GitSearch: Enhancing Community Notes Generation with Gap-Informed Targeted Search

Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok. Since its introduction, there has been an open question about what role AI could play in scaling and optimizing the system. Recently, X extended its Community Notes system by introducing Collaborative Notes: notes initially drafted by an LLM and iteratively refined based on feedback from human contributors. In this work, we systematically analyze the complete corpus of 19,146 collaborative notes and 211,850 instances of human feedback. First, we develop a taxonomy of human suggestions for improving AI-generated note drafts and find that suggestions involving factual corrections and additional context are most likely to be incorporated, while subjective policy judgments rarely are. Second, we examine changes in helpfulness across versions of collaborative notes and find that human feedback leads to more helpful notes, with the greatest impact coming from suggestions that challenge the main claim in the previous draft, particularly when submitted by more active contributors. Finally, we find that although collaborative notes improve through human feedback, they reach helpful status and are shown on the platform at lower rates than human-only or AI-only notes, with limited human participation emerging as a key bottleneck. Nevertheless, rather than serving as a weaker substitute, collaborative notes tend to play a complementary role, predominantly targeting posts that do not attract human-only or AI-only notes. Our analysis provides an initial description of efforts to use AI to improve crowdsourced content moderation in a real-world moderation system and outlines pathways for future improvements to such features.

Community Notes is a crowd-sourced approach for adding context to posts on X. Contributors propose and rate notes, forming the inputs to an open-source, open-data algorithm that determines which notes show broadly to users. Since September 2025, Community Notes' AI Note Writer API has provided an open, public interface for using AI to propose notes, while adhering to the founding principle that users, not the platform or an AI, control which notes show on X. Explicit note requests and user posts on X determine the AI API post feeds, ensuring that AI note writing responds to demand from X users. We present the design, operation and impact of the AI API, including analysis of the interaction between AI and human generated notes across topics. Unless otherwise stated, measurements and system description reflect June 2-29, 2026. The Community Writer is the largest AI API client and contributes the bulk of AI API output, generating 52% of notes selected as Helpful and shown broadly on X. The writer is guided by community input during both training and operation to prioritize, draft, evaluate and delete proposed notes. Beyond scale, the writer also offers speed, submitting the first proposed, non-deleted note on 60% of posts when compared to other writers. AI note writing is additive on top of human note writers, extending coverage of Community Notes on X. Among posts that have Helpful notes, 42% have only AI notes, indicating human raters did not feel motivated to propose an alternative. In contrast, 30% have only human notes, reflecting contribution beyond the scope of AI writing. The Community Writer is open-source software released under the Apache 2.0 license.

With the emergence of search-enabled generative QA systems, users are increasingly turning to tools that browse, aggregate, and reconcile evidence across multiple sources on their behalf. Yet many widely used QA benchmarks remain answerable by retrieving a single relevant passage, making them poorly suited for measuring cross-source sensemaking, such as integrating evidence, tracking causal links, and resolving dependencies across facets of a topic. We present iAgentBench, a dynamic ODQA benchmark that targets these higher-level information needs while keeping questions natural and grounded in realistic information-seeking behavior. iAgentBench draws seed topics from real-world attention signals and uses common user intent patterns to construct user-like questions whose answers require combining evidence from multiple sources, not just extracting a single snippet. Each instance is released with traceable evidence and auditable intermediate artifacts that support contamination checks and enable fine-grained diagnosis of failures in retrieval versus synthesis. Experiments across multiple LLMs show that retrieval improves accuracy, but retrieval alone does not reliably resolve these questions, underscoring the need to evaluate evidence use, not just evidence access.