Matthew R. DeVerna

Matthew R. DeVerna, Francesco Pierri, Rachith Aiyappa et al.

To analyze the flow of information online, experts often rely on platform-provided data from social media companies, which typically attribute all resharing actions to an original poster. This obscures the true dynamics of how information spreads online, as users can be exposed to content in various ways. While most researchers analyze data as it is provided by the platform and overlook this issue, some attempt to infer the structure of information cascades. However, the absence of ground truth about actual diffusion cascades makes it impossible to verify the efficacy of these efforts. We propose a novel parametric reconstruction approach and use it to investigate how overlooking cascade reconstruction distorts analyses of social influence, community detection, and information diffusion. Two case studies involving data from Twitter and Bluesky reveal that cascade inference significantly impacts the identification of both influential users and communities, therefore affecting downstream analyses in general. Analysis of the diffusion of over 40,000 true and false news stories on Twitter reveals that the assumptions made during the reconstruction procedure drastically distort both microscopic and macroscopic properties of cascade networks. This work highlights the challenges of studying information spreading processes on complex networks and has significant implications for the broader study of digital platforms.

Matthew R. DeVerna, Harry Yaojun Yan, Kai-Cheng Yang et al.

Fact checking can be an effective strategy against misinformation, but its implementation at scale is impeded by the overwhelming volume of information online. Recent artificial intelligence (AI) language models have shown impressive ability in fact-checking tasks, but how humans interact with fact-checking information provided by these models is unclear. Here, we investigate the impact of fact-checking information generated by a popular large language model (LLM) on belief in, and sharing intent of, political news headlines in a preregistered randomized control experiment. Although the LLM accurately identifies most false headlines (90%), we find that this information does not significantly improve participants' ability to discern headline accuracy or share accurate news. In contrast, viewing human-generated fact checks enhances discernment in both cases. Subsequent analysis reveals that the AI fact-checker is harmful in specific cases: it decreases beliefs in true headlines that it mislabels as false and increases beliefs in false headlines that it is unsure about. On the positive side, AI fact-checking information increases the sharing intent for correctly labeled true headlines. When participants are given the option to view LLM fact checks and choose to do so, they are significantly more likely to share both true and false news but only more likely to believe false headlines. Our findings highlight an important source of potential harm stemming from AI applications and underscore the critical need for policies to prevent or mitigate such unintended consequences.

Matthew R. DeVerna, Harry Yaojun Yan, Kai-Cheng Yang et al.

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally changing how health content is encountered and acted upon across both the information and healthcare ecosystems. AI systems now generate claims, curate information, interpret symptoms, synthesize evidence, and guide decisions, with significant opportunities and risks for the public. Potential benefits include improvements in access, comprehension, and continuity of care. At the same time, AI can introduce inaccurate or manipulative content that is difficult to distinguish from reliable guidance, and encourage automated decisions that affect care with little transparency or recourse. We introduce a four-stage framework to examine how these opportunities and risks unfold as the public moves through the information environment and into formal healthcare.

Shalmoli Ghosh, Matthew R. DeVerna, Filippo Menczer

Generative AI systems increasingly enable the production of highly realistic synthetic media. Civitai, a popular community-driven platform for AI-generated content, operates a monetized feature called Bounties, which allows users to commission the generation of content in exchange for payment. To examine how this mechanism is used and what content it incentivizes, we conduct a longitudinal analysis of all publicly available bounty requests collected over a 14-month period following the platform's launch. We find that the bounty marketplace is dominated by tools that let users steer AI models toward content they were not trained to generate. At the same time, requests for content that is "Not Safe For Work" are widespread and have increased steadily over time, now comprising a majority of all bounties. Participation in bounty creation is uneven, with 20% of requesters accounting for roughly half of requests. Requests for "deepfake" - media depicting identifiable real individuals - exhibit a higher concentration than other types of bounties. A nontrivial subset of these requests involves explicit deepfakes despite platform policies prohibiting such content. These bounties disproportionately target female celebrities, revealing a pronounced gender asymmetry in social harm. Together, these findings show how monetized, community-driven generative AI platforms can produce gendered harms, raising questions about consent, governance, and enforcement.

Matthew R. DeVerna, Kai-Cheng Yang, Harry Yaojun Yan et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have raised hopes for automated end-to-end fact-checking, but prior studies report mixed results. As mainstream chatbots increasingly ship with reasoning capabilities and web search tools -- and millions of users already rely on them for verification -- rigorous evaluation is urgent. We evaluate 15 recent LLMs from OpenAI, Google, Meta, and DeepSeek on more than 6,000 claims fact-checked by PolitiFact, comparing standard models with reasoning- and web-search variants. Standard models perform poorly, reasoning offers minimal benefits, and web search provides only moderate gains, despite fact-checks being available on the web. In contrast, a curated RAG system using PolitiFact summaries improved macro F1 by 233% on average across model variants. These findings suggest that giving models access to curated high-quality context is a promising path for automated fact-checking.