Stefano Mizzaro

Michael Soprano, Andrea Cioci, Stefano Mizzaro

Deepfakes are increasingly realistic and easy to produce, raising concerns about the reliability of human judgments in misinformation settings. We study audiovisual deepfake detection by measuring how consistently crowd workers distinguish authentic from manipulated videos and, when they flag a video as manipulated, how accurately they identify the manipulation type (audio-only, video-only, or audio-video) and how consistently they report manipulation timestamps. We run two matched crowdsourcing studies on Prolific using AV-Deepfake1M and the Trusted Media Challenge (TMC) dataset. We sample 48 videos per dataset (96 total) and collect 960 judgments (10 per video). Results show that crowd workers rarely misclassify authentic videos as manipulated, but they miss many manipulations, and agreement remains limited across videos. Aggregating multiple judgments per video stabilizes the authenticity signal, but it cannot recover manipulations that most workers consistently miss. Manipulation type identification is substantially noisier than authenticity detection even when workers detect a manipulation, with joint audio-video cases being particularly hard to recognize. Overall, these findings suggest that crowdsourcing can provide a scalable screening signal for audiovisual authenticity, while reliable modality attribution remains an open challenge.

Stef De Sabbata, Rahul Baiju, Stefano Mizzaro et al.

The increased use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in geography raises substantial questions about the safety of integrating these tools across a wide range of processes and analyses, given our very limited understanding of their inner workings. In this extended abstract, we examine how LLMs process relative geographic space using activation patching, an emerging tool for mechanistic interpretability.

Riccardo Lunardi, Vincenzo Della Mea, Stefano Mizzaro et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) effectiveness is usually evaluated by means of benchmarks such as MMLU, ARC-C, or HellaSwag, where questions are presented in their original wording, thus in a fixed, standardized format. However, real-world applications involve linguistic variability, requiring models to maintain their effectiveness across diverse rewordings of the same question or query. In this study, we systematically assess the robustness of LLMs to paraphrased benchmark questions and investigate whether benchmark-based evaluations provide a reliable measure of model capabilities. We systematically generate various paraphrases of all the questions across six different common benchmarks, and measure the resulting variations in effectiveness of 34 state-of-the-art LLMs, of different size and effectiveness. Our findings reveal that while LLM rankings remain relatively stable across paraphrased inputs, absolute effectiveness scores change, and decline significantly. This suggests that LLMs struggle with linguistic variability, raising concerns about their generalization abilities and evaluation methodologies. Furthermore, the observed performance drop challenges the reliability of benchmark-based evaluations, indicating that high benchmark scores may not fully capture a model's robustness to real-world input variations. We discuss the implications of these findings for LLM evaluation methodologies, emphasizing the need for robustness-aware benchmarks that better reflect practical deployment scenarios.

Stef De Sabbata, Stefano Mizzaro, Kevin Roitero

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented capabilities across various natural language processing tasks. Their ability to process and generate viable text and code has made them ubiquitous in many fields, while their deployment as knowledge bases and "reasoning" tools remains an area of ongoing research. In geography, a growing body of literature has been focusing on evaluating LLMs' geographical knowledge and their ability to perform spatial reasoning. However, very little is still known about the internal functioning of these models, especially about how they process geographical information. In this chapter, we establish a novel framework for the study of geospatial mechanistic interpretability - using spatial analysis to reverse engineer how LLMs handle geographical information. Our aim is to advance our understanding of the internal representations that these complex models generate while processing geographical information - what one might call "how LLMs think about geographic information" if such phrasing was not an undue anthropomorphism. We first outline the use of probing in revealing internal structures within LLMs. We then introduce the field of mechanistic interpretability, discussing the superposition hypothesis and the role of sparse autoencoders in disentangling polysemantic internal representations of LLMs into more interpretable, monosemantic features. In our experiments, we use spatial autocorrelation to show how features obtained for placenames display spatial patterns related to their geographic location and can thus be interpreted geospatially, providing insights into how these models process geographical information. We conclude by discussing how our framework can help shape the study and use of foundation models in geography.

Samaneh Mohtadi, Kevin Roitero, Stefano Mizzaro et al.

Relevance judgments are central to the evaluation of Information Retrieval (IR) systems, but obtaining them from human annotators is costly and time-consuming. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been proposed as automated assessors, showing promising alignment with human annotations. Most prior studies have treated documents as fixed units, feeding their full content directly to LLM assessors. We investigate how text summarization affects the reliability of LLM-based judgments and their downstream impact on IR evaluation. Using state-of-the-art LLMs across multiple TREC collections, we compare judgments made from full documents with those based on LLM-generated summaries of different lengths. We examine their agreement with human labels, their effect on retrieval effectiveness evaluation, and their influence on IR systems' ranking stability. Our findings show that summary-based judgments achieve comparable stability in systems' ranking to full-document judgments, while introducing systematic shifts in label distributions and biases that vary by model and dataset. These results highlight summarization as both an opportunity for more efficient large-scale IR evaluation and a methodological choice with important implications for the reliability of automatic judgments.

Kevin Roitero, Dustin Wright, Michael Soprano et al.

Evaluating the truthfulness of online content is critical for combating misinformation. This study examines the efficiency and effectiveness of crowdsourced truthfulness assessments through a comparative analysis of two approaches: one involving full-length webpages as evidence for each claim, and another using summaries for each evidence document generated with a large language model. Using an A/B testing setting, we engage a diverse pool of participants tasked with evaluating the truthfulness of statements under these conditions. Our analysis explores both the quality of assessments and the behavioral patterns of participants. The results reveal that relying on summarized evidence offers comparable accuracy and error metrics to the Standard modality while significantly improving efficiency. Workers in the Summary setting complete a significantly higher number of assessments, reducing task duration and costs. Additionally, the Summary modality maximizes internal agreement and maintains consistent reliance on and perceived usefulness of evidence, demonstrating its potential to streamline large-scale truthfulness evaluations.

Gianluca Demartini, Kevin Roitero, Stefano Mizzaro

Due to the widespread use of data-powered systems in our everyday lives, concepts like bias and fairness gained significant attention among researchers and practitioners, in both industry and academia. Such issues typically emerge from the data, which comes with varying levels of quality, used to train supervised machine learning systems. With the commercialization and deployment of such systems that are sometimes delegated to make life-changing decisions, significant efforts are being made towards the identification and removal of possible sources of data bias that may resurface to the final end user or in the decisions being made. In this paper, we present research results that show how bias in data affects end users, where bias is originated, and provide a viewpoint about what we should do about it. We argue that data bias is not something that should necessarily be removed in all cases, and that research attention should instead shift from bias removal towards the identification, measurement, indexing, surfacing, and adapting for bias, which we name bias management.

Gianluca Demartini, Kevin Roitero, Stefano Mizzaro

Due to the widespread use of data-powered systems in our everyday lives, the notions of bias and fairness gained significant attention among researchers and practitioners, in both industry and academia. Such issues typically emerge from the data, which comes with varying levels of quality, used to train systems. With the commercialization and employment of such systems that are sometimes delegated to make life-changing decisions, a significant effort is being made towards the identification and removal of possible sources of bias that may surface to the final end-user. In this position paper, we instead argue that bias is not something that should necessarily be removed in all cases, and the attention and effort should shift from bias removal to the identification, measurement, indexing, surfacing, and adjustment of bias, which we name bias management. We argue that if correctly managed, bias can be a resource that can be made transparent to the the users and empower them to make informed choices about their experience with the system.

Michael Soprano, Kevin Roitero, David La Barbera et al.

Recent work has demonstrated the viability of using crowdsourcing as a tool for evaluating the truthfulness of public statements. Under certain conditions such as: (1) having a balanced set of workers with different backgrounds and cognitive abilities; (2) using an adequate set of mechanisms to control the quality of the collected data; and (3) using a coarse grained assessment scale, the crowd can provide reliable identification of fake news. However, fake news are a subtle matter: statements can be just biased ("cherrypicked"), imprecise, wrong, etc. and the unidimensional truth scale used in existing work cannot account for such differences. In this paper we propose a multidimensional notion of truthfulness and we ask the crowd workers to assess seven different dimensions of truthfulness selected based on existing literature: Correctness, Neutrality, Comprehensibility, Precision, Completeness, Speaker's Trustworthiness, and Informativeness. We deploy a set of quality control mechanisms to ensure that the thousands of assessments collected on 180 publicly available fact-checked statements distributed over two datasets are of adequate quality, including a custom search engine used by the crowd workers to find web pages supporting their truthfulness assessments. A comprehensive analysis of crowdsourced judgments shows that: (1) the crowdsourced assessments are reliable when compared to an expert-provided gold standard; (2) the proposed dimensions of truthfulness capture independent pieces of information; (3) the crowdsourcing task can be easily learned by the workers; and (4) the resulting assessments provide a useful basis for a more complete estimation of statement truthfulness.

Kevin Roitero, Michael Soprano, Beatrice Portelli et al.

Recently, the misinformation problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of non-expert is exploited. We study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and reliable method to assess truthfulness during a pandemic, targeting statements related to COVID-19, thus addressing (mis)information that is both related to a sensitive and personal issue and very recent as compared to when the judgment is done. In our experiments, crowd workers are asked to assess the truthfulness of statements, and to provide evidence for the assessments. Besides showing that the crowd is able to accurately judge the truthfulness of the statements, we report results on workers behavior, agreement among workers, effect of aggregation functions, of scales transformations, and of workers background and bias. We perform a longitudinal study by re-launching the task multiple times with both novice and experienced workers, deriving important insights on how the behavior and quality change over time. Our results show that: workers are able to detect and objectively categorize online (mis)information related to COVID-19; both crowdsourced and expert judgments can be transformed and aggregated to improve quality; worker background and other signals (e.g., source of information, behavior) impact the quality of the data. The longitudinal study demonstrates that the time-span has a major effect on the quality of the judgments, for both novice and experienced workers. Finally, we provide an extensive failure analysis of the statements misjudged by the crowd-workers.

Kevin Roitero, Michael Soprano, Beatrice Portelli et al.

Misinformation is an ever increasing problem that is difficult to solve for the research community and has a negative impact on the society at large. Very recently, the problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach to scale up labeling efforts: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of (non-expert) judges is exploited. We follow the same approach to study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and reliable method to assess statements truthfulness during a pandemic. We specifically target statements related to the COVID-19 health emergency, that is still ongoing at the time of the study and has arguably caused an increase of the amount of misinformation that is spreading online (a phenomenon for which the term "infodemic" has been used). By doing so, we are able to address (mis)information that is both related to a sensitive and personal issue like health and very recent as compared to when the judgment is done: two issues that have not been analyzed in related work. In our experiment, crowd workers are asked to assess the truthfulness of statements, as well as to provide evidence for the assessments as a URL and a text justification. Besides showing that the crowd is able to accurately judge the truthfulness of the statements, we also report results on many different aspects, including: agreement among workers, the effect of different aggregation functions, of scales transformations, and of workers background / bias. We also analyze workers behavior, in terms of queries submitted, URLs found / selected, text justifications, and other behavioral data like clicks and mouse actions collected by means of an ad hoc logger.

Enrique Amigó, Julio Gonzalo, Stefano Mizzaro et al.

In Ordinal Classification tasks, items have to be assigned to classes that have a relative ordering, such as positive, neutral, negative in sentiment analysis. Remarkably, the most popular evaluation metrics for ordinal classification tasks either ignore relevant information (for instance, precision/recall on each of the classes ignores their relative ordering) or assume additional information (for instance, Mean Average Error assumes absolute distances between classes). In this paper we propose a new metric for Ordinal Classification, Closeness Evaluation Measure, that is rooted on Measurement Theory and Information Theory. Our theoretical analysis and experimental results over both synthetic data and data from NLP shared tasks indicate that the proposed metric captures quality aspects from different traditional tasks simultaneously. In addition, it generalizes some popular classification (nominal scale) and error minimization (interval scale) metrics, depending on the measurement scale in which it is instantiated.

Kevin Roitero, Michael Soprano, Shaoyang Fan et al.

Truthfulness judgments are a fundamental step in the process of fighting misinformation, as they are crucial to train and evaluate classifiers that automatically distinguish true and false statements. Usually such judgments are made by experts, like journalists for political statements or medical doctors for medical statements. In this paper, we follow a different approach and rely on (non-expert) crowd workers. This of course leads to the following research question: Can crowdsourcing be reliably used to assess the truthfulness of information and to create large-scale labeled collections for information credibility systems? To address this issue, we present the results of an extensive study based on crowdsourcing: we collect thousands of truthfulness assessments over two datasets, and we compare expert judgments with crowd judgments, expressed on scales with various granularity levels. We also measure the political bias and the cognitive background of the workers, and quantify their effect on the reliability of the data provided by the crowd.

Fabio Crestani, Stefano Mizzaro, Ivan Scagnetto

Mobile Information Retrieval (Mobile IR) is a relatively recent branch of Information Retrieval (IR) that is concerned with enabling users to carry out, using a mobile device, all the classical IR operations that they were used to carry out on a desktop. This includes finding content available on local repositories or on the web in response to a user query, interacting with the system in an explicit or implicit way, reformulate the query and/or visualise the content of the retrieved documents, as well as providing relevance judgments to improve the retrieval process. This book is structured as follows. Chapter 2 provides a very brief overview of IR and of Mobile IR, briefly outlining what in Mobile IR is different from IR. Chapter 3 provides the foundations of Mobile IR, looking at the characteristics of mobile devices and what they bring to IR, but also looking at how the concept of relevance changed from standard IR to Mobile IR. Chapter 4 presents an overview of the document collections that are searchable by a Mobile IR system, and that are somehow different from classical IR ones; available for experimentation, including collections of data that have become complementary to Mobile IR. Similarly, Chapter 5 reviews mobile information needs studies and users log analysis. Chapter 6 reviews studies aimed at adapting and improving the users interface to the needs of Mobile IR. Chapter 7, instead, reviews work on context awareness, which studies the many aspects of the user context that Mobile IR employs. Chapter 8 reviews some of evaluation work done in Mobile IR, highlighting the distinctions with classical IR from the perspectives of two main IR evaluation methodologies: users studies and test collections. Finally, Chapter 9 reports the conclusions of this review, highlighting briefly some trends in Mobile IR that we believe will drive research in the next few years.

Enrique Amigó, Fernando Giner, Stefano Mizzaro et al.

This paper proposes a theoretical framework which models the information provided by retrieval systems in terms of Information Theory. The proposed framework allows to formalize: (i) system effectiveness as an information theoretic similarity between system outputs and human assessments, and (ii) ranking fusion as an information quantity measure. As a result, the proposed effectiveness metric improves popular metrics in terms of formal constraints. In addition, our empirical experiments suggest that it captures quality aspects from traditional metrics, while the reverse is not true. Our work also advances the understanding of theoretical foundations of the empirically known phenomenon of effectiveness increase when combining retrieval system outputs in an unsupervised manner.