On Fact and Frequency: LLM Responses to Misinformation Expressed with Uncertainty

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04271v1
• Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 10:02:25 GMT
• Title: On Fact and Frequency: LLM Responses to Misinformation Expressed with Uncertainty
• Authors: Yana van de Sande, Gunes Açar, Thabo van Woudenberg, Martha Larson,
• Abstract summary: We study the response of three widely used LLMs to misinformation propositions that have been verified false and then are transformed into uncertain statements.<n>Our results show that after transformation, LLMs change their factchecking classification from false to not-false in 25% of the cases.<n>The exception is doxastic transformations, which use linguistic cue phrases such as "It is believed..."
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We study LLM judgments of misinformation expressed with uncertainty. Our experiments study the response of three widely used LLMs (GPT-4o, LlaMA3, DeepSeek-v2) to misinformation propositions that have been verified false and then are transformed into uncertain statements according to an uncertainty typology. Our results show that after transformation, LLMs change their factchecking classification from false to not-false in 25% of the cases. Analysis reveals that the change cannot be explained by predictors to which humans are expected to be sensitive, i.e., modality, linguistic cues, or argumentation strategy. The exception is doxastic transformations, which use linguistic cue phrases such as "It is believed ...".To gain further insight, we prompt the LLM to make another judgment about the transformed misinformation statements that is not related to truth value. Specifically, we study LLM estimates of the frequency with which people make the uncertain statement. We find a small but significant correlation between judgment of fact and estimation of frequency.

Related papers

• WakenLLM: Evaluating Reasoning Potential and Stability in LLMs via Fine-Grained Benchmarking [14.76224690767612]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently output the label Unknown in reasoning tasks.<n>We introduce WakenLLM, a framework that quantifies the portion of Unknown output attributable to model incapacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T03:21:48Z)
• The Trilemma of Truth in Large Language Models [1.62933895796838]
  We examine two common methods for probing the veracity of large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce sAwMIL, a probing method that utilizes the internal activations of LLMs to separate statements into true, false, and neither.<n>We evaluate sAwMIL on 5 validity criteria across 16 open-source LLMs, including both default and chat-based variants, as well as on 3 new datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T14:49:28Z)
• Representations of Fact, Fiction and Forecast in Large Language Models: Epistemics and Attitudes [15.754908203866284]
  Rational speakers are supposed to know what they know and what they do not know.<n>It is still a challenge for current large language models to generate corresponding utterances based on the assessment of facts and confidence in an uncertain real-world environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T10:19:42Z)
• LLMs Struggle to Reject False Presuppositions when Misinformation Stakes are High [7.9042053398943075]
  Presuppositions subtly introduce information as given, making them highly effective at embedding disputable or false information.<n>This raises concerns about whether LLMs, like humans, may fail to detect and correct misleading assumptions introduced as false presuppositions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T13:35:07Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing. We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance. We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses. We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• Fool Me, Fool Me: User Attitudes Toward LLM Falsehoods [13.62116438805314]
  This study examines user preferences regarding falsehood responses from Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Surprisingly, 61% of users prefer unmarked falsehood responses over marked ones.<n>These findings suggest that user preferences, which influence LLM training via feedback mechanisms, may inadvertently encourage the generation of falsehoods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-16T10:10:27Z)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established. This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt. We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• Truth is Universal: Robust Detection of Lies in LLMs [18.13311575803723]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionised natural language processing, exhibiting impressive human-like capabilities. In this work, we aim to develop a robust method to detect when an LLM is lying. We demonstrate the existence of a two-dimensional subspace, along which the activation vectors of true and false statements can be separated. This finding is universal and holds for various LLMs, including Gemma-7B, LLaMA2-13B, Mistral-7B and LLaMA3-8B. Our analysis explains the generalisation failures observed in previous studies and sets the stage for more
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T13:01:54Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) Improves Confidence Calibration of Large Language Models [84.94220787791389]
  We propose Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) prompting, which improves the LLM calibration in two steps. Experiments show that FaR achieves significantly better calibration; it lowers the Expected Error by 23.5%. FaR even elicits the capability of verbally expressing concerns in less confident scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T01:37:23Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Quantifying Uncertainty in Natural Language Explanations of Large Language Models [29.34960984639281]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as powerful tools for high-stakes natural language processing (NLP) applications. We propose two novel metrics -- $textitVerbalized Uncertainty$ and $textitProbing Uncertainty$ -- to quantify the uncertainty of generated explanations. Our empirical analysis of benchmark datasets reveals that verbalized uncertainty is not a reliable estimate of explanation confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T21:14:40Z)
• Language Models Hallucinate, but May Excel at Fact Verification [89.0833981569957]
  Large language models (LLMs) frequently "hallucinate," resulting in non-factual outputs. Even GPT-3.5 produces factual outputs less than 25% of the time. This underscores the importance of fact verifiers in order to measure and incentivize progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T04:39:01Z)
• Do Large Language Models Know about Facts? [60.501902866946]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently driven striking performance improvements across a range of natural language processing tasks. We aim to evaluate the extent and scope of factual knowledge within LLMs by designing the benchmark Pinocchio. Pinocchio contains 20K diverse factual questions that span different sources, timelines, domains, regions, and languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-08T14:26:55Z)
• How to Catch an AI Liar: Lie Detection in Black-Box LLMs by Asking Unrelated Questions [34.53980255211931]
  Large language models (LLMs) can "lie", which we define as outputting false statements despite "knowing" the truth in a demonstrable sense. Here, we develop a simple lie detector that requires neither access to the LLM's activations nor ground-truth knowledge of the fact in question. Despite its simplicity, this lie detector is highly accurate and surprisingly general.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-26T16:07:54Z)
• Influence of External Information on Large Language Models Mirrors Social Cognitive Patterns [51.622612759892775]
  Social cognitive theory explains how people learn and acquire knowledge through observing others. Recent years have witnessed the rapid development of large language models (LLMs) LLMs, as AI agents, can observe external information, which shapes their cognition and behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-08T16:10:18Z)

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.