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...
By Zonghuan Xu, Xiang Zheng, Yutao Wu, Xingjun Ma
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.
By Ali Asad, Stephen Obadinma, Anshul Pattoo, Wenxuan Zhang, Xiaodan Zhu
arXiv:2606. 17478v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLMs acquire stronger reasoning capabilities, deceptive behavior becomes an increasingly serious safety concern.
By Kexin Chen, Yi Liu, Haonan Zhang, Yanhui Li, Xinyu Deng, Dongxia Wang
arXiv:2606. 10852v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM deception is often evaluated through direct markers such as fabricated claims, explicit lies, or strategic concealment.
By Polydoros Giannouris, Mohsinul Kabir, Sophia Ananiadou
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.
By Giovanni Spitale, Federico Germani
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.
By Kathrin Wardatzky, Oana Inel, Luca Rossetto, Abraham Bernstein