Mahjabin Nahar

Mahjabin Nahar, Nafis Irtiza Tripto, Aiping Xiong et al.

As AI-generated and AI-assisted content floods online spaces, source labels attached to such content can distort human reasoning judgments, with downstream consequences for moderation, evaluation, and decision-making. Whether LLMs share this vulnerability, or offer more source-agnostic evaluation, remains an open question with direct implications for human-AI collaboration. We examine this issue using logical fallacies as a controlled setting to isolate source-label effects on reasoning quality, independent of domain knowledge. We conduct an online study (N=505) where participants are assigned to a source condition (human, AI, human with AI assistance, AI with human assistance, or no disclosure) and evaluate comments containing logical fallacies, comparing their judgments with those of LLMs (GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5), who were evaluated across the same source conditions. Human evaluators were significantly more susceptible to fallacies labeled as written by human or human with AI assistance and assigned higher trust and evaluation ratings in these conditions. LLM evaluations remained comparatively stable across source labels, though performance varied across models. Confidence levels were similarly high across conditions for both humans and LLMs, regardless of fallacy presence. Our findings indicate that source-label bias in reasoning evaluation is primarily a human vulnerability and highlight the potential of human-LLM collaboration in increasingly AI-mediated environments.

Mahjabin Nahar, Haeseung Seo, Eun-Ju Lee et al.

The widespread adoption and transformative effects of large language models (LLMs) have sparked concerns regarding their capacity to produce inaccurate and fictitious content, referred to as `hallucinations'. Given the potential risks associated with hallucinations, humans should be able to identify them. This research aims to understand the human perception of LLM hallucinations by systematically varying the degree of hallucination (genuine, minor hallucination, major hallucination) and examining its interaction with warning (i.e., a warning of potential inaccuracies: absent vs. present). Participants (N=419) from Prolific rated the perceived accuracy and engaged with content (e.g., like, dislike, share) in a Q/A format. Participants ranked content as truthful in the order of genuine, minor hallucination, and major hallucination, and user engagement behaviors mirrored this pattern. More importantly, we observed that warning improved the detection of hallucination without significantly affecting the perceived truthfulness of genuine content. We conclude by offering insights for future tools to aid human detection of hallucinations. All survey materials, demographic questions, and post-session questions are available at: https://github.com/MahjabinNahar/fakes-of-varying-shades-survey-materials

Nafis Irtiza Tripto, Saranya Venkatraman, Mahjabin Nahar et al.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized text generation but also raised concerns about potential misuse, making detecting LLM-generated text (AI text) increasingly essential. While prior work has focused on identifying AI text and effectively checkmating it, our study investigates a less-explored territory: portraying the nuanced distinctions between human and AI texts across text segments (introduction, body, and conclusion). Whether LLMs excel or falter in incorporating linguistic ingenuity across text segments, the results will critically inform their viability and boundaries as effective creative assistants to humans. Through an analogy with the structure of chess games, comprising opening, middle, and end games, we analyze segment-specific patterns to reveal where the most striking differences lie. Although AI texts closely resemble human writing in the body segment due to its length, deeper analysis shows a higher divergence in features dependent on the continuous flow of language, making it the most informative segment for detection. Additionally, human texts exhibit greater stylistic variation across segments, offering a new lens for distinguishing them from AI. Overall, our findings provide fresh insights into human-AI text differences and pave the way for more effective and interpretable detection strategies. Codes available at https://github.com/tripto03/chess_inspired_human_ai_text_distinction.

Mahjabin Nahar, Sian Lee, Rebekah Guillen et al.

As the use of Generative AI (Gen-AI) in scholarly writing and peer reviews continues to rise, it is essential for the computing field to establish and adopt clear Gen-AI policies. This study examines the landscape of Gen-AI policies across 64 major Computer Science conferences and offers recommendations for promoting more effective and responsible use of Gen-AI in the field.

Mahjabin Nahar, Eun-Ju Lee, Jin Won Park et al.

While we increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs) for various tasks, these models are known to produce inaccurate content or 'hallucinations' with potentially disastrous consequences. The recent integration of web search results into LLMs prompts the question of whether people utilize them to verify the generated content, thereby accurately detecting hallucinations. An online experiment (N=560) investigated how the provision of search results, either static (i.e., fixed search results provided by LLM) or dynamic (i.e., participant-led searches), affects participants' perceived accuracy of LLM-generated content (i.e., genuine, minor hallucination, major hallucination), self-confidence in accuracy ratings, as well as their overall evaluation of the LLM, as compared to the control condition (i.e., no search results). Results showed that participants in both static and dynamic conditions (vs. control) rated hallucinated content to be less accurate and perceived the LLM more negatively. However, those in the dynamic condition rated genuine content as more accurate and demonstrated greater overall self-confidence in their assessments than those in the static search or control conditions. We highlighted practical implications of incorporating web search functionality into LLMs in real-world contexts.