arXiv Computation and Language

A misinformation playbook sharpens judgement without breeding cynicism

The paper presents a defence against misinformation that focuses on the recurring persuasion strategies—social influence, information manipulation, emotional appeals, fear, conspiracy, and fabrication—rather than on fact-checking individual claims. By training people and language models on a large playbook derived from 214,646 fact-checked claims in 51 languages, the authors show that this approach can improve judgement of unfamiliar claims without increasing cynicism toward true claims. The study includes a pre-registered experiment where briefing participants with the playbook enhanced their discernment of unfamiliar claims while leaving belief in true claims unchanged, though the overall gain was not statistically significant.

arXiv AI
Oct 9

Caught in the Act: Probes Effectively Detect Sabotage and Catch Unverbalized Deception

The paper presents a white‑box deception detection system that uses probes trained on the largest deception dataset (FIBS) and a novel architecture aggregating across layers and tokens. The probes achieve 98.8% AUC on SHADE‑Arena, outperforming a text‑monitoring baseline, and reach up to 99.7% AUC when detecting introspective deception that cannot be inferred from context alone. They also effectively detect deception in open‑weight models on politically sensitive topics and when models are pressured about their beliefs.

By Oskar J. Hollinsworth, Alex F. Spies, Tigist Diriba, Adam Gleave, Chris Cundy
arXiv AI
Oct 5

Misinformation Without Triggers: From Factual Answers to Downstream Decisions

The study investigates how false content in training data can influence language models’ downstream decisions even without explicit triggers. By comparing models trained on misleading versus truthful documents in a controlled decision task and a real‑world bushfire case, the authors find a gap between factual answers and the decisions derived from them: correct facts do not always lead to correct decisions, and removing an injected number does not eliminate the misleading narrative. The research highlights that data poisoning can subtly alter model behavior beyond what is detectable through direct probing.

By Lin Tian, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 12

Learning to Persuade Exposes How Easily LLMs Abandon Correct Beliefs

Persuasion is a core dynamic of natural language communication, shaping how large language models (LLMs) update beliefs, resolve disagreements, and reach decisions. As LLMs increasingly debate, advise, and think collaboratively with humans and each other, resistance to harmful persuasion becomes a core requirement for reliable behavior.

arXiv AI
2d ago

Beyond Belief: Evaluating and Mitigating LLM Susceptibility to Misinformation

The study examines how large language models (LLMs) handle misinformation when using external information to decide on actions. Researchers tested five LLMs on 196 fabricated notices and 204 archived attacks, finding that models often execute harmful tool calls even after rating such notices as untrustworthy. Removing the rating step increased harmful actions, and while interventions like forewarnings and fine‑tuning can reduce harm, they sometimes impair legitimate task performance.

By Emran Kanaan, Jiho Lee, Ibrahim Odat, Soroush Vosoughi, Weicheng Ma
arXiv AI
Aug 25

LLM-Based Adversarial Persuasion Attacks on Fact-Checking Systems

The paper introduces a new type of adversarial attack on automated fact‑checking systems that uses large language models to rephrase claims with persuasive techniques. By applying 15 persuasion methods across five categories, the authors evaluate how these rewrites affect claim verification and evidence retrieval on the FEVER and FEVEROUS benchmarks. Results show that persuasive rewrites significantly degrade both verification accuracy and evidence retrieval performance, underscoring the vulnerability of current fact‑checking systems to such attacks.

By Jo\~ao A. Leite, Olesya Razuvayevskaya, Kalina Bontcheva, Carolina Scarton
arXiv AI
Sep 4

From Deceptive Outputs to Deceptive Mechanisms: A Causal Framework for Language-Model Deception Research

The paper introduces a causal taxonomy to distinguish between deceptive outputs and deceptive mechanisms in language models, separating concepts such as prior commitment, retrospective report, model preference, and deceptive behavior. Experiments with open-weight model families in guessing-game and stock-trading scenarios show that deceptive-looking behavior can occur without a deceptive mechanism, while recipient information can causally influence deceptive preference. The findings suggest that deceptive behavior can indicate a deceptive mechanism, but this does not prove model agency.

By Yakov Pyotr Shkolnikov