LLM or Human? Perceptions of Trust and Information Quality in Research Summaries

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate and edit scientific abstracts, yet their integration into academic writing raises questions about trust, quality, and disclosure. Despite growing adoption, little is known about how readers perceive LLM-generated summaries and how these perceptions influence evaluations of scientific work. This paper presents a mixed-methods survey experiment investigating whether readers with ML expertise can distinguish between human- and LLM-generated abstracts, how actual and perceived LLM involvement affects judgments of quality and trustworthiness, and what orientations readers adopt toward AI-assisted writing. Our findings show that participants struggle to reliably identify LLM-generated content, yet their beliefs about LLM involvement significantly shape their evaluations. Notably, abstracts edited by LLMs are rated more favorably than those written solely by humans or LLMs. We also identify three distinct reader orientations toward LLM-assisted writing, offering insights into evolving norms and informing policy around disclosure and acceptable use in scientific communication.

A Use-Case Specific Dataset for Measuring Dimensions of Responsible Performance in LLM-generated Text

Current methods for evaluating large language models (LLMs) typically focus on high-level tasks such as text generation, without targeting a particular AI application. This approach is not sufficient for evaluating LLMs for Responsible AI dimensions like fairness, since protected attributes that are highly relevant in one application may be less relevant in another. In this work, we construct a dataset that is driven by a real-world application (generate a plain-text product description, given a list of product features), parameterized by fairness attributes intersected with gendered adjectives and product categories, yielding a rich set of labeled prompts. We show how to use the data to identify quality, veracity, safety, and fairness gaps in LLMs, contributing a proposal for LLM evaluation paired with a concrete resource for the research community.