Decoding AI Judgment: How LLMs Assess News Credibility and Bias

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04426v1
• Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 18:52:10 GMT
• Title: Decoding AI Judgment: How LLMs Assess News Credibility and Bias
• Authors: Edoardo Loru, Jacopo Nudo, Niccolò Di Marco, Matteo Cinelli, Walter Quattrociocchi,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assess news credibility, yet little is known about how they make these judgments. This study benchmarks the reliability and political classifications of state-of-the-art LLMs against structured, expert-driven rating systems. We uncover patterns in how LLMs associate credibility with specific linguistic features by examining keyword frequency, contextual determinants, and rank distributions.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assess news credibility, yet little is known about how they make these judgments. While prior research has examined political bias in LLM outputs or their potential for automated fact-checking, their internal evaluation processes remain largely unexamined. Understanding how LLMs assess credibility provides insights into AI behavior and how credibility is structured and applied in large-scale language models. This study benchmarks the reliability and political classifications of state-of-the-art LLMs - Gemini 1.5 Flash (Google), GPT-4o mini (OpenAI), and LLaMA 3.1 (Meta) - against structured, expert-driven rating systems such as NewsGuard and Media Bias Fact Check. Beyond assessing classification performance, we analyze the linguistic markers that shape LLM decisions, identifying which words and concepts drive their evaluations. We uncover patterns in how LLMs associate credibility with specific linguistic features by examining keyword frequency, contextual determinants, and rank distributions. Beyond static classification, we introduce a framework in which LLMs refine their credibility assessments by retrieving external information, querying other models, and adapting their responses. This allows us to investigate whether their assessments reflect structured reasoning or rely primarily on prior learned associations.

Related papers

• An Empirical Analysis of Uncertainty in Large Language Model Evaluations [28.297464655099034]
  We conduct experiments involving 9 widely used LLM evaluators across 2 different evaluation settings. We pinpoint that LLM evaluators exhibit varying uncertainty based on model families and sizes. We find that employing special prompting strategies, whether during inference or post-training, can alleviate evaluation uncertainty to some extent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-15T07:45:20Z)
• Value Compass Leaderboard: A Platform for Fundamental and Validated Evaluation of LLMs Values [76.70893269183684]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve remarkable breakthroughs, aligning their values with humans has become imperative. Existing evaluations focus narrowly on safety risks such as bias and toxicity. Existing benchmarks are prone to data contamination. The pluralistic nature of human values across individuals and cultures is largely ignored in measuring LLMs value alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T05:53:56Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• To Know or Not To Know? Analyzing Self-Consistency of Large Language Models under Ambiguity [27.10502683001428]
  This paper focuses on entity type ambiguity, analyzing the proficiency and consistency of state-of-the-art LLMs in applying factual knowledge when prompted with ambiguous entities. Experiments reveal that LLMs struggle with choosing the correct entity reading, achieving an average accuracy of only 85%, and as low as 75% with underspecified prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-24T09:48:48Z)
• Enhancing Trust in LLMs: Algorithms for Comparing and Interpreting LLMs [1.0878040851638]
  This paper surveys evaluation techniques to enhance the trustworthiness and understanding of Large Language Models (LLMs) Key evaluation metrics include Perplexity Measurement, NLP metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, BERTScore, GLEU, Word Error Rate, Character Error Rate), Zero-Shot and Few-Shot Learning Performance, Transfer Learning Evaluation, Adversarial Testing, and Fairness and Bias Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T03:54:53Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• TrustScore: Reference-Free Evaluation of LLM Response Trustworthiness [58.721012475577716]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various domains, prompting a surge in their practical applications. This paper introduces TrustScore, a framework based on the concept of Behavioral Consistency, which evaluates whether an LLMs response aligns with its intrinsic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T21:12:14Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans. This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning) We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
  We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm. We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner. Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.