Misinformation

With the rapid spread of news on social media, understanding the propagation of misinformation is becoming increasingly important. One factor that affects individuals' vulnerability to false information is their ideological predisposition. Despite the large number of agent-based models that focus on social influence as a driver of the spread of false claims, they often fail to explicitly integrate personal ideological biases into belief formation. In this work, we explore how misinformation spreads through the interaction between individuals' ideological biases and social influence. Our model accounts for both the strength of individuals' ideological biases and the extent to which a false claim aligns with their ideology. Social influence modifies the effects of ideological intensity and false claim alignment through network interactions. Notably, the influence of neighbours' ideological intensity on belief is strongly affected by how well those neighbours are connected to one another. These results highlight the importance of considering both network structure and personal ideological biases when modelling misinformation propagation.

This paper presents a multi-branch fusion framework for detecting and characterising the propagation of health misinformation in online social networks (OSNs). Grounded in the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), the model fuses transformer-based semantics with rhetorical cues, stance representations, and psychologically motivated proxies in a unified multi-task architecture. In addition to binary classification, we introduce the Cognitive Propagation Score (CPS), an interpretable post-hoc auxiliary score computed from psychologically motivated, text-derived cues capturing argument complexity, emotional intensity, and content-derived virality potential, to support diffusion-risk reasoning when engagement ground truth is incomplete or unavailable. Experiments on three benchmark datasets, Constraint, COVID--19_FNIR, and Monkeypox, show strong classification performance, achieving ROC--AUC up to 0.9999 on COVID--19_FNIR, while propagation-oriented ranking achieves near-perfect agreement when engagement-derived supervision is available (Monkeypox, Spearman's $ρ= 0.9952$) and similarly high ranking alignment under proxy-based supervision on COVID--19_FNIR ($ρ= 0.9954$). Compared with representative literature baselines, the fusion model improves detection on Constraint and COVID--19_FNIR, while Monkeypox remains more challenging, reflecting domain- and signal-specific differences. Ablation analysis further indicates that psychological and rhetorical branches provide complementary gains beyond semantic embeddings. Overall, the framework bridges cognitive theory and neural modelling to improve transparency and to support scalable misinformation monitoring, with future work required to validate CPS against human-centred diffusion judgements.

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.

With the rapid diffusion of AI-generated content, AI-driven misinformation is becoming increasingly pervasive and difficult to govern, undermining information credibility and social trust. This study models the strategic interdependence among a government regulator, an AI enterprise, and users through a three-party evolutionary game that incorporates heterogeneous rewards and punishments. From the resulting replicator equations, we characterize the evolutionary stability of competing governance and production strategies. The analysis indicates that neither unilateral regulation nor market incentives alone can effectively curb misinformation. Instead, an evolutionarily stable regime of real-information production arises only when regulatory rewards and punishment intensity, enterprise reputation loss, and user adoption incentives collectively surpass critical thresholds. The findings highlight the need for coordinated and adaptive policy mixes that align regulatory instruments with enterprise behavior and user uptake while managing governance costs.

The proliferation of misinformation online has driven demand for scalable detection systems. While most existing approaches rely on surface-level linguistic features or external knowledge retrieval, we examine truthfulness as a geometric property of a language model's representation space. We introduce a misinformation detection framework grounded in activation engineering, which leverages the latent geometry of transformer models. Our approach elicits a misinformation direction in the residual stream by contrasting activations from paired truthful and false statements, following the difference-in-means principle of Contrastive Activation Addition (CAA). At inference time, the last-token activation of an unseen claim is projected onto this direction, and the projected representation is fed to an Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) for classification. The procedure requires no fine-tuning of the backbone model, no external evidence retrieval, and no task-specific supervision beyond the contrastive pairs used to estimate the direction. We evaluate the method across 11 models from the Gemma, Llama, and Qwen families, ranging from 270M to 12B parameters, on three fact-checking benchmarks: AVeriTeC, LIAR, and FACTors. The falsehood direction is recoverable across model scales and architectural families, and last-token projection matches or surpasses zero-shot and few-shot prompting baselines on LIAR and FACTors, with the largest gains observed for smaller models. Performance on AVeriTeC is more limited, which we attribute to its evidence-grounded labeling scheme. These findings provide evidence that truthfulness is a structured, linearly separable concept in the latent space of pretrained language models, and point toward interpretability-driven misinformation detection as a practical complement to retrieval-based pipelines. The code is available on https://github.com/Malta-Lab/LaFaCt.

The spread of misinformation is widely perceived as a threat to democratic deliberation, yet how political elites' rhetorical commitments to truth shift alongside the rise of populist actors remains poorly understood. Analysing 4.5 million tweets and 59,170 parliamentary speeches by German political elites between 2015 and 2025, we measure evidence-based and intuition-based rhetoric using a validated distributed dictionary representation. Across both arenas, intuition-based language has become more prominent, and right-leaning actors consistently exhibit the lowest Evidence Minus Intuition (EMI) scores. The parliamentary entry of the extreme-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) in 2017 coincides with sharp downward shifts in EMI across the broader chamber, while a more gradual decline is observed on Twitter. These findings document an association between far-right visibility and a changing approach to truth in elite discourse in a multiparty European democracy.

LLM-based multi-agent systems promise effective collaborative reasoning, but communication may amplify local errors into collective risks, and while existing evaluations emphasize final outcomes, they leave the reliability and propagation dynamics of distributed information aggregation unclear, so we introduce ForesightSafety-TIDE, a controlled evaluation framework that strictly pairs all-honest collaboration with controlled deception by a key evidence holder and analyzes the aggregation process through multi-stage voting, testimony adoption, and evidence-root lineage propagation, and using 120 five-agent object-movement environments where partial observations jointly determine a unique endpoint, we evaluate 3 homogeneous LLM-based multi-agent systems, and across these paired conditions, aggregate truth recovery falls from 72.50% to 14.17%, with significant declines for every system, while process tracing and exit ablations show that a single false testimony is adopted more readily than truthful testimony, propagates to higher orders, and persists through honest agents after the deceiver exits, and observers without first-hand evidence suppress incorrect consensus but do not improve truth recovery, so together, these findings reveal both the fragility of distributed fact recovery and its underlying mechanism: false evidence gains collective influence through its adoption and continued propagation by other agents after entering communication.

The rapid spread of false and misleading health information through digital platforms has become a major public health challenge, particularly during infectious disease outbreaks where delayed verification can influence public behaviour and hinder effective disease control. Although recent advances in automated health misinformation detection have shown encouraging results, most existing approaches rely heavily on global biomedical resources and often fail to capture the local context needed to verify claims in developing countries. This study presents a retrieval-augmented transformer framework designed to verify health-related claims using trusted evidence from the World Health Organization and the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. The framework combines semantic evidence retrieval with transformer-based classification to determine whether a claim is true, false, or misleading. To evaluate the proposed approach, a manually annotated dataset of 67 verified health claims covering coronavirus disease, Lassa fever, cholera, measles, and monkeypox was compiled from Nigerian fact-checking sources. Three transformer models and a retrieval-augmented configuration were evaluated. The Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers model achieved the best performance, with an accuracy of 71% and a weighted F1-score of 0.66. Although retrieval augmentation did not improve classification performance because the current evidence repository was limited in size and coverage, the findings highlight the importance of comprehensive and authoritative knowledge sources for reliable health misinformation verification. The proposed framework provides a practical foundation for developing context-aware and evidence-driven health misinformation verification systems for Nigeria and other resource-constrained settings.

Financial statements (FS) such as Balance Sheet (BS), Income Statement (IS) and Cash-flow Statement (CS) summarize the annual financial performance of a company. FS are widely used for evaluating corporate governance, credit appraisal, risk analysis, validate taxation, make investment decisions etc. Financial auditing is a complex and knowledge-intensive discipline whose one important aim is ensuring integrity, accuracy, fairness and absence of material misstatement in the published FS. Given the importance of FS, there are incentives to hide, omit or falsify information to misrepresent the true financial health of the company; e.g., reduce tax liabilities, or increase investor confidence. Given the complex, time-consuming and expertise-dependent nature of auditing, auditors would benefit from an AI-assisted system that automatically detects instances of misinformation in the given FS and identify likely sources of this misinformation in the financial data. In this paper, we present unsupervised techniques to identify misinformation in FS, and also generate explanations as to the financial variables that are likely sources of misinformation. The auditor can then explore in more detail the associated data sources and business processes to validate these suggestions. A crucial feature of our approach is the use of past corpus of FS and associated audit reports to generate insights, which help in providing assistance. We demonstrate the efficacy of these techniques on a large corpus of 11,460 FS over 5 years and associated audit reports. This paper integrates and adds more novel contributions over the previously reported research (Shinde et al., 2022)\cite{SVAP22}, (Vaishampayan et al., 2022)\cite{VSPP22}, (Pawar et al., 2023)\cite{PAPV23}, which we have used as the foundation for our AI-assisted Auditor Assistance system.

Cancer-related discussions on social media provide an important space for information exchange and peer support, but also facilitate the spread of misinformation that may influence prevention, screening, and treatment decisions. Existing research on cancer misinformation often relies on narrow definitions, small-scale datasets, or binary labeling frameworks. We introduce a multi-dimensional taxonomy for characterizing cancer misinformation in Reddit discussions of breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancer. The taxonomy captures seven dimensions, including misinformation presence, information type, risk level, stance, and topical focus. Using expert-annotated data, we evaluate multiple large language models (LLMs) for scalable misinformation annotation and analyze cancer misinformation across Reddit communities. Our results show that cancer-related misinformation constitutes approximately 6% of Reddit cancer discussions, with substantial variation across communities and misinformation topics. Few-shot prompting substantially improves classification performance, particularly for nuanced taxonomy dimensions. We additionally identify recurring misinformation narratives centered on unsupported treatments, distrust of conventional medicine, and misleading claims about diagnosis and screening. Our taxonomy, dataset, and findings provide a foundation for multi-dimensional modeling of online cancer misinformation.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, while serving as a foundational enabler for modern social media and digital health services, exert a bivalent effect by simultaneously acting as a combatant against and a spread vector for misinformation. A prevalent challenge in mitigating this issue arises in non-English contexts and low socioeconomic classes, where limited data hinders the training of AI models for effective detection. Consequently, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities struggle to access trustworthy health information through AI-driven tools. Current AI tools underperform due to a lack of training data and are largely unable to consider language nuances and traditions in non-English contexts. This research addresses these gaps by proposing a CALD-friendly AI-based health misinformation detector and providing a dashboard for medical professionals to analyse this misinformation, a critical step toward mitigating a growing concern among CALD populations. To this end, we conduct a series of experiments using a Bangla-translated health misinformation dataset to evaluate the performance of various Small Language Models (SLMs). SLMs are particularly relevant in this context given the frequent underperformance of Large Language Models (LLMs), which often stems from insufficient domain-specific knowledge and the prohibitive costs of resource-intensive fine-tuning. The results demonstrate that Phi-4 is the superior model, achieving an ideal balance between precision and recall in claim extraction. Then, to mitigate the limitations of SLMs, we design and test a novel health misinformation detection framework grounded in Responsible Natural Language Processing (NLP), which incorporates cultural sensitivity, potential for harm, and communication quality, thereby providing a holistic lens for evaluating misinformation in low-resource languages.

Large language models (LLMs) have transformed misinformation from a primarily content-centric problem into a broader ecosystem-level security challenge. When misused, LLMs create risks beyond false content generation, enabling attacks on the social contexts, evidence sources, retrieval corpora, and verification workflows that misinformation defense depends on. In this paper, we introduce a role-layer framework to unify these risks and defenses. The role dimension characterizes LLMs as attackers, defenders, and vulnerable components of verification systems, while the layer dimension covers content, social contexts, evidence environments, and verification workflows. Guided by this framework, we organize LLM-enabled attacks, investigate LLM-based detection and verification methods, analyze vulnerabilities in LLM-centric detection paradigms, and discuss existing countermeasures against LLM-enabled attacks. Building on this synthesis, we identify three key open challenges: moving from static detection accuracy to budgeted ecosystem-level risk evaluation, hardening LLM-centered verification pipelines against adversarial manipulation, and deploying auditable human-in-the-loop verification systems for trustworthy real-world misinformation defense.

We outline an adversarial social epistemology (ASE) for densely interactive communicative landscapes in which public assertions are scaffolded by chains of testimony, inference, institutional certification, and tacit trust. In such landscapes, agents have incentives and affordances to distort, color, omit, fabricate, or strategically under-specify information for private, reputational, rhetorical, or material gains. We argue that these phenomena are not adequately captured by familiar descriptions of epistemic bubbles, echo chambers, or misinformation diffusion. What requires explanation is how communicative agents exploit the commitments and entitlements that normally make scaffolded assertions trustworthy. We provide language that delivers the requisite analysis, outline mechanisms that subvert trust in scaffolded public communications, and outline machinery for auditing and redressing trust breaches arising from subverting the auditability of inferential chains, drawing on epistemic networks, enriched with an inferentialist semantics for interpreting assertions.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves factuality by grounding LLMs in external evidence, but real-world retrieval is often polluted: semantically relevant passages may contain subtle misinformation, misleading framings, or fabrications. We introduce MIRAGE, a training-free, model-agnostic defense for long-form RAG. MIRAGE builds an NLI-based cross-document claim graph and applies a Defended-Claims Gate to either condition generation on a consistent, multi-source supported subset or to block retrieval and answer parametrically. We also release a minimal-edit pollution protocol spanning four perturbation families (Unambiguous, Conflicting, Misleading, Fabricated) to construct matched clean, mixed, and fully polluted evaluation regimes. Across four long-form QA benchmarks and multiple commercial and open-weight LLMs, pollution severely degrades vanilla RAG, while MIRAGE consistently restores factuality under mixed and fully polluted evidence and outperforms prior robust-RAG methods. Our implementation and datasets are available at https://github.com/SaadElDine/MIRAGE.

On social media, many users actively push back against false claims. Understanding who pushes back and how they do so matters, as this corrective activity is central to how misinformation is contested. We study this counter-misinformation ecosystem at scale: applying a domain-specific NLI model from our prior work to a large corpus of COVID-19 tweets, we classify 264,737 posts as supporting or opposing false claims and compare 23 user- and text-level features across the two groups. Contrary to the dominant assumption that negative emotion is a signature of falsehood, we find that anti-misinformation posts are more emotionally negative than pro-misinformation posts, with higher levels of anger, disgust, and sadness. These differences are modest in magnitude but consistent in direction across the negative emotions. We also find that posts opposing misinformation tend to come from more established users, i.e., older accounts, more followers, and higher listed counts.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate social survey responses, yet their outputs exhibit systematic biases: marginal distributions are skewed, response variance is poorly calibrated, and predictor-outcome relationships are attenuated. We ask a simple question: given a small pilot sample of human responses, can an LLM recover the statistical characteristics of a broader population? We decompose recovery along three axes: structural fidelity, marginal fidelity, and individual fidelity. Using a COVID-19 misinformation survey as a case study, we benchmark three families of approaches: prompting, rectification, and fine-tuning. The findings suggest that fine-tuning on small pilot samples offers a balanced approach for achieving multiple forms of fidelity, but the levels of such fidelity can vary across subsamples, potentially threatening pluralistic alignment.

Online hate speech and misinformation frequently overlap, yet NLP research has mainly treated them in isolation. While LLMs represent a scalable solution for assisting humans in the generation of counterspeech for both threats, zero-shot models frequently generate repetitive and vague responses, underscoring the need for high-quality examples to steer model generation. However, existing counterspeech datasets against the overlap of hate and misinformation are scarce and limited to single-turn English dialogues, while real-life interactions span across multiple turns and languages. To bridge this gap, we introduce the first large-scale, expert-curated, multilingual dataset of dialogues tackling the intersection of hate and misinformation. To ensure factual grounding, the dialogues are also anchored in verified external knowledge (i.e., fact-checking articles and NGO reports) and include document- and chunk-level span annotations, making it directly applicable for RAG systems. Covering five languages and targeting hate directed at seven marginalized groups, this novel resource enables the training and evaluation of more persuasive, factually grounded counterspeech models.

Multi-agent systems, in which multiple large language model agents solve problems through turn-based interaction, are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings such as medical diagnosis, legal analysis, and forensic decision-making. Their reliability can be at risk when single agents reason from incorrect or misleading context, e.g., from tool calls, since errors may propagate through agent interactions. This work studies this risk by injecting intent-based misinformation into benign single-agent and multi-agent systems across reasoning, knowledge, and alignment tasks. We find that misinformation can degrade single-agent performance and persists across multi-agent debate, with agents often retaining answers introduced by misinformed peers. Nevertheless, multi-agent debate reduces the resulting performance degradation compared to single-agent prompting, especially when most agents are not exposed to misinformation. Robustness depends on group composition and decision protocol. Consensus can be more stable than voting under peer pressure, while majorities can often steer misinformed agents back toward correct answers. Our results show that misinformation robustness in multi-agent systems depends on the underlying model and also on how agents exchange information and aggregate decisions.

Spoken factual claims often occur within multi-turn conversations, where surrounding dialogue can provide context unavailable from the claim alone. Yet most fact-checking research evaluates isolated text, leaving conversational audio under-studied. We introduce MAD2, a synthetic Multi-turn Audio Dialogues benchmark for spoken claim verification with 1,000 two-speaker dialogues, 1,230 sentence-level check-worthy candidate annotations, and approximately 10 hours of audio. We also propose calibrated multimodal fusion of a context-aware audio encoder and a dialogue-aware text model. Adding dialogue context improves verification across settings, although the gains vary by scenario. Past-only context often approaches local offline performance, suggesting its usefulness when future context is unavailable. Fusion achieves its highest mean advantage over text with full-dialogue context, but does not consistently or significantly outperform text across settings. Under full-dialogue context, exploratory subgroup results show greater performance variation across dialogue scenarios for text and fusion, but across spread styles for audio.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely used to improve the factual reliability of large language models (LLMs) by grounding answers in retrieved evidence. In misinformation-rich environments, however, retrieved content may include plausible but incorrect information, raising concerns about the reliability of RAG-based information access systems. In this work, we propose an evaluation protocol to systematically test how the RAG system handles conflicts between parametric knowledge and evidence retrieved from context with varying amounts of misleading information. We target correct answers to factoid questions that the model responds to correctly, even when there is no retrieval, and use this to test the system with clean, poisoned, and mixed evidence. The proposed analytical framework combines parametric override and confidence metrics to assess when and how misleading information affects the generation process of LLMs. This study aims to provide insights into the robustness of RAG systems in information disorder scenarios.

As large language models (LLMs) become default tools for online information verification, an implicit assumption follows them: that scale and general capability are sufficient for nuanced classification of misinformation discourse. We test this assumption directly on 900 Reddit comments spanning three PolitiFact-verified misinformation claims (environment, health, immigration), labelled as belief (propagates the claim), fact-check (corrects it), or other. We compare nine models across three paradigms -- BART-MNLI, three Llama variants, three commercial frontier LLMs (Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini Flash Lite 2.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6), and fine-tuned DistilBERT and RoBERTa -- under universal and topic-specific label schemas. The assumption does not hold. Fine-tuned RoBERTa reaches 0.62 macro-$F_1$ against a best zero-shot result of 0.50 (Claude Haiku 4.5), at a fraction of the per-query cost; the supervised advantage is concentrated on the belief class, the implicit, affective category every zero-shot model under-detects. Scaling does not help: Llama-3-8B matches Llama-3-70B, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 underperforms the smaller Haiku under generic labels, collapsing belief detection to 0.17 and refusing outright on a subset of comments flagged as sensitive. This is a safety-alignment artefact, not a capacity limit. Label schema and topic jointly shape zero-shot performance, with the same model varying by more than 0.13 macro-$F_1$ across topics under matched labels. In a verification context, where missing belief is the costlier error, task-specific fine-tuning remains the more reliable choice despite the proliferation of large generative models.

Identifying logical fallacies in everyday discourse is challenging for many people. This challenge is amplified in the era of Large Language Models (LLMs), where malicious agents can deploy fallacious arguments to disseminate misinformation at scale. In this work, we explore the potential of LLMs as part of the solution. We introduce LFTutor, an intelligent tutoring system which uses LLMs to tutor laypeople and help them learn about logical fallacies. LFTutor integrates intent-driven Socratic questioning and critical argumentation principles to actively engage learners to reflect on their reasoning. Through both automatic and human evaluations, we demonstrate that LFTutor significantly outperforms baseline LLMs lacking these pedagogical strategies. This work highlights the promise of combining LLMs with pedagogical scaffolding to foster critical thinking and argument literacy in the age of AI.

Hate speech and misinformation frequently co-occur online, amplifying prejudice and polarization. Given their scale, using Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist expert counterspeech (CS) writing has gained interest, yet prior work has addressed these phenomena separately. We bridge this gap by studying CS generation in contexts where both hate and misinformation co-occur. We test three knowledge-driven generation strategies: first we prompt an LLM with fact-checkers' guidelines and fact-checking articles; secondly, with NGOs' guidelines and reports; thirdly, we create a mixed strategy that combines guidelines and documents from both. 23 experts revise the generated CS, which are assessed via human and automatic metrics. While LLMs produce adequate CS in 40% of cases, expert edits substantially improve naturalness, exhaustiveness, and adherence to guidelines. Based on the post-edited CS, the mixed strategy proves to be the most effective in crowdsourcing evaluation, pairing strong factual correction with stereotype mitigation and empathetic engagement. We release a dataset of hateful and misinformed claims with expert-verified CS and supporting knowledge.

The rapid spread of misinformation on social media platforms has become a formidable challenge. To mitigate its proliferation, Misinformation Detection (MD) has emerged as a critical research topic. Traditional MD approaches based on small models typically perform binary classification through a black-box process. Recently, the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has enabled explainable MD, where models generate rationales that explain their decisions, thereby enhancing transparency. Existing explainable MD methods primarily focus on crafting sophisticated prompts to elicit rationales from off-the-shelf LLMs. In this work, we propose a pipeline to fine-tune a dedicated LLM specifically for explainable MD. Our pipeline begins by collecting large-scale fact-checked articles, and then uses multiple strong LLMs to produce veracity predictions and rationales. To ensure high-quality training data, we leverage a filtering strategy that selects only the correct instances for fine-tuning. While this pipeline is intuitive and prevalent, our experiments reveal that naive filtering based solely on label correctness is insufficient in practice and suffers from two critical limitations: (1) Coarse-grained labels cause insufficient rationales: Rationales filtered solely based on binary labels are insufficient to adequately support their decisions; (2) Over-verification behavior causes unnecessary rationales: Stronger LLMs tend to exhibit over-verification behavior, producing excessively verbose and unnecessary rationales. To address these issues, we introduce LONSREX, a novel data synthesis pipeline to Locate Necessary and Sufficient Rationales for Explainable MD. Specifically, we propose a metric that quantifies the contribution of each verification step to the final prediction, thereby evaluating its necessity and sufficiency. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of LONSREX.

With the vast amount of content uploaded every hour, along with the AI generated content that can include hallucinations, Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) has become increasingly vital, as it is infeasible for human fact-checkers to manually verify the sheer volume of information generated online. Professional fact-checkers have identified several gaps in existing AFC systems, noting a misalignment between how these systems operate and how fact-checking is performed in practice. In this paper, we introduce CAAFC (Chronological Actionable Automated Fact-Checker), a frame-work designed to bridge these gaps. It surpasses SOTA AFC and hallucination detection systems across multiple benchmark datasets. CAAFC operates on claims, conversations, and dialogues, enabling it not only to detect factual errors and hallucinations, but also to correct them by providing actionable justifications supported by primary information sources. Furthermore, CAAFC can update evidence and knowledge bases by incorporating recent and contextual information when necessary, thereby enhancing the reliability of fact verification.

Nearly a decade of Machine Learning (ML) research on deepfake detection has been organized around a threat model inherited from 2017--2019, revolving around face-swap and talking-head manipulation of public figures, motivated by concerns about large-scale misinformation and video-evidence fraud. This position paper argues that the threat the field prepared for did not arrive, and the threats that did arrive are substantially different. An accounting of deepfake incidents in 2022--2026 shows that the dominant observed harms are peer-generated Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery (NCII), voice-clone scam calls targeting families and finance workers, and emotional-manipulation fraud. The predicted large-scale public-figure deepfake catastrophe did not materialize during the 2024 global information environment despite extensive preparation. Meanwhile, research effort, benchmarks, and detection methods remain concentrated on the inherited threat model. The central claim of this paper is that this misalignment is now the dominant bottleneck on real-world deepfake defense, not model capability. We argue the ML research community should substantially rebalance its research agenda toward the harm categories that are actually growing. We support this position with empirical accounting of research effort and harm distribution, identify the structural reasons the misalignment persists, and outline three concrete technical research agendas for the under-defended harm categories.

In this (work in progress) paper, we present Bounded Pragmatic Listener (or BPL), a cognitively grounded Bayesian framework for modelling susceptibility to information disorder. BPL extends Rational Speech Act theory with three cognitively motivated bounds derived from the bounded rationality literature with a) a recursion depth bound (that emphasises working memory limits);b) a prior compression parameter (which is oriented at capturing information bottleneck); and c) an availability sample size (that operationalises importance sampling with saliency-weighted proposals). This allows us to test predictions about misinformation susceptibility, annotator disagreement, and the differential vulnerability to mis-, dis-, and mal-information as defined in the Information Disorder framework. We validate BPL on the LIAR and MultiFC benchmarks showcasing competitive veracity classification and experimental support for the depth-mismatch paradox.

This paper is accepted and in press for AI and Ethics. This paper includes the supplementary data file at the end of the manuscript. This study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions and demonstrates how easily they can be influenced by fringe scientific material. The authors modified custom LLMs to prioritise knowledge in selected fringe papers on the Fine Structure Constant and Gravitational Waves, then compared their responses with those of domain experts and standard LLMs. The altered models produced fluent, convincing answers that contradicted scientific consensus and were difficult for non-experts to detect as misleading. The results show that LLMs are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot replace expert judgment, highlighting risks for public understanding of science and the potential spread of misinformation.

Health misinformation remains one of the most pressing challenges on social media, particularly when cultural traditions intersect with scientific-sounding claims. These dynamics are not only global but also deeply local, manifesting in culturally specific controversies that require careful analysis. Motivated by this, we examine 100 YouTube transcripts that promote or debunk cow urine (gomutra) as a health remedy, focusing on rhetorical strategies such as appeals to authority, efficacy appeals, and conspiracy framing. We employ large language models (LLMs) including GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Mistral Medium 3 to annotate transcripts using a 14-category taxonomy of persuasive tactics. Our analysis reveals that promoters predominantly rely on efficacy appeals and social proof, while debunkers emphasize authority and rebuttal. Human evaluation of a subset of annotations yielded 90.1% inter-annotator agreement, confirming the reliability of our taxonomy and validation process. This work advances computational methods for misinformation analysis and demonstrates how LLMs can support large-scale studies of cultural discourse online.

Social media platforms have become primary channels for health information in the Global South. Using gomutra (cow urine) discourse on YouTube in India as a case study, we present a post-facto Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted discourse analysis of 30 multilingual transcripts showing that promotional content blends sacred traditional language with pseudo-scientific claims in ways that sophisticated debunking content itself mirrors, creating a rhetorical register that LLMs, trained predominantly on Western corpora, are systematically ill-equipped to analyse. Varying prompt tone across three LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.1), we find that culturally embedded health misinformation does not look like ordinary misinformation, and this cultural obfuscation extends to gendered rhetoric and prompt design, compounding analytical unreliability. Our findings argue that cultural competency in LLM-assisted discourse analysis cannot be retrofitted through prompt engineering alone.

Online misinformation is one of the most challenging issues lately, yielding severe consequences, including political polarization, attacks on democracy, and public health risks. Misinformation manifests in any platform with a large user base, including online social networks and messaging apps. It permeates all media and content forms, including images, text, audio, and video. Distinctly, video-based misinformation represents a multifaceted challenge for fact-checkers, given the ease with which individuals can record and upload videos on various video-sharing platforms. Previous research efforts investigated detecting video-based misinformation, focusing on whether a video shares misinformation or not on a video level. While this approach is useful, it only provides a limited and non-easily interpretable view of the problem given that it does not provide an additional context of when misinformation occurs within videos and what content (i.e., claims) are responsible for the video's misinformation nature. In this work, we attempt to bridge this research gap by creating two novel datasets that allow us to explore misinformation detection on videos via audio transcripts, focusing on identifying the span of videos that are responsible for the video's misinformation claim (misinformation span detection). We present two new datasets for this task. We transcribe each video's audio to text, identifying the video segment in which the misinformation claims appears, resulting in two datasets of more than 500 videos with over 2,400 segments containing annotated fact-checked claims. Then, we employ classifiers built with state-of-the-art language models, and our results show that we can identify in which part of a video there is misinformation with an F1 score of 0.68. We make publicly available our annotated datasets. We also release all transcripts, audio and videos.

General-purpose LLMs pose misinformation risks for development and policy experts, lacking epistemic humility for verifiable outputs. We present AVA (AI + Verified Analysis), a GenAI platform built on a curated library of over 4,000 World Bank Reports with multilingual capabilities. AVA's multi-agent pipeline enables users to query and receive evidence-based syntheses. It operationalizes epistemic humility through two mechanisms: citation verifiability (tracing claims to sources) and reasoned abstention (declining unsupported queries with justification and redirection). We conducted an in-the-wild evaluation with over 2,200 individuals from heterogeneous organisations and roles in 116 countries, via log analysis, surveys, and 20 interviews. Difference-in-Differences estimates associate sustained engagement with 2.4-3.9 hours saved weekly. Qualitatively, participants used AVA as a specialized "evidence engine"; reasoned abstention clarified scope boundaries, and trust was calibrated through institutional provenance and page-anchored citations. We contribute design guidelines for specialized AI and articulate a vision for "ecosystem-aware" Humble AI.

Audio platforms have evolved beyond entertainment. They have become central to public discourse, from podcasts and radio to WhatsApp voice notes and live streams. With millions of shows and hundreds of millions of listeners, audio platforms are now a major channel for misinformation. Yet existing fact-checking pipelines are mostly designed for written claims, overlooking the unique properties of spoken media. We argue that audio misinformation is not merely textual content with transcripts: it is structurally different because it is both spoken - carrying persuasive force through prosody, pacing, and emotion - and conversational - unfolding across turns, speakers, and episodes. These dual properties introduce verification difficulties that traditional methods rarely face. This position paper synthesizes evidence across modalities and platforms, examines datasets and methods, and highlights why existing pipelines fail on audio. We argue that advancing fact-checking requires rethinking verification pipelines around the spoken and conversational realities of audio.

The proliferation of financial misinformation poses a severe threat to market stability and investor trust, misleading market behavior and creating critical information asymmetry. Detecting such misleading narratives is inherently challenging, particularly in real-world scenarios where external evidence or supplementary references for cross-verification are strictly unavailable. This paper presents our winning methodology for the "Reference-Free Financial Misinformation Detection" shared task. Built upon the recently proposed RFC-BENCH framework (Jiang et al. 2026), this task challenges models to determine the veracity of financial claims by relying solely on internal semantic understanding and contextual consistency, rather than external fact-checking. To address this formidable evaluation setup, we propose a comprehensive framework that capitalizes on the reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs). Our approach systematically integrates in-context learning, specifically zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies, with Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) via Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) to optimally align the models with the subtle linguistic cues of financial manipulation. Our proposed system demonstrated superior efficacy, successfully securing the first-place ranking on both official leaderboards. Specifically, we achieved an accuracy of 95.4% on the public test set and 96.3% on the private test set, highlighting the robustness of our method and contributing to the acceleration of context-aware misinformation detection in financial Natural Language Processing. Our models (14B and 32B) are available at https://huggingface.co/KaiNKaiho.

The rapid advancement of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) capabilities is accompanied by a concerning rise in its misuse. In particular the generation of credible misinformation in the form of images poses a significant threat to the public trust in democratic processes. Consequently, there is an urgent need to develop tools to reliably distinguish between authentic and AI-generated content. The majority of detection methods are based on neural networks that are trained to recognize forensic artifacts. In this work, we demonstrate that current state-of-the-art classifiers are vulnerable to adversarial examples under real-world conditions. Through extensive experiments, comprising four detection methods and five attack algorithms, we show that an attacker can dramatically decrease classification performance, without internal knowledge of the detector's architecture. Notably, most attacks remain effective even when images are degraded during the upload to, e.g., social media platforms. In a case study, we demonstrate that these robustness challenges are also found in commercial tools by conducting black-box attacks on HIVE, a proprietary online GenAI media detector. In addition, we evaluate the robustness of using generated features of a robust pre-trained model and showed that this increases the robustness, while not reaching the performance on benign inputs. These results, along with the increasing potential of GenAI to erode public trust, underscore the need for more research and new perspectives on methods to prevent its misuse.