Many Ways to Be Fake: Benchmarking Fake News Detection Under Strategy-Driven AI Generation

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled the large-scale generation of highly fluent and deceptive news-like content. While prior work has often treated fake news detection as a binary classification problem, modern fake news increasingly arises through human-AI collaboration, where strategic inaccuracies are embedded within otherwise accurate and credible narratives. These mixed-truth cases represent a realistic and consequential threat, yet they remain underrepresented in existing benchmarks. To address this gap, we introduce MANYFAKE, a synthetic benchmark containing 6,798 fake news articles generated through multiple strategy-driven prompting pipelines that capture many ways fake news can be constructed and refined. Using this benchmark, we evaluate a range of state-of-the-art fake news detectors. Our results show that even advanced reasoning-enabled models approach saturation on fully fabricated stories, but remain brittle when falsehoods are subtle, optimized, and interwoven with accurate information.

Private Seeds, Public LLMs: Realistic and Privacy-Preserving Synthetic Data Generation

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a powerful tool for synthetic data generation. A particularly important use case is producing synthetic replicas of private text, which requires carefully balancing privacy and utility. We propose Realistic and Privacy-Preserving Synthetic Data Generation (RPSG), which leverages privacy-preserving mechanisms, including formal differential privacy (DP); and private seeds, in particular text containing personal information, to generate realistic synthetic data. Comprehensive experiments against state-of-the-art private synthetic data generation methods demonstrate that RPSG achieves high fidelity to private data while providing strong privacy protection.

Context Selection for Hypothesis and Statistical Evidence Extraction from Full-Text Scientific Articles

Extracting hypotheses and their supporting statistical evidence from full-text scientific articles is central to the synthesis of empirical findings, but remains difficult due to document length and the distribution of scientific arguments across sections of the paper. The work studies a sequential full-text extraction setting, where the statement of a primary finding in an article's abstract is linked to (i) a corresponding hypothesis statement in the paper body and (ii) the statistical evidence that supports or refutes that hypothesis. This formulation induces a challenging within-document retrieval setting in which many candidate paragraphs are topically related to the finding but differ in rhetorical role, creating hard negatives for retrieval and extraction. Using a two-stage retrieve-and-extract framework, we conduct a controlled study of retrieval design choices, varying context quantity, context quality (standard Retrieval Augmented Generation, reranking, and a fine-tuned retriever paired with reranking), as well as an oracle paragraph setting to separate retrieval failures from extraction limits across four Large Language Model extractors. We find that targeted context selection consistently improves hypothesis extraction relative to full-text prompting, with gains concentrated in configurations that optimize retrieval quality and context cleanliness. In contrast, statistical evidence extraction remains substantially harder. Even with oracle paragraphs, performance remains moderate, indicating persistent extractor limitations in handling hybrid numeric-textual statements rather than retrieval failures alone.

Evaluating Evidence Grounding Under User Pressure in Instruction-Tuned Language Models

In contested domains, instruction-tuned language models must balance user-alignment pressures against faithfulness to the in-context evidence. To evaluate this tension, we introduce a controlled epistemic-conflict framework grounded in the U.S. National Climate Assessment. We conduct fine-grained ablations over evidence composition and uncertainty cues across 19 instruction-tuned models spanning 0.27B to 32B parameters. Across neutral prompts, richer evidence generally improves evidence-consistent accuracy and ordinal scoring performance. Under user pressure, however, evidence does not reliably prevent user-aligned reversals in this controlled fixed-evidence setting. We report three primary failure modes. First, we identify a negative partial-evidence interaction, where adding epistemic nuance, specifically research gaps, is associated with increased susceptibility to sycophancy in families like Llama-3 and Gemma-3. Second, robustness scales non-monotonically: within some families, certain low-to-mid scale models are especially sensitive to adversarial user pressure. Third, models differ in distributional concentration under conflict: some instruction-tuned models maintain sharply peaked ordinal distributions under pressure, while others are substantially more dispersed; in scale-matched Qwen comparisons, reasoning-distilled variants (DeepSeek-R1-Qwen) exhibit consistently higher dispersion than their instruction-tuned counterparts. These findings suggest that, in a controlled fixed-evidence setting, providing richer in-context evidence alone offers no guarantee against user pressure without explicit training for epistemic integrity.

ReplicatorBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Replicability in Social and Behavioral Sciences

The literature has witnessed an emerging interest in AI agents for automated assessment of scientific papers. Existing benchmarks focus primarily on the computational aspect of this task, testing agents' ability to reproduce or replicate research outcomes when having access to the code and data. This setting, while foundational, (1) fails to capture the inconsistent availability of new data for replication as opposed to reproduction, and (2) lacks ground-truth diversity by focusing only on reproducible papers, thereby failing to evaluate an agent's ability to identify non-replicable research. Furthermore, most benchmarks only evaluate outcomes rather than the replication process. In response, we introduce ReplicatorBench, an end-to-end benchmark, including human-verified replicable and non-replicable research claims in social and behavioral sciences for evaluating AI agents in research replication across three stages: (1) extraction and retrieval of replication data; (2) design and execution of computational experiments; and (3) interpretation of results, allowing a test of AI agents' capability to mimic the activities of human replicators in real world. To set a baseline of AI agents' capability, we develop ReplicatorAgent, an agentic framework equipped with necessary tools, like web search and iterative interaction with sandboxed environments, to accomplish tasks in ReplicatorBench. We evaluate ReplicatorAgent across four underlying large language models (LLMs), as well as different design choices of programming language and levels of code access. Our findings reveal that while current LLM agents are capable of effectively designing and executing computational experiments, they struggle with retrieving resources, such as new data, necessary to replicate a claim. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking.

A Tale of Two Identities: An Ethical Audit of Human and AI-Crafted Personas

As LLMs (large language models) are increasingly used to generate synthetic personas particularly in data-limited domains such as health, privacy, and HCI, it becomes necessary to understand how these narratives represent identity, especially that of minority communities. In this paper, we audit synthetic personas generated by 3 LLMs (GPT4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Deepseek 2.5) through the lens of representational harm, focusing specifically on racial identity. Using a mixed methods approach combining close reading, lexical analysis, and a parameterized creativity framework, we compare 1512 LLM generated personas to human-authored responses. Our findings reveal that LLMs disproportionately foreground racial markers, overproduce culturally coded language, and construct personas that are syntactically elaborate yet narratively reductive. These patterns result in a range of sociotechnical harms, including stereotyping, exoticism, erasure, and benevolent bias, that are often obfuscated by superficially positive narrations. We formalize this phenomenon as algorithmic othering, where minoritized identities are rendered hypervisible but less authentic. Based on these findings, we offer design recommendations for narrative-aware evaluation metrics and community-centered validation protocols for synthetic identity generation.

Can Third-parties Read Our Emotions?

Natural Language Processing tasks that aim to infer an author's private states, e.g., emotions and opinions, from their written text, typically rely on datasets annotated by third-party annotators. However, the assumption that third-party annotators can accurately capture authors' private states remains largely unexamined. In this study, we present human subjects experiments on emotion recognition tasks that directly compare third-party annotations with first-party (author-provided) emotion labels. Our findings reveal significant limitations in third-party annotations-whether provided by human annotators or large language models (LLMs)-in faithfully representing authors' private states. However, LLMs outperform human annotators nearly across the board. We further explore methods to improve third-party annotation quality. We find that demographic similarity between first-party authors and third-party human annotators enhances annotation performance. While incorporating first-party demographic information into prompts leads to a marginal but statistically significant improvement in LLMs' performance. We introduce a framework for evaluating the limitations of third-party annotations and call for refined annotation practices to accurately represent and model authors' private states.

The study of short texts in digital politics: Document aggregation for topic modeling

Statistical topic modeling is widely used in political science to study text. Researchers examine documents of varying lengths, from tweets to speeches. There is ongoing debate on how document length affects the interpretability of topic models. We investigate the effects of aggregating short documents into larger ones based on natural units that partition the corpus. In our study, we analyze one million tweets by U.S. state legislators from April 2016 to September 2020. We find that for documents aggregated at the account level, topics are more associated with individual states than when using individual tweets. This finding is replicated with Wikipedia pages aggregated by birth cities, showing how document definitions can impact topic modeling results.

The Reopening of Pandora's Box: Analyzing the Role of LLMs in the Evolving Battle Against AI-Generated Fake News

With the rise of AI-generated content spewed at scale from large language models (LLMs), genuine concerns about the spread of fake news have intensified. The perceived ability of LLMs to produce convincing fake news at scale poses new challenges for both human and automated fake news detection systems. To address this gap, this work presents the findings from a university-level competition which aimed to explore how LLMs can be used by humans to create fake news, and to assess the ability of human annotators and AI models to detect it. A total of 110 participants used LLMs to create 252 unique fake news stories, and 84 annotators participated in the detection tasks. Our findings indicate that LLMs are ~68% more effective at detecting real news than humans. However, for fake news detection, the performance of LLMs and humans remains comparable (~60% accuracy). Additionally, we examine the impact of visual elements (e.g., pictures) in news on the accuracy of detecting fake news stories. Finally, we also examine various strategies used by fake news creators to enhance the credibility of their AI-generated content. This work highlights the increasing complexity of detecting AI-generated fake news, particularly in collaborative human-AI settings.

Monolingual and Multilingual Misinformation Detection for Low-Resource Languages: A Comprehensive Survey

In today's global digital landscape, misinformation transcends linguistic boundaries, posing a significant challenge for moderation systems. While significant advances have been made in misinformation detection, the focus remains largely on monolingual high-resource contexts, with low-resource languages often overlooked. This survey aims to bridge that gap by providing a comprehensive overview of the current research on low-resource language misinformation detection in both monolingual and multilingual settings. We review the existing datasets, methodologies, and tools used in these domains, identifying key challenges related to: data resources, model development, cultural and linguistic context, real-world applications, and research efforts. We also examine emerging approaches, such as language-agnostic models and multi-modal techniques, while emphasizing the need for improved data collection practices, interdisciplinary collaboration, and stronger incentives for socially responsible AI research. Our findings underscore the need for robust, inclusive systems capable of addressing misinformation across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts.