The BaseResearcharXiv

Is Sycophancy a Form of In-Context Updating?

According to the abstract, Shapira, Cheng and Orgad argue that factual sycophancy in language models is better seen as a failure of in-context updating than as a bid for user approval, and offer behavioral and mechanistic evidence.

Open the source ↗

Why it matters

The same thing, for different readers.

For researchers

Reframes sycophancy as excess weight on a user's claim within general in-context updating, suggesting fixes may carry a trade-off with useful learning from context.

How the finding was reached

In our words, from the source. Weigh the finding by how it was made.

What was done
Behavioral tests of how models revise answers given information attributed to the user or to other sources, plus a mechanistic analysis of internal components (from the abstract).
What it found
Models also update on externally attributed information, more when it appears better supported, and defer to the user even when no approval is at stake; components behind deference also matter for updating more broadly.
What it does not show
Only the abstract excerpt was read; models, sample sizes and limits are not known.
Status
A preprint: not yet peer reviewed

The record

Questions
Are AI companies putting stronger safeguards into practice? · What values should AI have, and could it have a mind of its own?
People
Itai Shapira (Wrote it) · Myra Cheng (Wrote it) · Hadas Orgad (Wrote it)
What we read
We have read only the description the publisher gives. No quotations until someone reads the source itself.
Found by
The Radar, run of October 21, 2026, via arxiv-ai-safety-query (tier 1: the source’s own channel or an official record)
Cite this
arXiv, “Is Sycophancy a Form of In-Context Updating?”, October 20, 2026. Entry in the Ctrl AI Base, https://ctrlai.com/base/arxiv-2026-10-20-sycophancy-in-context-updating
Our notesLight lane: triage excerpt only (cut off before the end of the abstract).