One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30311v1
• Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 06:27:21 GMT
• Title: One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread
• Abstract summary: Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation.<n>We introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal.<n>We show that AI changes what public history means. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means.
• Score: 39.0786847687173
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

Related papers

• AI usage patterns are shaped by perceived gains in human agency [2.2635515032445577]
  We show that people consistently link sustained AI usage to perceived gains in individual agency.<n>Our findings challenge prevailing assumptions about how and why humans use AI systems over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T15:24:58Z)
• Exploring the Impact of Explainable AI and Cognitive Capabilities on Users' Decisions [1.1049608786515839]
  Personality traits like the Need for Cognition (NFC) can lead to different decision-making outcomes among low and high NFC individuals.<n>We investigated how presenting AI information affects accuracy, reliance on AI, and cognitive load in a loan application scenario.<n>We found no significant differences between low and high NFC groups in accuracy or cognitive load, raising questions about the role of personality traits in AI-assisted decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T11:30:53Z)
• What Else Do I Need to Know? The Effect of Background Information on Users' Reliance on QA Systems [23.69129423040988]
  We study how users interact with QA systems in the absence of sufficient information to assess their predictions. Our study reveals that users rely on model predictions even in the absence of sufficient information needed to assess the model's correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:57:12Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
  Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z)
• On the Influence of Explainable AI on Automation Bias [0.0]
  We aim to shed light on the potential to influence automation bias by explainable AI (XAI) We conduct an online experiment with regard to hotel review classifications and discuss first results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-19T12:54:23Z)
• Uncalibrated Models Can Improve Human-AI Collaboration [10.106324182884068]
  We show that presenting AI models as more confident than they actually are can improve human-AI performance. We first learn a model for how humans incorporate AI advice using data from thousands of human interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-12T04:51:00Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• Does Explainable Artificial Intelligence Improve Human Decision-Making? [17.18994675838646]
  We compare and evaluate objective human decision accuracy without AI (control), with an AI prediction (no explanation) and AI prediction with explanation. We find any kind of AI prediction tends to improve user decision accuracy, but no conclusive evidence that explainable AI has a meaningful impact. Our results indicate that, at least in some situations, the "why" information provided in explainable AI may not enhance user decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-19T15:46:13Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

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.