Jean‐François Godbout

Kellin Pelrine, Anne Imouza, Zachary Yang et al.

A large number of studies on social media compare the behaviour of users from different political parties. As a basic step, they employ a predictive model for inferring their political affiliation. The accuracy of this model can change the conclusions of a downstream analysis significantly, yet the choice between different models seems to be made arbitrarily. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey and an empirical comparison of the current party prediction practices and propose several new approaches which are competitive with or outperform state-of-the-art methods, yet require less computational resources. Party prediction models rely on the content generated by the users (e.g., tweet texts), the relations they have (e.g., who they follow), or their activities and interactions (e.g., which tweets they like). We examine all of these and compare their signal strength for the party prediction task. This paper lets the practitioner select from a wide range of data types that all give strong performance. Finally, we conduct extensive experiments on different aspects of these methods, such as data collection speed and transfer capabilities, which can provide further insights for both applied and methodological research.

Jacob-Junqi Tian, Hao Yu, Yury Orlovskiy et al.

This paper develops an agent-based automated fact-checking approach for detecting misinformation. We demonstrate that combining a powerful LLM agent, which does not have access to the internet for searches, with an online web search agent yields better results than when each tool is used independently. Our approach is robust across multiple models, outperforming alternatives and increasing the macro F1 of misinformation detection by as much as 20 percent compared to LLMs without search. We also conduct extensive analyses on the sources our system leverages and their biases, decisions in the construction of the system like the search tool and the knowledge base, the type of evidence needed and its impact on the results, and other parts of the overall process. By combining strong performance with in-depth understanding, we hope to provide building blocks for future search-enabled misinformation mitigation systems.

Tyler Vergho, Jean-Francois Godbout, Reihaneh Rabbany et al.

Recent large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective for misinformation detection. However, the choice of LLMs for experiments varies widely, leading to uncertain conclusions. In particular, GPT-4 is known to be strong in this domain, but it is closed source, potentially expensive, and can show instability between different versions. Meanwhile, alternative LLMs have given mixed results. In this work, we show that Zephyr-7b presents a consistently viable alternative, overcoming key limitations of commonly used approaches like Llama-2 and GPT-3.5. This provides the research community with a solid open-source option and shows open-source models are gradually catching up on this task. We then highlight how GPT-3.5 exhibits unstable performance, such that this very widely used model could provide misleading results in misinformation detection. Finally, we validate new tools including approaches to structured output and the latest version of GPT-4 (Turbo), showing they do not compromise performance, thus unlocking them for future research and potentially enabling more complex pipelines for misinformation mitigation.

Victor Livernoche, Andreea Musulan, Zachary Yang et al.

Concerns about AI-generated political content are growing, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how deepfakes actually appear and circulate across social platforms during major events in democratic countries. In this study, we present one of the first in-depth analyses of how these realistic synthetic media shape the political landscape online, focusing specifically on the 2025 Canadian federal election. By analyzing 187,778 posts from X, Bluesky, and Reddit with a high-accuracy detection framework trained on a diverse set of modern generative models, we find that 5.86% of election-related images were deepfakes. Right-leaning accounts shared them more frequently, with 8.66% of their posted images flagged compared to 4.42% for left-leaning users, often with defamatory or conspiratorial intent. Yet, most detected deepfakes were benign or non-political, and harmful ones drew little attention, accounting for only 0.12% of all views on X. Overall, deepfakes were present in the election conversation, but their reach was modest, and realistic fabricated images, although less common, drew higher engagement, highlighting growing concerns about their potential misuse.

Matthew Kowal, Jasper Timm, Jean-Francois Godbout et al.

Persuasion is a powerful capability of large language models (LLMs) that both enables beneficial applications (e.g. helping people quit smoking) and raises significant risks (e.g. large-scale, targeted political manipulation). Prior work has found models possess a significant and growing persuasive capability, measured by belief changes in simulated or real users. However, these benchmarks overlook a crucial risk factor: the propensity of a model to attempt to persuade in harmful contexts. Understanding whether a model will blindly ``follow orders'' to persuade on harmful topics (e.g. glorifying joining a terrorist group) is key to understanding the efficacy of safety guardrails. Moreover, understanding if and when a model will engage in persuasive behavior in pursuit of some goal is essential to understanding the risks from agentic AI systems. We propose the Attempt to Persuade Eval (APE) benchmark, that shifts the focus from persuasion success to persuasion attempts, operationalized as a model's willingness to generate content aimed at shaping beliefs or behavior. Our evaluation framework probes frontier LLMs using a multi-turn conversational setup between simulated persuader and persuadee agents. APE explores a diverse spectrum of topics including conspiracies, controversial issues, and non-controversially harmful content. We introduce an automated evaluator model to identify willingness to persuade and measure the frequency and context of persuasive attempts. We find that many open and closed-weight models are frequently willing to attempt persuasion on harmful topics and that jailbreaking can increase willingness to engage in such behavior. Our results highlight gaps in current safety guardrails and underscore the importance of evaluating willingness to persuade as a key dimension of LLM risk. APE is available at github.com/AlignmentResearch/AttemptPersuadeEval

Victor Livernoche, Akshatha Arodi, Andreea Musulan et al.

Deepfakes, synthetic media created using advanced AI techniques, pose a growing threat to information integrity, particularly in politically sensitive contexts. This challenge is amplified by the increasing realism of modern generative models, which our human perception study confirms are often indistinguishable from real images. Yet, existing deepfake detection benchmarks rely on outdated generators or narrowly scoped datasets (e.g., single-face imagery), limiting their utility for real-world detection. To address these gaps, we present OpenFake, a large politically grounded dataset specifically crafted for benchmarking against modern generative models with high realism, and designed to remain extensible through an innovative crowdsourced adversarial platform that continually integrates new hard examples. OpenFake comprises nearly four million total images: three million real images paired with descriptive captions and almost one million synthetic counterparts from state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source models. Detectors trained on OpenFake achieve near-perfect in-distribution performance, strong generalization to unseen generators, and high accuracy on a curated in-the-wild social media test set, significantly outperforming models trained on existing datasets. Overall, we demonstrate that with high-quality and continually updated benchmarks, automatic deepfake detection is both feasible and effective in real-world settings.

Mauricio Rivera, Jean-François Godbout, Reihaneh Rabbany et al.

Large Language Models have emerged as prime candidates to tackle misinformation mitigation. However, existing approaches struggle with hallucinations and overconfident predictions. We propose an uncertainty quantification framework that leverages both direct confidence elicitation and sampled-based consistency methods to provide better calibration for NLP misinformation mitigation solutions. We first investigate the calibration of sample-based consistency methods that exploit distinct features of consistency across sample sizes and stochastic levels. Next, we evaluate the performance and distributional shift of a robust numeric verbalization prompt across single vs. two-step confidence elicitation procedure. We also compare the performance of the same prompt with different versions of GPT and different numerical scales. Finally, we combine the sample-based consistency and verbalized methods to propose a hybrid framework that yields a better uncertainty estimation for GPT models. Overall, our work proposes novel uncertainty quantification methods that will improve the reliability of Large Language Models in misinformation mitigation applications.

Maximilian Puelma Touzel, Sneheel Sarangi, Austin Welch et al.

The rise of AI-driven manipulation poses significant risks to societal trust and democratic processes. Yet, studying these effects in real-world settings at scale is ethically and logistically impractical, highlighting a need for simulation tools that can model these dynamics in controlled settings to enable experimentation with possible defenses. We present a simulation environment designed to address this. We elaborate upon the Concordia framework that simulates offline, `real life' activity by adding online interactions to the simulation through social media with the integration of a Mastodon server. We improve simulation efficiency and information flow, and add a set of measurement tools, particularly longitudinal surveys. We demonstrate the simulator with a tailored example in which we track agents' political positions and show how partisan manipulation of agents can affect election results.

Ruben Weijers, Denton Wu, Hannah Betts et al.

Generative AI has the potential to transform personalization and accessibility of education. However, it raises serious concerns about accuracy and helping students become independent critical thinkers. In this study, we designed a helpful AI "Peer" to help students correct fundamental physics misconceptions related to Newtonian mechanic concepts. In contrast to approaches that seek near-perfect accuracy to create an authoritative AI tutor or teacher, we directly inform students that this AI can answer up to 40% of questions incorrectly. In a randomized controlled trial with 165 students, those who engaged in targeted dialogue with the AI Peer achieved post-test scores that were, on average, 10.5 percentage points higher - with over 20 percentage points higher normalized gain - than a control group that discussed physics history. Qualitative feedback indicated that 91% of the treatment group's AI interactions were rated as helpful. Furthermore, by comparing student performance on pre- and post-test questions about the same concept, along with experts' annotations of the AI interactions, we find initial evidence suggesting the improvement in performance does not depend on the correctness of the AI. With further research, the AI Peer paradigm described here could open new possibilities for how we learn, adapt to, and grow with AI.

Bijean Ghafouri, Shahrad Mohammadzadeh, James Zhou et al.

Large language models are increasingly relied upon as sources of information, but their propensity for generating false or misleading statements with high confidence poses risks for users and society. In this paper, we confront the critical problem of epistemic miscalibration $\unicode{x2013}$ where a model's linguistic assertiveness fails to reflect its true internal certainty. We introduce a new human-labeled dataset and a novel method for measuring the linguistic assertiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) which cuts error rates by over 50% relative to previous benchmarks. Validated across multiple datasets, our method reveals a stark misalignment between how confidently models linguistically present information and their actual accuracy. Further human evaluations confirm the severity of this miscalibration. This evidence underscores the urgent risk of the overstated certainty LLMs hold which may mislead users on a massive scale. Our framework provides a crucial step forward in diagnosing this miscalibration, offering a path towards correcting it and more trustworthy AI across domains.

Camille Thibault, Jacob-Junqi Tian, Gabrielle Peloquin-Skulski et al.

Misinformation is a complex societal issue, and mitigating solutions are difficult to create due to data deficiencies. To address this, we have curated the largest collection of (mis)information datasets in the literature, totaling 75. From these, we evaluated the quality of 36 datasets that consist of statements or claims, as well as the 9 datasets that consist of data in purely paragraph form. We assess these datasets to identify those with solid foundations for empirical work and those with flaws that could result in misleading and non-generalizable results, such as spurious correlations, or examples that are ambiguous or otherwise impossible to assess for veracity. We find the latter issue is particularly severe and affects most datasets in the literature. We further provide state-of-the-art baselines on all these datasets, but show that regardless of label quality, categorical labels may no longer give an accurate evaluation of detection model performance. Finally, we propose and highlight Evaluation Quality Assurance (EQA) as a tool to guide the field toward systemic solutions rather than inadvertently propagating issues in evaluation. Overall, this guide aims to provide a roadmap for higher quality data and better grounded evaluations, ultimately improving research in misinformation detection. All datasets and other artifacts are available at https://misinfo-datasets.complexdatalab.com/.

Yury Orlovskiy, Camille Thibault, Anne Imouza et al.

Misinformation poses a variety of risks, such as undermining public trust and distorting factual discourse. Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 have been shown effective in mitigating misinformation, particularly in handling statements where enough context is provided. However, they struggle to assess ambiguous or context-deficient statements accurately. This work introduces a new method to resolve uncertainty in such statements. We propose a framework to categorize missing information and publish category labels for the LIAR-New dataset, which is adaptable to cross-domain content with missing information. We then leverage this framework to generate effective user queries for missing context. Compared to baselines, our method improves the rate at which generated questions are answerable by the user by 38 percentage points and classification performance by over 10 percentage points macro F1. Thus, this approach may provide a valuable component for future misinformation mitigation pipelines.

Emma Kondrup, Sebastian Sabry, Hussein Abdallah et al.

Online misinformation poses an escalating threat, amplified by the Internet's open nature and increasingly capable LLMs that generate persuasive yet deceptive content. Existing misinformation detection methods typically focus on either textual content or network structure in isolation, failing to leverage the rich, dynamic interplay between website content and hyperlink relationships that characterizes real-world misinformation ecosystems. We introduce CrediBench: a large-scale data processing pipeline for constructing temporal web graphs that jointly model textual content and hyperlink structure for misinformation detection. Unlike prior work, our approach captures the dynamic evolution of general misinformation domains, including changes in both content and inter-site references over time. Our processed one-month snapshot extracted from the Common Crawl archive in December 2024 contains 45 million nodes and 1 billion edges, representing the largest web graph dataset made publicly available for misinformation research to date. From our experiments on this graph snapshot, we demonstrate the strength of both structural and webpage content signals for learning credibility scores, which measure source reliability. The pipeline and experimentation code are all available here, and the dataset is in this folder.