arXiv:2606. 08483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Background: Consumer-facing large language models are now a common source of health information, and they interpret and personalize responses rather than retrieve them.
By Rahul Gorijavolu, Kaushik Madapati, Pritika Vig, Rawan Abulibdeh, Nikhil Jaiswal, Mahri Kadyrova, Zeamanuel Hailu Tesfaye, Charles Senteio, Paula Maurutto, Leo Anthony Celi
arXiv:2605.00468v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Plain Language Summaries (PLS) aim to make research accessible to lay readers, but they are typically written in a one-size-fits-all style that ign...
By Joey Chan, Yikun Han, Jingyuan Chen, Samuel Fang, Lauren D. Gryboski, Alexandra Lee, Sheel Tanna, Qingqing Zhu, Zhiyong Lu, Lucy Lu Wang, Yue Guo
Large language models (LLMs) frequently encounter inputs that disagree with their prior outputs, through user pushback, retrieved documents, or web search results. While the way they resolve such conflicts -- a process we frame as cognitive dissonance resolution -- has been characterized behaviorally, its connection to internal model uncertainty is not well understood.
The study examines how language models (LMs) alter the expressed certainty of statements when rewriting text, a process termed certainty distortion. Using an LM‑based metric aligned with human judgments, the authors find that up to 75% of LM outputs exhibit such distortion, with most models more likely to inflate certainty than reduce it. Repeated paraphrasing can amplify this effect, especially in medical contexts, and while prompt interventions help, they do not fully eliminate the bias.
By Catarina G Belem, Shang Wu, Hongyu Yao, Mark Steyvers, Sameer Singh, Padhraic Smyth
arXiv:2609.07353v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are used to simulate human participants in psychological research. We asked whether LLMs that reproduce human evaluations...
By Xiaoyan Wu, Jean-Claude Dreher
This paper introduces a multi‑branch fusion framework that combines transformer‑based semantics, rhetorical cues, stance representations, and psychologically motivated proxies to detect health misinformation and characterize its spread on online social networks. The authors propose an interpretable Cognitive Propagation Score (CPS) derived from text cues that estimate argument complexity, emotional intensity, and virality potential, aiding diffusion‑risk reasoning when engagement data are missing. Experiments on three benchmark datasets (Constraint, COVID‑19_FNIR, Monkeypox) demonstrate near‑perfect classification and ranking performance, with ablation studies showing complementary gains from psychological and rhetorical components.
By Mkululi Sikosana, Sean Maudsley-Barton, Oluwaseun Ajao