, checking costs, and tool accuracy. The abstract does not give the threshold’s value or establish how the model’s results translate to social platforms in practice.","question":"What determines the threshold accuracy above which the tool improves on manual-only checking on average?","claims":[{"text":"Liu and Cao analyze free, imperfect automated fact-checking in a sequential social learning model, alongside costly, perfectly accurate manual checks.","excerpt":"We study when such tools can backfire in a sequential social learning model of misinformation.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"They define welfare as the probability of a correct cascade and identify opposing effects of broader checking and tool errors.","excerpt":"Two opposing effects arise. Broader use of fact-checking helps agents escape wrong cascades.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors prove that the tool strictly lowers welfare for intermediate-reliability articles under specified conditions on information and manual-checking costs.","excerpt":"We prove that adding the tool strictly lowers welfare for articles of intermediate reliability when truthful articles are not too informative and manual checking is sufficiently costly.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"In simulations, the tool can help on either side of the intermediate reliability range, and improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy.","excerpt":"Simulations show that the tool can help on either side of the intermediate range, and that it improves on manual-only checking on average only above a threshold accuracy.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The evidence is an abstract describing a sequential social learning model and simulations; it does not report empirical results from social platforms.","The abstract does not state the threshold accuracy or provide details needed to assess the model’s assumptions and simulations."],"mediaId":"02cb67bc589015a4fc4d8eae9b75fb5a172e7007dbbda3d252013917a13597de","correctionReason":null,"id":"9211ca01c8fe2f725854519cff4b6c611d169fd38c2c17b896f13eccb3d933f8","publicationId":"24a0bbe0-d620-42bf-8576-93f6b0603e6b","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","sourceTitle":"When Imperfect Automated Fact-Checking Backfires: Social Learning in the Presence of Misinformation","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-05","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-06T05:00:54.742Z","createdAt":"2026-11-09T02:19:01.983Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"02cb67bc589015a4fc4d8eae9b75fb5a172e7007dbbda3d252013917a13597de","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T02:18:17.023Z","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/2611.08053","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["useful_perspective"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"02cb67bc589015a4fc4d8eae9b75fb5a172e7007dbbda3d252013917a13597de","confidence":0.6000000000000001,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"4b4692f51d0493eba76bf5ebe77cd7100dd32d608591f9c052a52561a5db2e77","decidedAt":"2026-11-09T02:18:19.734Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"3158ef1b588d9629e0062ccf6265e844ad342dd0ba6eca092b9512fcdc8b4744","observationId":"597851cfdd8bf3d0841695bab7bcd92cf226a8f1ef151672269384d056d3a0ac","retrievedAt":"2026-11-09T02:18:16.577Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"d00f7f5d-fd9e-4616-8c73-9cadd201d1ac"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"d0f5cf27-0c07-4dca-894e-e0c9e5e77824"}},"audit":{"status":"passed","reviewedAt":"2026-11-09T02:19:01.983Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Liu, Zixuan","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Cao, Ming","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Liu, Zixuan","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Liu, Zixuan","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"9ca4512a35e985e2ccb38e70696f6f541057bafd53b81ac2e7f42ed49ce0d28b:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"9ca4512a35e985e2ccb38e70696f6f541057bafd53b81ac2e7f42ed49ce0d28b","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","contentSha256":"cb39acc62787313fa9fb2f9c95bdfe19051dbd29ada725065435519b3cb5038c","textHash":"3158ef1b588d9629e0062ccf6265e844ad342dd0ba6eca092b9512fcdc8b4744","observedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Cao, Ming","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Cao, Ming","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"9ca4512a35e985e2ccb38e70696f6f541057bafd53b81ac2e7f42ed49ce0d28b:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"9ca4512a35e985e2ccb38e70696f6f541057bafd53b81ac2e7f42ed49ce0d28b","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","contentSha256":"cb39acc62787313fa9fb2f9c95bdfe19051dbd29ada725065435519b3cb5038c","textHash":"3158ef1b588d9629e0062ccf6265e844ad342dd0ba6eca092b9512fcdc8b4744","observedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08053","snapshotId":"9ca4512a35e985e2ccb38e70696f6f541057bafd53b81ac2e7f42ed49ce0d28b","contentSha256":"cb39acc62787313fa9fb2f9c95bdfe19051dbd29ada725065435519b3cb5038c","textHash":"3158ef1b588d9629e0062ccf6265e844ad342dd0ba6eca092b9512fcdc8b4744","observedAt":"2026-11-09T03:22:07.306Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":43,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/9211ca01c8fe2f725854519cff4b6c611d169fd38c2c17b896f13eccb3d933f8/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"24a0bbe0-d620-42bf-8576-93f6b0603e6b","verdict":"passed","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"pass","explanation":"The reading correctly attributes the paper to Zixuan Liu and Ming Cao on arXiv cs.AI. It frames the proof and simulation results as the authors' reported findings, not as established facts.","excerpt":"Authors:Zixuan Liu, Ming Cao"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"pass","explanation":"The summary leads with the paper's question and explains its model, the welfare measure and the two opposing effects. It states the conditional proof, the simulation results and what remains unknown. Correct cascade and welfare are glossed in plain language, and the conditions and scope are preserved. The question follows from the stated threshold result and is not a leading claim.","excerpt":"Two opposing effects arise. Broader use of fact-checking helps agents escape wrong cascades."},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"originalPublished 2026-11-05 matches the v1 submission date on the arXiv page. It is not the later feed date.","excerpt":"[Submitted on 5 Nov 2026]"},{"dimension":"support","status":"pass","explanation":"Each claim matches the abstract, including the conditions on the proof and the average-only-above-threshold accuracy result. The closing synthesis that the effect depends on reliability, checking costs and tool accuracy follows directly from the stated conditions. The limitations correctly note that the work is model- and simulation-based and that the abstract gives no threshold value.","excerpt":"We prove that adding the tool strictly lowers welfare for articles of intermediate reliability when truthful articles are not too informative and manual checking is sufficiently costly."},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified direct link to the original arXiv abstract page. It is the most direct way to access the source.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-09T02:19:01.983Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}