Beyond Surface Judgments: Human-Grounded Risk Evaluation of LLM-Generated Disinformation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06820v1
• Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:37:37 GMT
• Title: Beyond Surface Judgments: Human-Grounded Risk Evaluation of LLM-Generated Disinformation
• Abstract summary: We examine judge--human alignment in terms of overall scoring, item-level ordering, and signal dependence.<n>Relative to humans, judges are typically harsher, recover item-level human rankings only weakly, and rely on different textual signals.<n>At the same time, judges agree far more with one another than with human readers.
• Score: 26.636844671170422
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate persuasive narratives at scale, raising concerns about their potential use in disinformation campaigns. Assessing this risk ultimately requires understanding how readers receive such content. In practice, however, LLM judges are increasingly used as a low-cost substitute for direct human evaluation, even though whether they faithfully track reader responses remains unclear. We recast evaluation in this setting as a proxy-validity problem and audit LLM judges against human reader responses. Using 290 aligned articles, 2,043 paired human ratings, and outputs from eight frontier judges, we examine judge--human alignment in terms of overall scoring, item-level ordering, and signal dependence. We find persistent judge--human gaps throughout. Relative to humans, judges are typically harsher, recover item-level human rankings only weakly, and rely on different textual signals, placing more weight on logical rigour while penalizing emotional intensity more strongly. At the same time, judges agree far more with one another than with human readers. These results suggest that LLM judges form a coherent evaluative group that is much more aligned internally than it is with human readers, indicating that internal agreement is not evidence of validity as a proxy for reader response.

Related papers

• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• How Long Reasoning Chains Influence LLMs' Judgment of Answer Factuality [9.19183567561999]
  Large language models (LLMs) has been widely adopted as a scalable surrogate for human evaluation, yet such judges remain imperfect and susceptible to surface-level biases.<n>With the rise of reasoning-capable models, exposing a generator's reasoning content to the judge provides richer information and is a natural candidate for improving judgment accuracy.<n>We find that weak judges are easily swayed by reasoning presence, while strong judges can partially leverage reasoning as informative evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T07:21:18Z)
• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• Evaluating and Mitigating LLM-as-a-judge Bias in Communication Systems [32.83708359216193]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to autonomously evaluate the quality of content in communication systems.<n>This paper systematically investigates judgment biases in two LLM-as-a-judge models under the point-wise scoring setting.<n>We propose four potential mitigation strategies to ensure fair and reliable AI judging in practical communication scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T12:52:29Z)
• Quantitative LLM Judges [60.773734899532336]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to humans in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge using its rationale and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges [61.048125269475854]
  JudgeBench is a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding.<n>Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T17:58:19Z)
• Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions [18.93335792080899]
  We investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T14:49:35Z)
• Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases [17.069314000437537]
  We propose a novel framework that is free from referencing groundtruth annotations for investigating Misinformation Oversight Bias, Gender Bias, Authority Bias and Beauty Bias on LLM and human judges. Results show that human and LLM judges are vulnerable to perturbations to various degrees, and that even the cutting-edge judges possess considerable biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:21:06Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs)<n>We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric.<n>Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)

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.