Credibility

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

6 papers in the last four weeks, up 100% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 6Week of Sep 21

Latest papers 48

Sep 29, 2026cs.LG

Authority Bias in Language Models: Source Deference and User Agreement Are Not Interchangeable

Language models tend to agree with whatever a user asserts, and post-training increasingly targets this sycophancy so that models evaluate claims on their merits rather than deferring to the user. Yet the same models are far more compliant when a wrong answer is attributed to a verified source, which is how retrieval results, tool outputs, and grounded-search content often present information. We measure this gap across five open-weight families and three closed APIs. A single verified-source note endorsing a wrong answer flips 45-88% of baseline-correct responses in seven of eight models, and compliance rises with how authoritative the note sounds. Source deference and user agreement are not behaviorally interchangeable inside the model: on matched items with the same wrong answer, causal interventions can selectively suppress one without equally affecting the other. In three open-weight families, removing a fitted source direction lowers source compliance by 65-80 percentage points while removing a user or assistant direction has far smaller effects, and removing the user direction shows the reverse preference. A separately fitted intervention derived from source-versus-user cue activations moves compliance in both directions while leaving the prompt text unchanged. An authority direction fitted on trivia also transfers to PIQA and multi-turn SYCON dialogues without refitting, and removing it lowers wrong-source compliance by tens of percentage points in four of five families with no detected change in MMLU-Pro or GSM8K accuracy at our evaluation sizes. Source deference and user agreement therefore need separate evaluation.

Abhinav Rajeev Kumar, Paras Chopra

Lossfunk

Credibility Language Model Computes Agreement Contextual Cues Compliance

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

The Argument and the Letterhead: Source-Position Coherence in AI Evaluation

An argument can be surprising coming from a particular speaker without being a bad argument. Do AI evaluators keep these judgments apart? Two preregistered descriptive studies and a later Jev supplement collected 2,976 usable evaluations of six fixed texts about US AI policy, Germany's debt brake and Swiss nuclear energy. Each text was presented under several source attributions. The key comparison asks whether the gap between two sources changes when the argument changes. On Sol, for example, a national-security argument received mean ratings of 0.359 under CODEPINK and 0.639 under College Republicans; a civil-rights argument received 0.742 and 0.721. A constant preference for one source cannot explain that pattern. Related interactions appeared across topics and recent model configurations, including those with reasoning enabled, while several comparisons yielded small effects. The later European Jev supplement yielded five interactions below the adopted absolute reference of 0.05; its distinct rubric and interrupted collection limit comparison with the chat systems. Some written evaluations explicitly invoked a mismatch between a source and its attributed position. Taken together, the numerical and verbal evidence supports source-position coherence as a plausible explanation, alongside competing accounts involving credibility, authenticity and interpretation of the task. The paper develops this inference through controlled comparisons, reports conditional post hoc p-values in an appendix, and documents the human decisions and delegated checks behind an AI-conducted study.

Michele Loi

Artificial Intelligence Evaluation Credibility Coherence

Sep 21, 2026cs.CL

From Articles to Publishers: Aggregating Language Model Predictions for News Source Reliability Inference

Traditionally, the reliability of news publishers is assessed by expert organisations that evaluate editorial practices, transparency and factual standards at source. When this process is translated into a computational approach, the problem is often formulated at the level of individual articles, with models being trained on a set of pre-labelled articles and their performance being evaluated in a test phase. In this work, we investigate news source reliability inference as a source-level prediction problem. We propose a two-stage framework in which transformer-based language models first estimate the reliability of individual articles and subsequently aggregate article-level predictions to infer the reliability of previously unseen publishers. To approximate realistic deployment conditions, we enforce a strict publisher-disjoint evaluation protocol, ensuring that no publisher appears in both training and test sets. Experiments on 19,476 political news articles from 439 English-language publishers labeled with NewsGuard reliability ratings show that aggregation substantially improves robustness and performance, increasing accuracy from approximately 0.60 at the article level to 0.69 at the publisher level. Finally, we analyze how prediction errors vary across political orientations, revealing statistically significant associations between political leaning and misclassification patterns. Overall, our findings show that publisher reliability can be inferred from aggregated textual signals alone, supporting scalable and content-based approaches to automated news source assessment.

John Bianchi, Manuel Pratelli, Fabio Pinelli +1

IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, 55100 Lucca, Italy · Institute of Informatics and Telematics, National Research Council (IIT-CNR), 56124 Pisa, Italy

Credibility Headlines Large Language Model Reliability Political Discourse

Sep 17, 2026cs.AI

Reproducibility is not construct validity: LLM measurement of institutionally situated communication

High annotation reproducibility does not necessarily imply that an LLM-inferred measure captures the construct it is intended to measure. We test this distinction using a dataset from the European Commission's AI Act consultation, linking structured survey responses to free-text consultation submissions from the same stakeholders. LLM annotations of consultation submissions are highly reproducible (intraclass correlations > 0.99), yet show limited convergence with survey-reported measures of the nominal construct they were intended to approximate. Divergence between survey-and LLM-inferred text-based measures varies systematically across stakeholder groups: business associations express greater concern about AI risks in text-based consultations than in survey responses ({g} = +1.0), whereas public authorities and several nonbusiness groups show smaller or negative divergences. Divergences between scores suggest positive spatial autocorrelation across European countries (Moran's I = 0.347, p = 0.036), indicating that stakeholders from neighboring countries tend toward more similar text-based stances towards AI safety concerns. Despite divergence, survey-reported concerns remain strongly associated with support for explainability across all divergence levels. These results demonstrate that LLM annotation reproducibility can coexist with poor construct correspondence and motivate validation procedures that distinguish reproducibility, construct validity, and communication context variation when LLMs are used as measurement instruments.

Veronika Batzdorfer, Carlo Romano Marcello Alessandro Santagiustina

KIT · Department of Sociology and Computational Sociology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Douglasstr. 24, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany · ALMAnaCH, médialab, Sciences Po +2

Inter-Annotator Agreement Large Language Model Evaluation Survey Reproducibility Credibility Artificial Intelligence Risk+4

Sep 14, 2026cs.CL

CITECHOICE: A Causal Audit of How Document Presentation Redistributes Citation Credit in Agentic Search

When several retrieved sources support the same claim, an answer engine cites some but not others. We call this decision citation allocation and introduce CITECHOICE, a causal audit of authentic multi-turn agentic search. From 129 everyday-query transcripts, CITECHOICE selects 113 same-call document pairs with independently verified support for the same pre-specified fact, without observing ranks or answer outcomes; blinded human review confirms 103. It runs a hash-verified 2-by-2 replay crossing pair order with jointly generated, fidelity-checked structured and prose renderings of one target while the rest of the transcript remains fixed. Three results emerge. First, and most importantly, structured rendering concentrates citation credit rather than clearly increasing source admission. It raises target citation count by +0.50 citations per answer (95 percent CI [+0.20, +0.84]; Holm-adjusted p=.033), without increasing total citations or reducing competitor credit. The pre-specified incidence effect (whether the target is cited at all) is +4.5 percentage points and inconclusive (95 percent CI [-1.4, +10.4]; p=.168). Second, observational position differences exceed controlled reordering effects: the citation-rate gap between rank 1 and rank 5 is 42.3 percentage points, compared with +7.9 percentage points in the main replay and 0.0 percentage points held out. Third, citation evaluation has a measurable noise floor. Although the aggregate count effect repeats under fresh decoding of 30 frozen families, 15 percent of binary decisions change and decoding accounts for an estimated 45 percent of single-generation family-effect variance. Together, these findings isolate what survives control: presentation can causally redistribute visible citation credit within frozen transcripts. They do not establish reliable source admission, a pure formatting mechanism, or a general rank advantage.

Sriram Selvam, Anneswa Ghosh

Citations Agentic Search Credibility Model Auditing

Sep 10, 2026cs.RO

No Free Checker: A Survey of Verifiers for Robot Policies

A verifier for robot policies reads a candidate behavior and returns a score for how well it did, used both to evaluate vision-language-action policies and to train them. Verifiers range from success detectors and reward models to runtime monitors, safety filters, and temporal-logic specifications. We survey roughly 150 verifiers and compare them along two properties. Availability is how much a verdict costs, how early in a rollout the verdict arrives, and how often a verdict can be asked for. Availability rises as verdicts get cheaper, earlier, and denser. Credibility is how much a high score tells us about the task. Credibility falls as the judgment becomes gameable and self-serving. We group the verifiers by who supplies the judgment: human verifiers, rule-based and formal verifiers, learned and pretrained verifiers, and model-intrinsic verifiers. Across the four families, we find that credibility falls as availability rises. Regardless of who supplies the judgment, there is no free checker. We then examine what validates a verifier itself, and how much a high score tells us. Three measures appear in the literature: agreement with human labels, the performance of the policy it trains, and behavior under reward hacking. We close with nine metrics that make a verifier claim checkable, and coordinates for the verifiers still to be built.

Yang Wan, Xihang Yue, Zhirui Liu +7

Zhejiang University · City University of Hong Kong

Verification Framework Policy Evaluation Robot Policies Agentic Evaluations Credibility Verdict+2

Sep 7, 2026cs.DL

From Citations to Contributions: LLM-Assisted Credit Scoring of Research Articles

Citation-based measures of scientific influence typically treat citations as uniform signals, ignoring the different roles that cited works play in a paper's contribution. We introduce contribution-based credit scoring for research articles: a structured citation analysis that decomposes a paper's credit between its own original contribution and the prior work it builds on. Motivated by a cooperative-game view of scientific credit, we propose the contribution tree, a hierarchical framework that conserves importance across the document structure and separates original from citation-derived contribution. To make this framework scalable, we use LLMs as noisy comparative estimators of local importance. We further extend the model to article collections by propagating contributions through weighted citation graphs, yielding corpus-level contributions and normalized influence scores. Our experiments suggest that our framework captures contribution signals beyond surface-level heuristics. Our code is available at https://github.com/sanaebrahimi/Importance_Scoring/

Sana Ebrahimi, Suraj Shetiya, Abolfazl Asudeh

University of Illinois Chicago · IIT Bombay

Citations Contributions Credibility Influence Text Corpora

Aug 31, 2026cs.HC

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

Zhuoran Lu, Weilong Wang, Yangyang Yu +4

Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana, USA · St John’s University New York, New York, USA · Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, New Jersey, USA +2

Credibility Misinformation Artificial Intelligence Systems Human Judgment

Aug 8, 2026cs.AI

The Authority Expectancy Effect in Multi-User Conflict

We investigate how social authority (SA) signals interact with severity-based prioritization in large language models, operationalizing each axis as a model-elicited baseline -- the triage hierarchy and the SA hierarchy. Across four LLMs (Claude, Gemini, GPT, Grok) and three experimental phases -- resource allocation, fault attribution, and multi-turn dispute mediation -- we find that occupational authority, institutional documentation, and relational congruence can restructure model judgments in ways not captured by additive reweighting of authority cues. We formalize this pattern as the Authority Expectancy Effect (AEE) and characterize it through three properties observed across our conditions: it is reference-dependent, defined only relative to a pre-authority baseline; it involves evidential reinterpretation, in which identical content acquires different inferential implications depending on which party bears the SA signal; and it exhibits direction sensitivity, producing opposite outcomes depending on whether authority position and evidentiary cues align.

Eunna Lee

Independent Researcher

Authority Large Language Model Decisions Prioritization Credibility Dense Baseline

Aug 6, 2026cs.AI

Signal or Spurious Cue? A Randomized Audit of Survey-Country Metadata in LLM Social Inference

Survey-country metadata can improve an LLM's forecast of an individual response when informative, yet the same cue may redirect the forecast when assigned at random. A within-record audit tests whether disclosing a random label's uniform, record-independent origin reduces its country-directed uptake, and whether verified survey country lowers held-out Brier loss. Independent population anchors and recorded human answers measure direction and consequence across five fixed API models, six countries, and seven development-selected targets. In the primary post-review 72-record panel, opaque and disclosed-random labels each produced country-direction shifts of 0.214. Paired attenuation was 0.0003 (95% CI [-0.0157, 0.0166]). Verified country reduced Brier loss by 0.040 (95% CI [0.024, 0.056]), while random-label regret included zero. A non-overlapping mixed-coverage consistency panel retained positive disclosed-random movement and verified utility, while attenuation remained uncertain. On the selected targets, verified metadata was useful in both panels, but disclosure did not reliably attenuate random-label uptake. PROV-FORECAST contains 14,400 paired item-level probability distributions from the corrected panel.

Yifan Lyu, Xinran Li, Jiaqi Qiao +1

Dalian University of Technology, China

Survey Metadata Credibility Natural Language Inference Model Auditing

Aug 5, 2026cs.CR

Combating Knowledge Corruption in Agent Systems: A Byzantine-Tolerant Secure Collaborative RAG Framework

While retrieval-augmented generation systems partially address the hallucination issues in large language models, it also introduces new vulnerabilities to knowledge corruption attacks. Adversaries exploit these vulnerabilities by poisoning documents provided by RAG system to manipulate LLM outputs. To counter this threat, we propose SecureCollaRAG, a Byzantine-tolerant collaborative RAG framework leveraging Multi-source Knowledge Validation Mechanism. Our approach enables agent system to securely verify document provenance through dynamic GNN-based credibility scoring, effectively preventing stealthy knowledge corruption attacks while preserving essential domain knowledge integrity. Through extensive evaluations and formal analysis, we demonstrate that SecureCollaRAG maintains robustness against attackers under non-IID data distributions.

Zhaoqi Wang, Daqing He, Zijian Zhang +13

Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China

Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems Adversarial Corruption Artificial Intelligence Agents Generation Provenance Credibility

Jul 24, 2026cs.CY

Opaque Epistemic Mediation: How LLM Deployment Configurations Shape the Validation of Pseudo-Science

Commercial large language models are increasingly used as knowledge references, yet their stance on contested scientific claims is neither stable nor transparent. We tested how four major LLM families (Claude, Grok, GPT, Gemini) evaluate ethnonationalist pseudo-science derived from Frank Salter's biosocial framework across four temporal snapshots (October 2025-February 2026), via both API and web interfaces. Grok's Fast versions (which power the default user experience on X) consistently assigned credibility scores of 70-75, two to five times higher than all other models (which scored 15-40). This pattern was absent from control prompts testing basic evolutionary consensus and refuted Lamarckian claims, where all models performed comparably. Three additional findings emerged: (1) a silent patch reversed Grok's behaviour from chaotic to stably high validation overnight, without any public documentation; (2) the same Grok model identifier produced radically divergent outputs via API (75) and an unstable, near-zero collapse via web (mean 5.5) three months later; (3) refusal to rate the pseudo-scientific claim, the most defensible response observed, appeared in two model families through different interfaces (Claude Opus 4.1 categorically via web, GPT-5.1 Chat intermittently via API) and eroded in the successor version of each. These results indicate that the epistemic stance of a commercial LLM is not a stable property of the model but a contingent effect of deployment configuration: system prompts, safety layers, interface routing, and silent updates. This remains opaque to users and researchers alike. We argue this constitutes a matter of public concern requiring new forms of epistemic accountability.

Davide Scarso, Hugo Noronha de Almeida, Joaquim Pina

CIUHCT - Interuniversity Centre for the History of Science and Technology · MARE - Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, ARNET - Aquatic Research Network Associate Laboratory

Large Language Model Reliability Credibility Epistemology Strong Large Language Model Scientific Discovery Validation+1

Jul 23, 2026cs.CL

Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score (CM-LRS): From Plausible to Bankable

In capital-markets workflows the question is rarely whether a large language model can produce a fluent draft, but whether the draft is bankable: defensible in front of a counter-party or a regulator, with the documents in hand. Existing methods address parts of that gap: open-domain QA benchmarks reward surface accuracy, and finance benchmarks (FinanceBench, FinQA, ConvFinQA) advance document-grounded and numerical QA but evaluate at the question-answer layer rather than the workflow outputs practitioners defend. We introduce CM-LRS, a Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score, evaluating outputs at the workflow-output layer across seven dimensions: factual accuracy, evidence traceability, numerical consistency, workflow completeness, source discipline, decision usefulness, and reviewability/auditability. Each is scored 0-5 against a rubric anchored on signals reviewers in regulated settings use; the aggregate is tunable to the workflow. We demonstrate CM-LRS on five workflows (DCM transaction-terms extraction, precedent retrieval, issuer profile synthesis, M&A transaction-comparable reasoning, ECM transaction-terms extraction) over public SEC EDGAR filings, a public UK takeover release, and fictional synthetic supplements, scoring four models against four independent LLM judges spanning three model families. Three findings. First, the frontier closed-source models cluster within 0.22 points on four-judge averaged CM-LRS (Sonnet 4.6 = 4.31, Opus 4.7 = 4.30, GPT-5.5 = 4.09); all four judges place the open-weights baseline (Llama 3.3 70B = 3.15) last. Second, that gap concentrates on retrieval (2.23) and synthesis (2.15), not extraction (0.84). Third, Decision Usefulness shows the widest cross-model dispersion of any dimension (4.0 points on issuer profiling) and top-tier inter-judge agreement (mean r = 0.52). Plausibility is cheap. Bankability is the bar.

Prerit Ahuja

Independent Researcher · London-based

Finance Benchmarks Large Language Model Reliability Credibility Agentic Workflow Design Physical Plausibility

Jul 22, 2026cs.RO

Remote ID Spoofing-Aware Trajectory Planning for Small Unmanned Aerial Systems

This work presents a decentralized, spoofing-aware trajectory planning framework for small unmanned aerial systems operating under Remote Identification (RID) location spoofing attacks. Existing planners typically assume RID broadcasts are trustworthy, which can increase the risk of loss of separation and mid-air collisions when spoofing occurs. In contrast, the proposed approach explicitly treats RID information as unverified and incorporates physical-layer observations to assess broadcast credibility. Received signal-strength measurements from neighboring aircraft are used to detect spoofing and probabilistically localize a spoofing agent. The resulting uncertainty is converted into a risk-bounded unsafe region using a chance-constrained formulation and integrated into a per-agent Markov decision process-based planner. This enables real-time, decentralized collision avoidance while preserving mission objectives and scalability. Simulation results in a multi-aircraft package delivery scenario demonstrate reduced near mid-air collision events compared to planners that assume truthful RID data, while maintaining computational efficiency suitable for real-time execution.

Jeremiah Webb, Bryce Bjorkman, Abel Diaz Gonzalez +7

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA · The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Remote Planning Credibility

Jul 14, 2026cs.AI

The Model Knows Your Project, Not You: Measuring Recognition in LLMs with NameRank

What a frontier model recalls about a person or tool from its own weights -- before any retrieval step -- often shapes the first description a human sees, making that parametric corpus presence a measurement problem. Citations explain about a third of whether a model recognizes a researcher; we target the residual and build NameRank, a [0,1] recognition score: each of 4,685 entities in 54 cohorts is probed with one open-ended question across 36 models, and an independent judge returns a binary verdict against a curated gold -- did the model state a specific, non-guessable fact about this exact entity? -- so hallucination, context echo, and guesses earn nothing. Synthetic-null entities hold the floor near zero, and verdicts track the entity, not the model. One thesis organizes the findings: recognition is paid to named, indexable artifacts, not to credentials or titles. Every Olympic-style credential sits below a working-researcher baseline, because no named artifact ships with the medal, yet the ranking inverts at the marquee tier, where Nobel, Turing, and Fields laureates saturate the panel. For independent creators the tool out-ranks its maker, and the credential that does propagate is a named method or awarded paper. Being one of many named contributors to a celebrated artifact, by contrast, earns almost nothing -- the authors listed on a flagship model report or system card sit near the recognition floor -- because recognition attaches to the artifact's own distinctive name, not to the roster behind it. No bibliometric predicts recognition well; top-density institutions out-recognize peers at matched citations; and on 258 news events recognition loads on peak salience, not persistence. A self-report probe shows introspection reads a corpus prior, not its own knowledge.

Bojie Li, Noah Shi

Pine AI · University of Washington

Credibility Frontier Models Strong Baseline Artifacts

Jul 14, 2026cs.AI

On-Device Deep Research at 4B: Exposure Bounds Faithfulness, Retrieval Bounds Coverage

On-device research agents search a corpus, read sources, and write a cited brief on a personal laptop. Whether their citations are faithful, and at what cost, is unmeasured for a deployable small model. This study fixes one 4B generator on a 24 GB laptop and asks what makes its citations faithful. It separates two quantities usually reported as one number. Cited claim faithfulness asks whether the cited source supports the claim. Trustworthy coverage asks whether the agent also cites the right sources. The study crosses how much of each source the generator sees, 400 against 1500 characters, with the quality of the sources supplied, gold papers against retrieved papers. Two levers fall out, and they act on different outcomes. Exposure sets faithfulness. More of each source lifts faithfulness from 0.45 to 0.58 on retrieved sources and from 0.37 to 0.58 on gold sources, and the two settings converge, so faithfulness is bound by exposure, not by whether the source is correct. The exposure lift is robust to a second, independent judge; the exact convergence is tight under the primary judge and only approximate under the second. Retrieval sets coverage. Trustworthy coverage stays near 0.22 on retrieved sources at any exposure, because recall is held near 0.40, so exposure cannot fix which sources are cited. The extra exposure costs about 235 output tokens. The practical recipe is to raise per source exposure first, cheaply, and then treat retrieval recall as the only remaining lever.

Vinay Kumar Chaganti

Independent Researcher

Citations Explanation Faithfulness Credibility Precision Recall Exposure Silver Bullet+1

Jul 11, 2026stat.AP

From Stochastic to Stable: Rank Stability and Structural Sufficiency in AI Visibility Measurement

AI visibility measurement is comparative: practitioners want to know which domains generative search engines cite most often and whether observed differences are large enough to support decisions. Yet the industry lacks a principled way to determine whether enough data has been collected. Collection budgets vary widely across studies and platforms, and conclusions are often drawn from rankings whose stability and precision are unknown. We introduce a sequential convergence framework based on two complementary criteria: rank stability evaluates whether the rank-correlation trajectory has reached a structural plateau, while structural sufficiency evaluates whether the spread of citation shares among established domains -- those whose confidence intervals exclude zero -- exceeds the uncertainty of those estimates. Together, these criteria distinguish rankings that have merely stabilized from those sufficiently resolved to support inference. Both are derived from regularities in the observed citation distribution, including its rank structure, uncertainty profile, and the boundary between observed and established domains. The framework retains a small number of structural constants but requires no externally specified query count, correlation target, or confidence-interval width target; stopping is driven by observed measurement uncertainty and remains robust across a range of sufficiency thresholds. Applied across 30 platform-topic combinations spanning Gemini, SearchGPT, and Perplexity, the framework adapts to platform- and topic-specific citation distributions. Results show that no fixed collection budget can be justified across contexts and that convergence can instead be evaluated from the structure of the observed distribution. The framework provides a practical basis for determining when AI visibility measurements are ready to support comparative analysis.

Ronald Sielinski

IQRush

Citations Credibility Sufficiency Visibility Confidence Intervals Stochastic

Jul 9, 2026cs.CL

Do You Need a Frontier Model as a Citation Verifier? Benchmarking Rubric LLMs for Deep-Research Source Attribution

Reinforcement learning increasingly relies on an LLM judge to score each rubric criterion, and that judge acts as the reward model during training. Before such a signal can be trusted, we need to know how capable the judge must be and how biased it is. We study this calibration question for citation quality in deep-research systems, where a search-grounded LLM must support each claim it writes with a cited source. Citation quality is a structured rubric task in which each attribution-citation pair is judged along two dimensions that require an LLM, source relevance and factual support. On an adversarial long-form benchmark, we score 8 off-the-shelf LLM judges from 3 model families against gold labels over 1,248 rubric decisions, all of which were human-reviewed and 378 of which were hard cases adjudicated from judge disagreements. Cheaper judges remain competitive across both dimensions, with GPT-5-mini attaining the strongest source-relevance pass-class F1 at 0.908 (

κ

=0.636), while on factual support the judges are statistically indistinguishable (overlapping confidence intervals), so no single model dominates. At comparable F1, the judges still differ substantially in pass-rate drift, false positive rate, and false negative rate. Scalar F1 obscures this directional bias, yet it is exactly what a downstream reinforcement learning loop would reinforce. Calibrating the judge is therefore a prerequisite for using citation rubrics as reward signals, and our results show that this calibration does not require the most expensive available model.

Ethan Leung, Elias Lumer, Corey Feld +3

Commercial Technology and Innovation Office, PricewaterhouseCoopers, U.S.

Large Language Model Judges Citations Grading Credibility Frontier Models

Jul 6, 2026cs.CY

Curated retrieval versus open web search in public AI information services: a coverage-trust trade-off

Public institutions increasingly use large language models (LLMs) to answer citizens' questions, often pairing a curated knowledge base with live web search, yet whether the sources behind these answers can be trusted has received little empirical scrutiny. We report a pre-launch expert evaluation of Evrópuvefur, an independent, government-funded service run by the University of Iceland that answers questions about the European Union, conducted as Iceland prepared for its referendum of 29 August 2026 on whether to resume EU accession talks. Five domain experts produced 551 evaluations of 449 AI-generated answers, scoring each against a seven-criterion quality rubric and, separately, flagging individual cited sources. We compared two retrieval paths: a curated local corpus (RAG) and open web search. In more than a third of the reviewed web-search answers (35%, 65 of 187), at least one cited source was flagged, almost always as untrustworthy or irrelevant; curated sources were flagged far less often and only for being out of date. Web search answered more questions, but at the cost of source quality; the curated corpus was trustworthy yet limited in coverage, and the model declined to respond when it fell short. The citation mix also passed over strong sources: across all 287 web-search answers, the system never cited RÚV, the public broadcaster and the country's most widely used news source. A companion prompt ablation shows how weak prompt-level steering is: a trusted-domain list in the system prompt raised the share of citations to listed domains only from 12% to 21%. Fluency and topical fit did not predict source trustworthiness. We argue that source trustworthiness is a measurable yet largely invisible dimension of information quality in public AI services, and we discuss transparency-oriented responses and their trade-offs.

Hafsteinn Einarsson, Hafsteinn Birgir Einarsson, Jón Gunnar Ólafsson +1

Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland · Faculty of Political Science, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland · The Icelandic Web of Science, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland

Credibility AI Trustworthiness Data-Curation Transparency Text Corpora

Jul 6, 2026cs.CL

Can temporal article-level credibility signals improve domain-level credibility prediction?

Web domain credibility evaluation is vital for combating misinformation. It is conducted by examining factors such as domain type, transparency, and overall reputation. However, assessing the credibility of newly emerging web domains remains challenging since they have no reputation yet. Expert fact-checkers evaluate the credibility of domains by analyzing the content of their articles, including the presence of misinformation, bias, or propaganda. Yet, the ease of large-scale content generation enabled by LLMs has accelerated the creation of new content, rendering manual assessment insufficient and underscoring the need for automated approaches to domain credibility evaluation. In this paper, we introduce our Domain Credibility Evaluation Framework (DCEF), a temporal framework for domain credibility evaluation grounded in expert ratings. DCEF enables us to investigate whether the credibility of web domains can be assessed from their published articles following the workflow of expert fact-checkers, without any prior knowledge of the source domains themselves.

Islam Eldifrawi, Shengrui Wang, Amine Trabelsi

Credibility Fact-Checking

Jul 3, 2026cs.CV

Brand-as-Memory: Vision-Language Models Encode Causal, Mechanistically Localizable Credibility Priors for News Sources

Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly read news and web content as images, where the publisher's identity is visually present. We show that VLMs carry a strong source-credibility prior keyed on outlet identity, and study it along three axes. (i) Cross-model benchmark. We introduce CueTrust, a cross-model diagnostic that measures which surface source cue overrides an article's content evidence via a Source-Override Index (SOI). Across seven VLMs and five cues, the vulnerability profile is model- and scale-dependent, and the override is outlet-identity-specific and encoding-invariant, firing from the masthead name, the logo image, or the bare domain, but not from a named author, in-text authority, or page layout (clean negative controls). (ii) Mechanistic account. For the brand cue, we give a full mechanistic account: swapping only the masthead moves credibility across an approximately 11 log-odds range that tracks professional ratings (rho = 0.88 with Media Bias/Fact Check). The prior is dual-coded (name and logo), strengthens with scale, is causally formed at layers 19-21, carried by interpretable seed-stable sparse-autoencoder features, and recurs at the same relative locus in a second model family. It overrides content (about 1.8x) as a signal-magnitude effect within a shared pathway, not a privileged route. Steering the localized direction selectively reduces the override (41% reduction) and generalizes to held-out outlets, confirming the prior is causally used, not merely decodable. Deployed VLMs may thus defer to source identity over the evidence in front of them, a reliability failure we can measure across models, localize, and causally probe. We release the stimulus suite and CueTrust.

Chih-Ting Liao, Xin Cao

University of New South Wales

Credibility Large Language Model Reliability Contextual Cues Brand-As-Memory Prior Knowledge Integration Causal Modeling

Jul 1, 2026cs.CL

A Mechanistic View of Authority Hierarchy in LLM Sycophancy

Authority bias poses a critical safety concern in language models: models systematically prioritize social cues from authority figures over factual consistency, swaying their answers based on source credibility rather than evidence. We mechanistically investigate this phenomenon using a controlled medical QA setting, where hints suggesting incorrect answers are attributed to personas of varying expertise. Across Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen3-8B, and Gemma-2-9B, we find that models respond in a graded manner proportional to perceived authority, a hierarchy that is never explicitly prompted but emerges from training. Logit lens analysis and linear/non-linear probing localize this effect to a critical late layer where correct answer representations are actively erased, an erasure that scales with authority level, resists mean vector intervention, and is only partially reversible through chain-of-thought reasoning. Our findings suggest that authority-induced sycophancy is not a surface-level output bias but mechanistic knowledge erasure, a precise, layer-localized overwriting of correct internal representations by high-status authority signals.

Emil Joswin, Srujananjali Medicherla, Priyanka Mary Mammen

Independent Research · University of Massachusetts Amherst

Sycophancy Authority Credibility Hierarchical Concept Erasure

Jun 24, 2026cs.IR

How Large Language Models Source Brand Reputation Across Languages and Markets

When a large language model (LLM) answers a question about a company, it grounds the answer in retrieved web sources, and those sources decide what the model says. Most analysis of AI brand visibility looks at the answer text. This study looks one step earlier, at the citations. We merge three Rankfor.AI datasets covering 128 brands across 12 home markets and 13 languages, and analyse 167,551 URL-grounded citations (189,974 total attribution rows). We classify each citation by domain and source type and measure where AI gets its brand information, by language and by market. Four patterns hold. First, AI grounds brand answers overwhelmingly in third-party sources: 85.7% of citations point to sites the brand does not own, against 14.3% owned. Second, the source base is concentrated and long-tailed: 80% of citations come from about 18% of domains, fitting a Zipf law (alpha = 0.86, R^2 = 0.983). Third, one reference site dominates almost everywhere: Wikipedia is the most-cited domain in 11 of 12 languages, the exception being Lithuanian, where the business daily vz.lt edges it (4.38%). Fourth, the source mix is market-specific at the margin: for 46 Polish national brands the most-cited domain is YouTube, and four HR and careers portals supply 637 citations against 297 for Polish Wikipedia, about twice as many.

Dmitrij Zatuchin

Department of Information Technologies, Estonian Entrepreneurship University of Applied Sciences (EUAS), Tallinn, Estonia. · Rankfor.AI, Tallinn, Estonia.

Brand-As-Memory Credibility

Jun 22, 2026cs.CL

War in the Abstract: The Rise and Consequences of Militarized Language in Scientific Communication

Scientists do not, by profession, wage war. Yet warfare's vocabulary consistently appears in their abstracts. To quantify the extent to which warfare's vocabulary pervades scientific abstracts, we analyze 21.4 million papers (2010-2025; OpenAlex, PubMed). We additionally run a within-subject war-framing experiment (N = 801; 32,040 trials) designed to provide causal insight into the effects of militaristic language on persuasion. Between 2010 and 2025, the presence of militaristic terms in scientific abstracts rose 48% in OpenAlex and 32% in PubMed, with the rise accelerating sharply after 2019 (cross-database r = 0.96, p < 10^-8). The prevalence of militaristic language is conflict-aligned at both country and annual scales (Uppsala Conflict Data Program; r = 0.77-0.84), with the abstracts from the Global South displaying the fastest rise in militaristic language. Among disciplines, social sciences leads in level of such language while engineering and computer science lead in growth. The COVID and post-2022 large-language-model eras also saw the rise and narrowed the language gap between native-English and non-English authors. In our follow-up experiment, we found that war framing reduced credibility (mean shift -0.18 Likert units, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.14]; d_z = -0.28, p < 10^-20), funding willingness (d_z = -0.12) and policy support (d_z = -0.08), with a trend-level increase in sense of urgency (d_z = +0.07). Collectively, findings reveal that while scientific abstracts drift toward warfare, the use of militaristic language may erode credibility, funding willingness, and policy support.

Sovesh Mohapatra, David Lydon-Staley, Dani S. Bassett

Department of Bioengineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA · Annenberg School of Communication, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA · Departments of Electrical & Systems Engineering and Physics & Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA +2

Journal Geopolitical Grounding Interacts Scientific Discovery Credibility War Implications

Jun 18, 2026cs.RO

Agentic AutoResearch forSpace Autonomy: An Auditable, LLM-Driven Research Agent for Aerospace Control Problems

Spacecraft guidance, navigation, and control functions are increasingly realized as learned policies distilled from expert solvers. Developing such a policy is itself a research process: an investigator selects an architecture and hyperparameters, runs experiments, and must determine whether an apparent improvement is genuine or merely seed noise. This paper presents AutoResearch, a framework in which a large language model autonomously drives that loop for aerospace control problems, coupled with a credibility layer, built into the loop, that certifies each reported result against the problem's own measured seed noise. The language model serves only as the offline research agent that develops the control policy; the trained policy it produces is then deployed onboard the spacecraft, while the model itself never operates the vehicle. At each iteration the agent reads a plain-language problem description and the run history, proposes a single edit to the training script, executes it, and logs the outcome. No reported result is credited until it passes the same three checks: measured per-problem seed noise, reseeded verification of the best configuration, and leave-one-out pruning of the agent's edits. The same loop is applied, unchanged, to two aerospace control problems: a Clohessy-Wiltshire relative rendezvous and a safety-constrained collision-avoidance docking past a keep-out zone, each calibrated against a known optimal control benchmark. In both, the audited policy clears the measured seed noise by many standard deviations; an undirected search over the same parameters does not. On the docking problem the gap becomes categorical: undirected search yields no feasible policy, while the learned policy stays outside the keep-out zone on every seed.

Amit Jain, Richard Linares

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139

Agentic Search Collision Avoidance Credibility

Jun 18, 2026cs.CL

CREDENCE: Claim Reduction for Decomposition & Enhanced Credibility -- Semantic Metrics and Convergence Analysis

Decomposing compound sentences into atomic, verifiable claims is a prerequisite for reliable automated fact-checking. Prior work has relied on token-overlap (Jaccard) metrics that systematically underestimate decomposition quality for paraphrastic claims, and has lacked formal termination analysis for the repair loop. We present Credence, a revised claim decomposition and evaluation framework addressing both shortcomings. Our contributions are: (1) Semantic-F1: we use BGE-large cosine similarity fidelity metric that resolves Jaccard's penalisation and improves downstream fact-checking accuracy; (2) Convergence theorems: we formally characterise four properties of the repair pipeline, establishing that rule-based repair is monotone and finitely terminating under an oracle parser assumption; LLM-based self-repair is provably non-monotone and requires an early-exit guard; (3) Three evaluation benchmarks spanning social-media, encyclopaedic, and news domains for cross-domain generalisation measurement; (4) Multi-model benchmarking across four decomposer models (3.8B-12B) and a closed API model. Experiments on SocialClaimSplit, WikiSplitBench, and ClaimDecompBench show that Semantic-F1 outperforms Jaccard-F1 by +15-32pp. EPR ranges from 0.94 to 1.00 on SocialClaimSplit and WikiSplitBench, while ClaimDecompBench includes lower base EPR cases (down to 0.824) due to harder news-domain constructions, and rule-repair reduces the Atomicity Violation Rate (AVR) by 47-100% relative to the base model without degrading fidelity.

Phuong Huu Vu Tran, Thuan Duc Mai, Bach Xuan Le

Vietnamese-German University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam · Ho Chi Minh University of Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Fact-Checking Credibility Entailment Paraphrasing Decomposition Convergence

Jun 17, 2026cs.HC

Correct Yourself, Keep My Trust: How Self-Correction and Social Connection Shape Credibility in Social Chatbots

When social chatbots make mistakes, and they do, how they recover determines whether users trust them again. Social chatbots are increasingly integrated into everyday life, yet they remain prone to generating convincing but inaccurate information. The social connection they build with users makes such errors particularly consequential. We conducted a between-subjects experiment (N=120) comparing three error correction strategies: a webpage retraction, self-correction by the same social chatbot, and correction by an expert chatbot. Our results reveal two key findings. First, all three strategies corrected the error equally well, but only self-correction did so without damaging the chatbot's credibility: participants rated self-correcting chatbots significantly higher in both trustworthiness and perceived expertise than chatbots whose errors were corrected by external sources. Second, the strength of the user's social connection with the chatbot, measured through social attraction and self-disclosure, significantly predicted the magnitude of belief change, but only when the chatbot corrected itself. Outsourcing corrections to an external source severed this link entirely. These findings suggest that social chatbots should correct their own mistakes rather than outsource corrections, and that investing in social connection is a functional mechanism that amplifies correction effectiveness, not merely a design feature. We discuss implications for designing chatbots that maintain long-term credibility while effectively addressing their own errors.

Biswadeep Sen, Yi-Chieh Lee

School of Computing National University of Singapore Singapore, Singapore

Credibility Iterative Self-Correction Chatbots Complex Societies Social Influence Correction+1

Jun 11, 2026cs.LG

Authority, Truth, and Citation Bias: A Large-Scale Multi-Domain Benchmark for Studying Epistemic Susceptibility in Large Language Models

Large language models are increasingly deployed in citation-augmented settings, yet the effect of citation presence on model behavior independent of factual content remains poorly understood. We introduce AuthorityBench, a 220,564-prompt multi-domain benchmark that isolates how citation-based authority signals influence epistemic behavior in LLMs. The benchmark uses a fully balanced 2x2 factorial design crossing claim veracity with citation veracity, the first to do so, across four domains (general knowledge, science, law, and medicine), with controlled variation over 40 prompt templates, four venue prestige tiers, and a country-coded author name dataset. Evaluating seven models on 12 structured research questions, we find that citation presence, whether real or fabricated, consistently increases hallucination rates relative to a no-citation baseline. The effect is strongest when fabricated citations accompany true claims, raising hallucination rates by 3 to 22 percentage points and reaching 35 to 77% in the general knowledge domain, while legal claims are comparatively robust and venue prestige and author demographics show negligible impact. All datasets and evaluation code are available at: https://github.com/floating-reeds/AuthorityBench

Aryan Khurana, Aravind Ramana RN, Dhruv Kumar

BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus, Rajasthan, India.

Citations Large Language Model Reliability Credibility Authorship Authority Large-Scale Benchmark

Jun 10, 2026cs.SI

"That's AI Slop, You Bot!" Studying Accusations, Evidence, and Credibility in Online Discourse Towards LLM-Generated Comments

Generative AI has made fluent prose cheap to produce, breaking the old promise to readers that good writing meant real thinking. How have readers responded, and what can this tell us about changing anti-AI attitudes? We analyzed 25 million comments from Hacker News and Reddit (2023-2026), combining LLM judgment on 7,500 sampled accusations of AI use, sentiment trajectories, speech-act coding of 300 confirmed accusations of AI use, and a matched-control test of accused versus non-accused parent comments. We found that the pejorative-label share of accusations rose more than tenfold on both platforms while a placebo vocabulary of pre-2022 inauthenticity terms (shill, astroturf) did not. This shift reflected a fast-growing trend of branding any suspicious or seemingly inauthentic prose as "AI slop". The slop frame now constitutes 94 percent of pejorative mentions, with the dominant comments shifting in tone from mockery toward gatekeeping and structural protest. The key surprise comes from a matched-control test which found that prose features that statistically distinguish AI from human text do not predict which human text gets accused as AI. The new accusations work as social gatekeeping of perceived authenticity without actually screening for AI. This research extends signaling theory by showing that substitute signals used socially can grow even when inaccurate if the underlying detection problem cannot be solved at the non-expert level. It shows that AI's effects on writing from the reader side are distinct from those on the production (writer) side. Detection technology cannot resolve this dynamic because the social function of accusations is increasingly to perform social gatekeeping and in-group signaling as opposed to identifying AI-generated writing.

Jason Miklian, John E. Katsos

University of Oslo · American University of Sharjah

Generative Artificial Intelligence Credibility Artificial Intelligence Systems Gating

Jun 10, 2026cs.CV

From Nominal Intensity to Equivalent Rainfall: A Path-Based Credibility Evaluation Framework for Simulated Rainfall in Autonomous-Driving Perception Tests

Credible simulated-rainfall conditions are essential for identifying perception-system boundaries and supporting SOTIF-oriented risk assessment in automated driving. However, closed-field tests are often described only by nominal rainfall intensity or single-point measurements, making it difficult to align simulated rain fields with real rainfall and map test results to real-world scenarios. This paper proposes a path-based credibility evaluation method for simulated rainfall in autonomous-driving perception tests. Using the drop size and velocity joint distribution of real rainfall as the reference, each candidate path is represented by path-equivalent rainfall intensity, an uncertainty band, and a path-averaged Realism of Raindrop Distribution (RRD) score. Lidar target point-cloud count and mean reflectivity are further used for perception-consistency correction, quantifying the proxy capability of each simulated-rainfall path for real-rainfall perception effects. Experiments are conducted using about 10,000 real-rainfall raindrop-spectrum samples, 728 RainSense perception samples, and 45 spatial sampling points in a 2.4 m x 7.2 m simulated-rainfall area. Results show that spatial non-uniformity remains under the same nominal condition, confirming the need for path-based evaluation. The method identifies Path IV and Path VI as preferable candidates, with results of 11.54 +/- 0.31 mm/h, RRD = 0.43, and 8.28 +/- 0.34 mm/h, RRD = 0.46, respectively. These paths show more balanced performance in rainfall-intensity stability, raindrop-spectrum realism, and perception consistency. The proposed method supports path selection, condition description, and credible interpretation of autonomous-driving perception tests under rainfall.

Tian Xia, Xin Zhao, Shaolingfeng Ye +1

College of Automotive and Energy Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Rainfall Autonomous Driving Perception Perception Intensity Credibility Lidar

Jun 2, 2026cs.CV

SynCred-Bench: Benchmarking Synthetic Credibility in AI-Generated Visual Misinformation

Recent generative models can now produce visual artifacts with realistic embedded text and layouts, creating a new misinformation threat: synthetic credibility. We introduce SYNCRED-Bench, a benchmark of 600 AI-generated misinformation images balanced across six credible-form categories and seven fine-grained circulation styles, together with FP450, a real-image negative set for measuring false positives. Extensive evaluation shows that existing systems remain unreliable: under a 5% false-positive-rate constraint, 15 MLLMs achieve only 10.5% true positive rate (TPR), open-source AIGC detectors achieve less than 5%, and commercial APIs reach 57.6%. Human annotators also struggled to identify synthetic credibility, reaching only 63% TPR. These findings establish synthetic credibility as a severe and underexplored visual misinformation challenge, and provide a benchmark for developing detectors that reason beyond superficial credibility cues.

Junxiao Yang, Minghao Zhang, Xiaoce Wang +4

The Conversational AI (CoAI) group, DCST, Tsinghua University

Credibility Human Annotators Generative Models

May 29, 2026cs.GT

Used Car Salesbots? Honesty and Credulity of LLMs as Bargaining Agents under Partial Information

In this work we study agents in simulated bargaining scenarios, where a buyer and a seller communicate through a text channel and attempt to negotiate mutually beneficial trades, under different information regimes (complete information, information asymmetry or mutual uncertainty). We evaluate their performance w.r.t. game-theoretical solutions and further investigate their honesty (their tendency to disclose or withhold information or to mislead and deceive) as well as their credulity (their tendency to trust or distrust information provided by the other agent). We study zero-shot LLM agents with simple prompting scaffolding as well as fine-tuned agents, in order to investigate whether optimising the agents to maximise financial profits makes them stronger negotiators but also more dishonest and less trusting. We find that off-the-shelf LLMs all substantially deviate from game-theoretical equilibria, they attempt to lie about their private information but cannot efficiently exploit information asymmetries. Fine-tuning on financial utility makes the agents stronger at achieving better deals but also more dishonest, highlighting the risks that optimising agents for a task can have on their safety. We release our code and a dataset of bargaining scenarios.

Antonio Valerio Miceli-Barone, Vaishak Belle, Shay B. Cohen

University of Edinburgh

Negotiation Large Language Model Agents Honesty Information Asymmetry Credibility

May 28, 2026cs.CR

SciIntBench: Measuring LLM Compliance with Research Integrity Norms Under Adversarial Framing

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support scientific work, but it is unclear whether they uphold responsible conduct of research (RCR) norms or help undermine them. We introduce SciIntBench, an adversarial benchmark of 810 prompts across ten RCR categories and three scientific domains. Each scenario appears as an Overt Adversarial, Covert Adversarial, and Benign version, allowing us to jointly measure framing-sensitive refusal of misconduct and helpfulness on legitimate requests. We evaluate 16 commercial and open-weight LLMs from six providers (2024--2026), producing 12,960 responses. We find that scientific integrity alignment is strongly framing-sensitive: models refuse explicit misconduct far more reliably than covert violations, especially failing when misconduct is presented as a pressure-driven shortcut. Refusals vary by RCR category, with weaker boundaries around transparency, plagiarism, and fabrication.

Almene De Meran Meguimtsop, Maria Leonor Pacheco, Daniel E. Acuna

Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309

Scientific Discovery Academic Integrity Adversarial Evaluation Task Framing Credibility Refusals

May 27, 2026cs.DL

Verified Misguidance: Measuring Structural Citation Failures in Search-Augmented LLMs

Users of search-augmented LLMs rely on citations as evidence that responses are grounded in real sources, and rarely verify the cited pages themselves. Millions of queries per day now pass through these systems, making citation quality a silent determinant of whether users are informed or misled-yet existing benchmarks each address one facet in isolation, leaving the joint structure that determines citation trustworthiness unmeasured. We construct CITETRACE, a large-scale dataset that traces the full citation chain from user query through retrieved source to generated answer: 11,200 real-world queries from 28 communities paired with 112,000 responses from ten models across five providers, yielding 761,495 evaluable citation pairs. We design a three-dimension evaluation framework that scores each citation on intent-purpose alignment, source suitability, and answer-source fidelity, using expert-validated predefined matrices and a five-level fidelity rubric; the framework applies to any system that produces citation-bearing responses. Applying this framework at scale, we identify a systematic pattern we call VERIFIED MISGUIDANCE (VM): models cite real, accessible sources yet fail along one or more dimensions, producing a fidelity-suitability trade-off in which faithful models select inappropriate sources and vice versa. Across our pool, 30.6% of citations distort their sources and 27.1% originate from domain-inappropriate sources; at the response level, up to 96% of users encounter at least one structurally misleading citation. Provider-level differences explain 88-96% of citation-quality variance, suggesting that source selection is governed more by factors beyond individual model capability than by the LLMs themselves. Together, CITETRACE and its evaluation framework provide the first resource for diagnosing structural citation failures in deployed search-augmented systems.

Yongsik Seo, Wooseok Jeong, Eunyoung Kim +2

Department of Artificial Intelligence, Yonsei University · ParamitaAI · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Konkuk University +2

Citations Credibility AI Trustworthiness Traces

May 23, 2026cs.AI

Agent-as-Peer-Debriefer: A Multi-Agent Framework with Perspective-Based Refinement for Qualitative Analysis

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for qualitative data analysis (QDA), yet their outputs often miss the depth and nuance of human analysis. We argue this gap reflects a missing credibility practice from human QDA: peer debriefing, in which an analyst seeks feedback from a disinterested peer and uses it to refine their coding. To bring this practice into LLM-assisted QDA, we propose Agent-as-Peer-Debriefer, a multi-agent QDA framework that builds peer debriefing into key coding steps. In our framework, a Hierarchical Coding Agent follows the standard QDA process to generate codes, sub-themes, and themes, along with self-explanations and reflection memos. It then shares these outputs with three Peer-Debriefing Agents, each applying a distinct analytical perspective (Theory-Driven, Data-Driven, or Applied) and refining the codes by keeping, renaming, reassigning, merging, or splitting them. These perspectives are drawn from established human QDA practices that generalize across domains and datasets. To evaluate the framework, we test it on three datasets across two domains with three LLMs, measuring semantic similarity to human-annotated codes. Across all settings, perspective-based, peer-debriefing refinement aligns more closely with human codes than a single-LLM baseline, and an ablation further shows the gain is not merely from additional refinement. The three perspectives also produce distinct trade-offs, showing that the choice of perspective is a meaningful and controllable design decision. More broadly, these findings suggest that simulating peer debriefing with explicit perspectives is a promising route to more credible LLM-assisted QDA.

Zhimin Lin, Kun Cheng, Zhiyao Shu +4

Soochow University · George Mason University · Johns Hopkins University

Qualitative Research Agentic Framework Credibility

May 17, 2026cs.CL

ConflictRAG: Detecting and Resolving Knowledge Conflicts in Retrieval Augmented Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems implicitly assume mutual consistency among retrieved documents -- an assumption that frequently fails in practice. We present ConflictRAG, a conflict-aware RAG framework that detects, classifies, and resolves knowledge conflicts prior to answer generation. The framework introduces three contributions: (1) a two-stage conflict detection module combining a lightweight embedding-based MLP classifier with selective LLM refinement, reducing API costs by 62% while maintaining 90.8% detection accuracy; (2) an Entropy-TOPSIS framework for data-driven source credibility assessment, improving selection accuracy by 7.1% over manual heuristics; and (3) a Conflict-Aware RAG Score (CARS) for diagnostic evaluation of conflict-handling capabilities. Experiments on three benchmarks against six baselines demonstrate 88.7% conflict-detection F1 and consistent 5.3--6.1% correctness gains over the strongest conflict-aware baseline, with the pipeline transferring effectively across backbone LLMs.

Chenyu Wang, Yueyuan Li, Yingmin Liu +1

School of Computer and Artificial Intelligence, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China · College of Environment and Ecology, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China · Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems Credibility

May 15, 2026cs.SI

CitePrism: Human-in-the-Loop AI for Citation Auditing and Editorial Integrity

Editors and reviewers are expected to ensure that manuscripts cite relevant, accurate, current, and ethically appropriate literature, yet manuscript-level citation auditing remains largely manual, fragmented, and difficult to scale. Citation context, metadata quality, self-citation patterns, and bibliographic integrity all affect whether a reference appropriately supports a local claim. We present CitePrism, a transparent hybrid decision-support framework for editorial citation auditing that combines LLM-assisted contextual reasoning, embedding-based semantic similarity, metadata verification, integrity-oriented flags, and human-in-the-loop analyst review. CitePrism extracts citation neighborhoods, enriches reference metadata, computes fused relevance scores, surfaces metadata and self-citation review prompts, and supports configurable threshold-based triage. In a preliminary validation on a single case-study manuscript with 104 references from pavement engineering, agreement with human binary relevance labels reached Cohen's kappa = 0.429. At operating threshold tau = 17, CitePrism flagged all human-labeled irrelevant citations, while also producing false positives requiring analyst review. These results suggest that CitePrism may support conservative editorial screening and citation-quality triage, but they do not establish general editorial performance. CitePrism is intended as pilot-stage decision support, not as an autonomous misconduct detector or automated editorial decision system. Broader validation across manuscripts, domains, annotators, baselines, and deployment settings is required before operational use.

Gowrika Mahesh, Budanur Madappa Darshan Gowda, Kavana Gopladevarahalli Papegowda +4

Applied Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics, Department of Information, SRH University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Citations Peer Review Model Auditing Credibility Human-In-The-Loop

May 13, 2026cs.CL

LLMs as annotators of credibility assessment in Danish asylum decisions: evaluating classification performance and errors beyond aggregated metrics

Off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate text annotation, yet their effectiveness remains underexplored for underrepresented languages and specialized domains where the class definition requires subtle expert understanding. We investigate LLM-based annotation for a novel legal NLP task: identifying the presence and sentiment of credibility assessments in asylum decision texts. We introduce RAB-Cred, a Danish text classification dataset featuring high-quality, expert annotations and valuable metadata such as annotator confidence and asylum case outcome. We benchmark 21 open-weight models and 30 system-user prompt combinations for this task, and systematically evaluate the effect of model and prompt choice for zero-shot and few-shot classification. We zoom in on the errors made by top-performing models and prompts, investigating error consistency across LLMs, inter-class confusion, correlation with human confidence and sample-wise difficulty and severity of LLM mistakes. Our results confirm the potential of LLMs for cost-effective labeling of asylum decisions, but highlight the imperfect and inconsistent nature of LLM annotators, and the need to look beyond the predictions of a single, arbitrarily chosen model. The RAB-Cred dataset and code are available at https://github.com/glhr/RAB-Cred

Galadrielle Humblot-Renaux, Mohammad N. S. Jahromi, Rohat Bakuri-Jørgensen +7

Visual Analysis and Perception Lab, Aalborg University · Pioneer Center for AI, Denmark · Center of Excellence for Global Mobility Law, University of Copenhagen +1

Large Language Model Annotations Credibility Natural Language Datasets Performance Metric

May 7, 2026eess.SP

CredibleDFGO: Differentiable Factor Graph Optimization with Credibility Supervision

Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) positioning is widely used for urban navigation, but the covariance reported by the GNSS solver is often unreliable in urban canyons. Existing differentiable factor graph optimization (DFGO) methods learn measurement weighting through the solver, but they still use position-only objectives. As a result, the position estimate may improve while the reported covariance remains too small, too large, or incorrectly oriented. We propose CredibleDFGO (CDFGO), a differentiable GNSS factor graph framework that makes covariance credibility an explicit training target. A Weighting Generation Network (WGN) predicts per-satellite reliability weights, and a differentiable Gauss-Newton solver maps these weights to a position estimate and a Hessian-derived posterior covariance. We use proper scoring rules to supervise the East-North predictive distribution end to end. We study negative log-likelihood (NLL), the energy score (ES), and their combination. Results on three UrbanNav test scenes show consistent gains in covariance credibility. Positioning accuracy also improves on the medium-urban and harsh-urban scenes; on the deep-urban scene, both the mean horizontal error and the 95th-percentile error improve. On the harsh-urban Mong Kok (MK) scene, CDFGO-Combined reduces the mean horizontal error from 13.77 m to 11.68 m, reduces NLL from 40.63 to 6.59, and reduces ES from 12.31 to 9.05 relative to DFGO (MAE). Case studies link the MK improvement to better axis-wise consistency, more credible local covariance ellipses, and satellite-level reweighting.

Liang Qian, Penggao Yan, Penghui Xu +1

Department of Aeronautical and Aviation Engineering The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Global Navigation Satellite System Factor Graphs Covariance Homography Credibility Forge+1

May 6, 2026cs.AI

When Helpfulness Becomes Sycophancy: Sycophancy is a Boundary Failure Between Social Alignment and Epistemic Integrity in Large Language Models

This position paper argues that sycophancy in LLMs is a boundary failure between social alignment and epistemic integrity. Existing work often operationalizes sycophancy through external behavior such as agreement with incorrect user beliefs, position reversals, or deviation from an objective standard of correctness. These formulations capture only overt forms of the phenomenon and leave subtler boundary failures involving epistemic integrity and social alignment underspecified. We argue that sycophancy should not be understood as agreement alone, but as alignment behavior that displaces independent epistemic judgment. To clarify this boundary, we propose a three-condition framework for sycophancy. First, the user expresses a cue in the form of a belief, preference, or self-concept. Second, the model shifts toward that cue through alignment behavior. Third, this shift compromises epistemic accuracy, independent reasoning, or appropriate correction. We also introduce a taxonomy for classifying sycophancy, consisting of alignment targets, mechanisms, and severity. The paper concludes by discussing implications for alignment evaluation and argues for boundary-aware assessment, structured rubrics, and mitigation strategies, while situating these proposals alongside alternative views of sycophancy.

Jiechen Li, Catherine A. Barry, Rishika Randev +3

Duke University Durham, NC 27708 · ∗These authors contributed equally.

Sycophancy Epistemic Integrity Pluralistic Alignment Credibility Student Misconceptions Assistant

May 3, 2026cs.AI

Are LLMs More Skeptical of Entertainment News?

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated news credibility assessment, yet it remains unclear whether they apply even-handed standards across journalistic genres. We examine whether zero-shot LLMs are more likely to misclassify legitimate entertainment news as fake than legitimate hard news, using a within-dataset design on GossipCop from FakeNewsNet. Across four frontier models, we find a clear but model-specific genre asymmetry: DeepSeek-V3.2 and GPT-5.2 show false-positive-rate gaps of 10.1 and 8.8 percentage points, respectively (both

p < .001

), whereas Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3 Flash show no comparable difference. A style-swap experiment yields only limited and inconsistent changes, suggesting that the asymmetry is not reducible to stylistic register alone. Prompt-based mitigation is likewise possible but not generic: framing the model as an entertainment-news fact-checker reduces false positives for DeepSeek-V3.2 by about 50% without detectable recall loss, but offers little improvement for GPT-5.2. Exploratory qualitative coding further suggests two recurring error patterns in sampled false positives: treating private-life claims as inherently unverifiable and discounting entertainment journalism as an epistemically weaker genre. Taken together, these findings show that aggregate performance metrics can obscure structured false positives within legitimate journalism. We argue that LLM-based credibility assessment may not only evaluate truth claims but also differentially recognize the legitimacy of journalistic genres, and that evaluation should therefore include genre-stratified false-positive analysis alongside overall accuracy.

Huiqian Lai

School of Information Studies, Syracuse University

Credibility Headlines False-Negative Rate

May 1, 2026cs.CL

Can AI Debias the News? LLM Interventions Improve Cross-Partisan Receptivity but LLMs Overestimate Their Own Effectiveness

Partisan news media erode cross-partisan trust, but large language models (LLMs) offer a potential means of debiasing such content at scale. Across two pre-registered experiments, we tested whether LLM-generated debiasing of liberal news headlines could improve conservative readers' trust-relevant judgments. Study 1 found that subtle lexical debiasing (replacing emotive words with more moderate synonyms) had no effect on any outcome. Study 2 found that a more substantive reframing intervention significantly increased conservatives' perceived trustworthiness, completeness, and willingness to engage with liberal news headlines, without producing a backfire effect among a sample of liberals. In Study 1, the intervention produced robust effects among LLM-simulated silicon participants, whereas it had no impact on human readers. In Study 2, the intervention's effects among silicon participants aligned directionally with human responses but were significantly larger in magnitude for some outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed that the model's implicit theory of who responds to debiasing diverged from the psychological profile that actually predicted human responsiveness. These findings demonstrate that LLM-based debiasing can improve cross-partisan receptivity when targeting ideological framing rather than surface-level language, but that current models lack both the quantitative accuracy and qualitative psychological fidelity to evaluate their own interventions without human oversight.

Faisal Feroz, Jonas R. Kunst

Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford · Uehiro Oxford Institute, University of Oxford · Psychology Programme, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University +1

Large Language Model Bias Ideology Debiasing Political Discourse Credibility Headlines+1

Apr 26, 2026cs.AI

When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?

The volume of scientific submissions continues to climb, outpacing the capacity of qualified human referees and stretching editorial timelines. At the same time, modern large language models (LLMs) offer impressive capabilities in summarization, fact checking, and literature triage, making the integration of AI into peer review increasingly attractive -- and, in practice, unavoidable. Yet early deployments and informal adoption have exposed acute failure modes. Recent incidents have revealed that hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts can steer LLM-generated reviews toward unjustifiably positive judgments. Complementary studies have also demonstrated brittleness to adversarial phrasing, authority and length biases, and hallucinated claims. These episodes raise a central question for scholarly communication: when AI reviews science, can we trust the AI referee? This paper provides a security- and reliability-centered analysis of AI peer review. We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level. We instantiate this taxonomy with four treatment-control probes on a stratified set of ICLR 2025 submissions, using two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores. Together, this taxonomy and experimental audit provide an evidence-based baseline for assessing and tracking the reliability of AI peer review and highlight concrete failure points to guide targeted, testable mitigations.

Jialiang Wang, Yuchen Liu, Hang Xu +7

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR 999077, China · Key Laboratory of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Technology and Its Interdisciplinary Applications, School of Computer Science and Engeering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210000, China · These authors contributed equally +2

Peer Review Review Large Language Model Reliability Journal Credibility Scientific Discovery+2

Apr 17, 2026cs.CY

Authority Signals in Claude AI Health Citations: A Descriptive Analysis Using the Authority Signals Framework

This study seeks to determine the authority signals used by Anthropic's Claude AI in its presentation of sources when answering consumer health questions. While there exists a great deal of discourse around the quality of health citations that LLMs produce, there is limited information on the integrity of the sources the citations originate from, and to what extent the sources are, from what health professionals would consider, credible sources. This descriptive cross-sectional study used data from HealthSearchQA, which contains 3,172 consumer health questions curated by Google Research. After exclusions, a final dataset of 3,075 questions yielding 10,038 citations was analyzed. The Authority Signals Framework (Jacques et al., 2026) was applied to examine 10 authority signals across four domains for a disproportionate stratified sample of 542 sources. Established institutional sources accounted for 97.8% of all citations (n = 9,818). Medical Institutions were the most frequently cited organization type (36.5%), followed by Government Resources (31.6%) and Professional Associations (28.4%). Commercial Health Information comprised 2.2% (n = 220). The top 10 organizations accounted for 57.8% of all citations, with Mayo Clinic alone representing 24.7%. Among commercial sources in the focused sample, 86.4% displayed medical review statements, 82.5% used schema markup, and 71.8% had comprehensive content, while traditional institutional sources appeared in Claude's citations with or without these same markers. As Anthropic positions Claude for HIPAA-ready healthcare applications, these findings establish a baseline for Claude's citation behavior and demonstrate the utility of the Authority Signals Framework as a tool for ongoing, cross-platform evaluation of AI-mediated health information.

Erin T. Jacques, Erela Datuowei, Elizabeth Quaye +3

York College, CUNY · Department of Health and Human Performance, York College, The City University of New York, 94-20 Guy R. Brewer Blvd. Jamaica, NY 11451 · Teachers College, Columbia University +4

Citations Credibility Authority

Apr 8, 2026cs.AI

What Does a Sharing Question Add? Auditing LLM Survey Scores for Misinformation

Evaluating misinformation requires distinguishing whether readers believe content from whether they would share it. Asking large language models (LLMs) both questions yields two scores, but does the sharing answer contribute information beyond the credibility answer? We audit eight model versions on 290 synthetic misinformation articles, using 1,256 paired survey responses with 317 participant identifiers as an external validity criterion. An initial reversal motivates the audit: every model's raw sharing score predicts mean human sharing less accurately than its credibility score. This ordering changes after offset correction, so it does not by itself diagnose missing information. We instead distinguish score reconstructability, persistence across elicitation formats, and incremental human validity. Credibility predicts 30.8-72.5% of model-sharing variation relative to a held-out constant baseline; remaining sharing differences correlate at 0.61-0.75 across question-order and separate-question conditions. Yet adding model sharing to human and model credibility yields only -0.25% to +0.69% error reduction with fixed regression, with all exploratory intervals crossing zero. Flexible prediction and format changes do not establish an improvement. Sharing answers therefore contain structured variation beyond the observed credibility score, without established incremental validity for human sharing in these data. The findings motivate validating the contribution of each elicited outcome, beyond inspecting score differences or agreement across prompts.

Zonghuan Xu, Xiang Zheng, Yutao Wu +1

Shanghai Key Laboratory of Multimodal Embodied AI, Shanghai, China · City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China · Deakin University, Australia

Misinformation Credibility Large Language Model Reliability Large Language Model Evaluation Elicitation Scores+1

Mar 21, 2026cs.AI

Subjective-Graph LLM Agents for Simulating Uncertainty in Classroom Social Perception

Social actors do not observe a common social world: each individual forms judgments from a partial and potentially distorted view of the surrounding network. We study whether graph-local evidence and credibility-weighted communication can generate persistent distortions in perceived academic standing, even when agents repeatedly receive objective performance signals. We introduce a data-constrained multi-agent framework in which LLM agents operate through individualized subjective graphs that determine peer visibility, evidence access, and interaction opportunities. Agents exchange uncertainty-annotated assessments, evaluate message credibility, and maintain explicit Gaussian belief states updated through Bayesian fusion. We evaluate the framework on 12 middle-school classrooms comprising 482 students, using questionnaire-derived social information and six consecutive examinations. On the Social-Observed subset (n=419), collective ranking error increases from 0.066 \pm 0.008 to 0.124 \pm 0.009 across six epochs despite repeated exam-based anchoring. Ablations associate individualized visibility and LLM-based trust gating with more stable long-horizon behavior, while constrained retrieval primarily safeguards against global-information leakage. Compared with evaluated DeGroot configurations, the proposed framework achieves lower final ranking error; those DeGroot configurations exhibit near-zero terminal opinion diversity. These findings establish subjective-graph LLM agents as a mechanism-oriented framework for data-constrained simulated social perception. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Rashomonomon-0126.

Jinming Yang, Xinyu Jiang, Xinshan Jiao +1

Complex Lab, School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China · Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong · School of Health and Medical Technology, Chengdu Neusoft University, Chengdu,2026 China

Scaling Improve Social Simulation Classrooms Credibility Visibility

Sep 17, 2024cs.CL

CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark

AI agents have the potential to aid users on a variety of consequential tasks, including conducting scientific research. To spur the development of useful agents, we need benchmarks that are challenging, but more crucially, directly correspond to real-world tasks of interest. This paper introduces such a benchmark, designed to measure the accuracy of AI agents in tackling a crucial yet surprisingly challenging aspect of scientific research: computational reproducibility. This task, fundamental to the scientific process, involves reproducing the results of a study using the provided code and data. We introduce CORE-Bench (Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark), a benchmark consisting of 270 tasks based on 90 scientific papers across three disciplines (computer science, social science, and medicine). Tasks in CORE-Bench consist of three difficulty levels and include both language-only and vision-language tasks. We provide an evaluation system to measure the accuracy of agents in a fast and parallelizable way, saving days of evaluation time for each run compared to a sequential implementation. We evaluated two baseline agents: the general-purpose AutoGPT and a task-specific agent called CORE-Agent. We tested both variants using two underlying language models: GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini. The best agent achieved an accuracy of 21% on the hardest task, showing the vast scope for improvement in automating routine scientific tasks. Having agents that can reproduce existing work is a necessary step towards building agents that can conduct novel research and could verify and improve the performance of other research agents. We hope that CORE-Bench can improve the state of reproducibility and spur the development of future research agents.

Zachary S. Siegel, Sayash Kapoor, Nitya Nadgir +2

Princeton University

Reproducibility Artificial Intelligence Scientists Agentic Benchmarks Credibility

May 3, 2024cs.CL

Abstention vs. Hallucination: Benchmarking LLM Source Attribution for Scientific Citations

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate citation-backed responses, yet citation hallucination remains a major challenge for trustworthy scientific information access. We introduce REASONS, a benchmark of 12,723 sentence-level citation instances spanning 12 arXiv subject categories, designed to evaluate scientific citation attribution under varying evidence conditions. We propose a dual-metric framework consisting of Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR) to characterize the trade-off between reliability and responsiveness. Using author-attribution and title-attribution tasks, we evaluate proprietary and open-source LLMs under zero-context, metadata-augmented, cascaded metadata-augmented prompting (CMP), retrieval-augmented, and adversarial settings. Advanced RAG lowers HR relative to Naive RAG (65.4% vs. 87.6%) but reduces AR from 5.0% to 0%. Under adversarial metadata, several systems exceed 85% HR, while retrieval-augmented variants frequently maintain near-zero abstention. Human evaluation of 1,000 outputs (

κ=0.78

) finds a 12.7:1 ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases. Our findings demonstrate that citation attribution systems should be evaluated not only for correctness but also for their ability to abstain appropriately under uncertainty. REASONS provides a benchmark and evaluation framework for studying attribution reliability in citation generation.

Deepa Tilwani, Yash Saxena, Seyedali Mohammadi +5

Artificial Intelligence Institute, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA · University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland, USA · IAIRO, India +1

Citations Large Language Model Reliability Hallucination Rate Citation Hallucination Scientific Discovery Credibility+1