In Crowd Veritas: Leveraging Human Intelligence To Fight Misinformation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09221v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:25:10 GMT
• Title: In Crowd Veritas: Leveraging Human Intelligence To Fight Misinformation
• Authors: Michael Soprano,
• Abstract summary: This thesis investigates how human intelligence can be harnessed to assess the truthfulness of online information.<n>It focuses on three areas: misinformation assessment, cognitive biases, and automated fact-checking systems.
• Score: 1.4821330660356777
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The spread of online misinformation poses serious threats to democratic societies. Traditionally, expert fact-checkers verify the truthfulness of information through investigative processes. However, the volume and immediacy of online content present major scalability challenges. Crowdsourcing offers a promising alternative by leveraging non-expert judgments, but it introduces concerns about bias, accuracy, and interpretability. This thesis investigates how human intelligence can be harnessed to assess the truthfulness of online information, focusing on three areas: misinformation assessment, cognitive biases, and automated fact-checking systems. Through large-scale crowdsourcing experiments and statistical modeling, it identifies key factors influencing human judgments and introduces a model for the joint prediction and explanation of truthfulness. The findings show that non-expert judgments often align with expert assessments, particularly when factors such as timing and experience are considered. By deepening our understanding of human judgment and bias in truthfulness assessment, this thesis contributes to the development of more transparent, trustworthy, and interpretable systems for combating misinformation.

Related papers

• Assessing the Potential of Generative Agents in Crowdsourced Fact-Checking [7.946359845249688]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance across fact-checking tasks.<n>This paper investigates whether generative agents can meaningfully contribute to fact-checking tasks traditionally reserved for human crowds.<n>Agent crowds outperform human crowds in truthfulness classification, exhibit higher internal consistency, and show reduced susceptibility to social and cognitive biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T18:49:55Z)
• On the Fairness, Diversity and Reliability of Text-to-Image Generative Models [68.62012304574012]
  multimodal generative models have sparked critical discussions on their reliability, fairness and potential for misuse.<n>We propose an evaluation framework to assess model reliability by analyzing responses to global and local perturbations in the embedding space.<n>Our method lays the groundwork for detecting unreliable, bias-injected models and tracing the provenance of embedded biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T09:46:55Z)
• MisinfoEval: Generative AI in the Era of "Alternative Facts" [50.069577397751175]
  We introduce a framework for generating and evaluating large language model (LLM) based misinformation interventions. We present (1) an experiment with a simulated social media environment to measure effectiveness of misinformation interventions, and (2) a second experiment with personalized explanations tailored to the demographics and beliefs of users. Our findings confirm that LLM-based interventions are highly effective at correcting user behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T18:16:50Z)
• Mitigating Biases in Collective Decision-Making: Enhancing Performance in the Face of Fake News [4.413331329339185]
  We study the influence these biases can have in the pervasive problem of fake news by evaluating human participants' capacity to identify false headlines. By focusing on headlines involving sensitive characteristics, we gather a comprehensive dataset to explore how human responses are shaped by their biases. We show that demographic factors, headline categories, and the manner in which information is presented significantly influence errors in human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T12:08:08Z)
• GenAI Mirage: The Impostor Bias and the Deepfake Detection Challenge in the Era of Artificial Illusions [6.184770966699034]
  This paper examines the impact of cognitive biases on decision-making in forensics and digital forensics. It assesses existing methods to mitigate biases and improve decision-making. It introduces the novel "Impostor Bias", which arises as a systematic tendency to question the authenticity of multimedia content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-24T10:01:40Z)
• Unveiling the Hidden Agenda: Biases in News Reporting and Consumption [59.55900146668931]
  We build a six-year dataset on the Italian vaccine debate and adopt a Bayesian latent space model to identify narrative and selection biases. We found a nonlinear relationship between biases and engagement, with higher engagement for extreme positions. Analysis of news consumption on Twitter reveals common audiences among news outlets with similar ideological positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-14T18:58:42Z)
• Adherence to Misinformation on Social Media Through Socio-Cognitive and Group-Based Processes [79.79659145328856]
  We argue that when misinformation proliferates, this happens because the social media environment enables adherence to misinformation. We make the case that polarization and misinformation adherence are closely tied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-30T12:34:24Z)
• "There Is Not Enough Information": On the Effects of Explanations on Perceptions of Informational Fairness and Trustworthiness in Automated Decision-Making [0.0]
  Automated decision systems (ADS) are increasingly used for consequential decision-making. We conduct a human subject study to assess people's perceptions of informational fairness. A comprehensive analysis of qualitative feedback sheds light on people's desiderata for explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T20:06:03Z)
• Adaptive cognitive fit: Artificial intelligence augmented management of information facets and representations [62.997667081978825]
  Explosive growth in big data technologies and artificial intelligence [AI] applications have led to increasing pervasiveness of information facets. Information facets, such as equivocality and veracity, can dominate and significantly influence human perceptions of information. We suggest that artificially intelligent technologies that can adapt information representations to overcome cognitive limitations are necessary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-25T02:47:25Z)
• Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
  We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z)
• Information Credibility in the Social Web: Contexts, Approaches, and Open Issues [2.2133187119466116]
  Credibility, also referred as believability, is a quality perceived by individuals, who are not always able to discern, with their own cognitive capacities, genuine information from fake one. Several approaches have been proposed to automatically assess credibility in social media.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-26T15:42:43Z)

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.