arXiv:2604. 06820v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLMs make it increasingly easy to generate deceptive content at scale, creating a need for scalable misinformation risk evaluation based on whether readers find such content credible and are willing to share it.
arXiv:2604.06820v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating misinformation requires distinguishing whether readers believe content from whether they would share it. Asking large language models (L...
arXiv:2607. 20444v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can produce deceptive responses: outputs that mislead users in service of a contextually or experimentally induced goal.
arXiv:2606. 17478v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLMs acquire stronger reasoning capabilities, deceptive behavior becomes an increasingly serious safety concern.
arXiv:2606. 10852v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM deception is often evaluated through direct markers such as fabricated claims, explicit lies, or strategic concealment.
FakeSpotter is a new tool that estimates the viral misinformation risk of textual content by measuring structural fingerprints of misinformation instead of directly judging truthfulness. It operates across linguistic, narrative, logical, and critical‑thinking dimensions, using repeated large language model assessments and domain‑specific logistic regression classifiers for both short and long texts. In a labeled corpus of 764 texts, FakeSpotter achieved macro F1 scores of 0.788 for short texts and 0.793 for long texts, and its interpretive layer offers explainable outputs such as feature‑based scores, signal agreement, and a caution index for social listening.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can evaluate explanations in recommender systems. It generates 18 explanation prototypes and has 14 LLMs rate them, comparing the results to human ratings from a user study. Findings show that while LLMs mimic human rating patterns and correlate moderately with human judgments, their absolute agreement is low and varies with model size and evaluation design, leading to four practical recommendations for using LLMs in this context.
arXiv:2609.24369v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deception plays a central role in Intelligence operations, yet it remains difficult to analyse systematically without expert knowledge of reasoning p...
arXiv:2602. 05056v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Online scams increasingly leverage fluent and context-aware social engineering strategies, creating growing demand for AI systems that explain why a message may be risky.
arXiv:2606. 12754v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment?
The paper discusses the use of synthetic data in marketing research, arguing that the key question is not whether synthetic respondents work, but when they do. It categorizes synthetic data into three types—ungrounded LLM responses, segment-level personas, and individual-level digital twins—and maps each to the decisions they can support. The authors also propose a taxonomy of accuracy measures, highlight the forgotten question problem, and introduce an ex‑ante answerability diagnostic based on R² to improve twin-human correlation.
arXiv:2601. 22548v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent research has shown that large language models (LLMs) favor their own outputs when acting as judges, undermining the integrity of automated post-training and evaluation workflows.
arXiv:2608.21721v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Correcting health misinformation in dialogue requires more than producing a factual rebuttal: users differ in what they know, what they believe, and wh...