搜索结果：debunked

Crowdsourced fact-checking mechanisms, such as X's Community Notes, play a critical role in mitigating the spread of misinformation. However, drafting high-quality, evidence-based debunking notes imposes a substantial burden on contributors. We present CANote, an AI-assisted debunking note writing system featuring evidence correlation and structured co-drafting. CANote scaffolds the workflow by extracting subclaims from social media posts, providing provenance through explicit links between subclaims and retrieved evidence, and generating neutral, structural drafts to support human reasoning. We evaluated CANote against manual writing (N=52 fact-checkers, N=52 lay users) on simulated X platform, where we found CANote significantly improves note quality. Notably, CANote enables lay users to write notes that have comparable quality to those written by experts. While the task completion time and perceived cognitive load remain comparable to manual drafting, CANote significantly increases user satisfaction. However, this assistance introduces a trade-off, resulting in a reduced sense of user ownership and control over the debunking note.

This study proposes a novel methodology for generating personalized fake news debunking messages by prompting Large Language Models (LLMs) with persona-based inputs aligned to the Big Five personality traits: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness. Our approach guides LLMs to transform generic debunking content into personalized versions tailored to specific personality profiles. To assess the effectiveness of these transformations, we employ a separate LLM as an automated evaluator simulating corresponding personality traits, thereby eliminating the need for costly human evaluation panels. Our results show that personalized messages are generally seen as more persuasive than generic ones. We also find that traits like Openness tend to increase persuadability, while Neuroticism can lower it. Differences between LLM evaluators suggest that using multiple models provides a clearer picture. Overall, this work demonstrates a practical way to create more targeted debunking messages exploiting LLMs, while also raising important ethical questions about how such technology might be used.

This study presents the first large-scale comparison of persuasion techniques present in crowd- versus professionally-written debunks. Using extensive datasets from Community Notes (CNs), EUvsDisinfo, and the Database of Known Fakes (DBKF), we quantify the prevalence and types of persuasion techniques across these fact-checking ecosystems. Contrary to prior hypothesis that community-produced debunks rely more heavily on subjective or persuasive wording, we find no evidence that CNs contain a higher average number of persuasion techniques than professional fact-checks. We additionally identify systematic rhetorical differences between CNs and professional debunking efforts, reflecting differences in institutional norms and topical coverage. Finally, we examine how the crowd evaluates persuasive language in CNs and show that, although notes with more persuasive elements receive slightly higher overall helpfulness ratings, crowd raters are effective at penalising the use of particular problematic rhetorical means

NSV 4031 has already been comprehensively debunked as an eclipsing binary, but the data available at that time only allowed a relatively poor limit of a few hundredths of a magnitude on any other variation. Analysis of more recent TESS data shows that the star is a multiperiodic variable, with dominant periods in the 1-day range and semi-amplitudes of 3 mmag. In total some 19 periods have been recovered with semi-amplitudes above 0.1 mmag, suggesting that the star is a gamma Doradus variable, with no detectable variations at frequencies above 2 c/d.

In a commentary published in mid-2024 (to which the present work is a direct response), a number of scientists argue that U.S. funding agencies have "politicized" the process by which grants are awarded, in service of diversifying the scientific workforce. The commentary in question, however, makes numerous unfounded assertions while recycling citations to a fusillade of opinion essays written by the same cabal of authors, in an effort to resemble a work of serious scholarship. Basic fact-checking is provided here, demonstrating numerous claims that are unsupported by the source material and readily debunked. The present work also serves to document the reality of inclusion and diversity plans for scientific grant proposals to U.S. funding agencies, as they existed at the end of 2024. It is intended as a bulwark against retroactive false narratives, as the U.S. moves into a period of intense antagonism towards diversity, equity, and inclusion activities.

A prevailing view holds that supervised fine-tuning (SFT) memorizes training data and fails to generalize, whereas reinforcement learning (RL) attains broader robustness. We revisit this claim through a systematic evaluation on two decision-making benchmarks, Sokoban and General Points, and arrive at a different conclusion. We show that much of SFT's perceived failure stems from frozen-prompt artifacts: when trained on fixed instruction templates, SFT models cling to training semantics rather than adapting to new ones. Introducing prompt diversity during training breaks this shortcut and yields strong generalization to unseen instruction variants without harming in-distribution performance. Beyond instruction shifts, we ask whether SFT can generalize to strictly harder tasks. Here, chain-of-thought (CoT) supervision provides an algorithmic scaffold that markedly improves transfer to more difficult regimes, such as larger Sokoban grids with additional boxes and arithmetic with out-of-distribution values or five-card compositions that increase combinatorial complexity. Finally, combining prompt diversity with CoT achieves the best of both worlds: robust generalization across both ins

The rapid spread of fake news across multimedia platforms presents serious challenges to information credibility. In this paper, we propose a Debunk-and-Infer framework for Fake News Detection(DIFND) that leverages debunking knowledge to enhance both the performance and interpretability of fake news detection. DIFND integrates the generative strength of conditional diffusion models with the collaborative reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Specifically, debunk diffusion is employed to generate refuting or authenticating evidence based on the multimodal content of news videos, enriching the evaluation process with diverse yet semantically aligned synthetic samples. To improve inference, we propose a chain-of-debunk strategy where a multi-agent MLLM system produces logic-grounded, multimodal-aware reasoning content and final veracity judgment. By jointly modeling multimodal features, generative debunking cues, and reasoning-rich verification within a unified architecture, DIFND achieves notable improvements in detection accuracy. Extensive experiments on the FakeSV and FVC datasets show that DIFND not only outperforms existing approaches but also deliv

Effectively mitigating online misinformation requires understanding of their mechanisms and learning of practical skills for identification and counteraction. Serious games may serve as tools for combating misinformation, teaching players to recognize common misinformation tactics, and improving their skills of discernment. However, current interventions are designed as single-player, choice-based games, which present players with limited predefined choices. Such restrictions reduce replayability and may lead to an overly simplistic understanding of misinformation and how to debunk them. This study seeks to empower people to understand opinion-influencing and misinformation-debunking processes. We created a Player vs. Player (PvP) game in which participants attempt to generate or debunk misinformation to convince the public opinion represented by LLM. Using a within-subjects mixed-methods study design (N=47), we found that this game significantly raised participants' media literacy and improved their ability to identify misinformation. Qualitative analyses revealed how participants' use of debunking and content creation strategies deepened their understanding of misinformation. Thi

The rise of misinformation and fake news in online political discourse poses significant challenges to democratic processes and public engagement. While debunking efforts aim to counteract misinformation and foster fact-based dialogue, these discussions often involve language toxicity and emotional polarization. We examined over 86 million debunking tweets and more than 4 million Reddit debunking comments to investigate the relationship between language toxicity, pessimism, and social polarization in debunking efforts. Focusing on discussions of the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections and the QAnon conspiracy theory, our analysis reveals three key findings: (1) peripheral participants (1-degree users) play a disproportionate role in shaping toxic discourse, driven by lower community accountability and emotional expression; (2) platform mechanisms significantly influence polarization, with Twitter amplifying partisan differences and Reddit fostering higher overall toxicity due to its structured, community-driven interactions; and (3) a negative correlation exists between language toxicity and pessimism, with increased interaction reducing toxicity, especially on Reddit. We sho

Misinformation is a growing concern in a decade involving critical global events. While social media regulation is mainly dedicated towards the detection and prevention of fake news and political misinformation, there is limited research about religious misinformation which has only been addressed through qualitative approaches. In this work, we study the spread of fabricated quotes (Hadith) that are claimed to belong to Prophet Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) as a case study demonstrating one of the most common religious misinformation forms on Arabic social media. We attempt through quantitative methods to understand the characteristics of social media users who interact with fabricated Hadith. We spotted users who frequently circulate fabricated Hadith and others who frequently debunk it to understand the main differences between the two groups. We used Logistic Regression to automatically predict their behaviors and analyzed its weights to gain insights about the characteristics and interests of each group. We find that both fabricated Hadith circulators and debunkers have generally a lot of ties to religious accounts. However, circulators are identified by many accounts that f

We introduce a novel non-cooperative game to analyse opinion formation and resistance, incorporating principles from social psychology such as confirmation bias, resource constraints, and influence penalties. Our simulation features Large Language Model (LLM) agents competing to influence a population, with penalties imposed for generating messages that propagate or counter misinformation. This framework integrates resource optimisation into the agents' decision-making process. Our findings demonstrate that while higher confirmation bias strengthens opinion alignment within groups, it also exacerbates overall polarisation. Conversely, lower confirmation bias leads to fragmented opinions and limited shifts in individual beliefs. Investing heavily in a high-resource debunking strategy can initially align the population with the debunking agent, but risks rapid resource depletion and diminished long-term influence

Our society is facing rampant misinformation harming public health and trust. To address the societal challenge, we introduce FACT-GPT, a system leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the claim matching stage of fact-checking. FACT-GPT, trained on a synthetic dataset, identifies social media content that aligns with, contradicts, or is irrelevant to previously debunked claims. Our evaluation shows that our specialized LLMs can match the accuracy of larger models in identifying related claims, closely mirroring human judgment. This research provides an automated solution for efficient claim matching, demonstrates the potential of LLMs in supporting fact-checkers, and offers valuable resources for further research in the field.

Displaying community fact-checks is a promising approach to reduce engagement with misinformation on social media. However, how users respond to misleading content emotionally after community fact-checks are displayed on posts is unclear. Here, we employ quasi-experimental methods to causally analyze changes in sentiments and (moral) emotions in replies to misleading posts following the display of community fact-checks. Our evaluation is based on a large-scale panel dataset comprising N=2,225,260 replies across 1841 source posts from X's Community Notes platform. We find that informing users about falsehoods through community fact-checks significantly increases negativity (by 7.3%), anger (by 13.2%), disgust (by 4.7%), and moral outrage (by 16.0%) in the corresponding replies. These results indicate that users perceive spreading misinformation as a violation of social norms and that those who spread misinformation should expect negative reactions once their content is debunked. We derive important implications for the design of community-based fact-checking systems.

This study aims to minimize the influence of fake news on social networks by deploying debunkers to propagate true news. This is framed as a reinforcement learning problem, where, at each stage, one user is selected to propagate true news. A challenging issue is episodic reward where the "net" effect of selecting individual debunkers cannot be discerned from the interleaving information propagation on social networks, and only the collective effect from mitigation efforts can be observed. Existing Self-Imitation Learning (SIL) methods have shown promise in learning from episodic rewards, but are ill-suited to the real-world application of fake news mitigation because of their poor sample efficiency. To learn a more effective debunker selection policy for fake news mitigation, this study proposes NAGASIL - Negative sampling and state Augmented Generative Adversarial Self-Imitation Learning, which consists of two improvements geared towards fake news mitigation: learning from negative samples, and an augmented state representation to capture the "real" environment state by integrating the current observed state with the previous state-action pairs from the same campaign. Experiments

The conspiracy theory that the US 2020 presidential election was fraudulent - the Big Lie - remained a prominent part of the media agenda months after the election. Whether and how search engines prioritized news stories that sought to thoroughly debunk the claims, provide a simple negation, or support the conspiracy is crucial for understanding information exposure on the topic. We investigate how search engines provided news on this conspiracy by conducting a large-scale algorithm audit evaluating differences between three search engines (Google, DuckDuckGo, and Bing), across three locations (Ohio, California, and the UK), and using eleven search queries. Results show that simply denying the conspiracy is the largest debunking strategy across all search engines. While Google has a strong mainstreaming effect on articles explicitly focused on the Big Lie - providing thorough debunks and alternative explanations - DuckDuckGo and Bing display, depending on the location, a large share of articles either supporting the conspiracy or failing to debunk it. Lastly, we find that niche ideologically driven search queries (e.g., "sharpie marker ballots Arizona") do not lead to more conspira

Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) technology development has facilitated the creation of rumors with misinformation, impacting societal, economic, and political ecosystems, challenging democracy. Current rumor detection efforts fall short by merely labeling potentially misinformation (classification task), inadequately addressing the issue, and it is unrealistic to have authoritative institutions debunk every piece of information on social media. Our proposed comprehensive debunking process not only detects rumors but also provides explanatory generated content to refute the authenticity of the information. The Expert-Citizen Collective Wisdom (ECCW) module we designed aensures high-precision assessment of the credibility of information and the retrieval module is responsible for retrieving relevant knowledge from a Real-time updated debunking database based on information keywords. By using prompt engineering techniques, we feed results and knowledge into a LLM (Large Language Model), achieving satisfactory discrimination and explanatory effects while eliminating the need for fine-tuning, saving computational costs, and contributing to debunking efforts.

In recent years, mass-broadcast messaging platforms like Telegram have gained prominence for both, serving as a harbor for private communication and enabling large-scale disinformation campaigns. The encrypted and networked nature of these platforms makes it challenging to identify intervention targets since most channels that promote misleading information are not originators of the message. In this work, we examine the structural mechanisms that facilitate the propagation of debunked misinformation on Telegram, focusing on the role of cross-community hubs-nodes that bridge otherwise isolated groups in amplifying misinformation. We introduce a multi-dimensional 'bridging' metric to quantify the influence of nodal Telegram channels, exploring their role in reshaping network topology during key geopolitical events. By analyzing over 1740 Telegram channels and applying network analysis we uncover the small subset of nodes, and identify patterns that are emblematic of information 'flows' on this platform. Our findings provide insights into the structural vulnerabilities of distributed platforms, offering practical suggestions for interventions to mitigate networked disinformation flow