Crowdsourced misinformation governance systems such as Community Notes and Weibo Annotations depend on sustained corrective labor. How monetary incentives shape participation and subsequent governance outcomes remains poorly understood. We conduct a mixed-methods study of Weibo Annotations, analyzing 102,994 posts and 431,407 comments from 2023--2026, alongside interviews with 15 contributors. We find concentrated corrective labor, limited observed display, and weak quality--engagement alignment. Policy introduction was associated with sharp increases in contributor participation and annotation production. Model-assisted quality followed its expected trajectory, evidence for additional display growth was inconclusive, and engagement per annotation fell below expectation. Public discussions and interviews reveal substantial verification demands, difficult-to-interpret review processes, uneven platform knowledge, and gaps in contributor protection. We identify four recurring bottlenecks in governance orchestration: participation, review, reach, and protection. Effective incentive design therefore depends on whether platforms can support these downstream processes as corrective labor expands.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist crowdsourced fact-checking, yet evaluations focus on individual annotations. A correction's reach and reception depend on visibility, audience responses, and platform policies. We introduce correction context understanding: assessing corrective content, interpreting audience responses, and reasoning about platform dynamics within a shared environment. We build NoteHabitat from 36 months of Weibo Annotations data, linking 102,994 posts (42,853 annotations), 431,407 comments, and five policy events. Evaluating diverse model families across seven tasks spanning content, interaction, and management reveals three gaps. Annotation quality correlates only weakly with engagement ($ρ=0.068$), while four zero-shot LLMs systematically underrate quality relative to human judgments, especially evidence support and objectivity. Models also miss toxic comments supporting corrections (36.4% average recall across ten models). At the platform level, LLMs partially predict policy-associated outcome directions, but LLM-guided simulations poorly reproduce daily activity. Cross-group analyses expose blind spots tied to contribution types and reader stances that aggregate scores conceal. Reliable fact-checking AI must understand the note, the conversation around it, and the platform in which both unfold.
Zhi Zeng, Jiaying Wu National University of Singapore, Minnan Luo Xi'an Jiaotong University, Di Zhang, Yifei Yang, Xiangzheng Kong, Herun Wan, Zihan Ma
Video misinformation detection is often approached as a binary veracity classification problem, overlooking the complex reasoning required to explain how and why content misleads. Existing benchmarks fail to capture the diversity of manipulation strategies, such as AI-generated edits and out-of-context manipulation, and do not evaluate whether models can provide process-level justifications for their judgments. We address these limitations with MisVideoQA, a multi-turn benchmark designed to assess comprehensive understanding and reasoning in video misinformation analysis. MisVideoQA covers 12 fine-grained deception categories and evaluates models along six dimensions, progressing from perceptual attribution to intent and persuasion analysis. Recognizing that standard MLLMs struggle to sustain such structured, evidence-based deduction, we propose MisAgent, a Delphi-inspired multi-agent framework in which specialized agents collaboratively integrate multimodal cues with external evidence. Experimental results show that state-of-the-art multimodal large language models perform poorly on MisVideoQA, while MisAgent consistently improves reasoning accuracy and explanation quality. Together, our benchmark and framework establish a unified foundation for reliable, interpretable, and evidence-grounded video misinformation analysis.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL · cs.MA · cs.CV
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表
Jiaying Wu National University of Singapore, Zihang Fu National University of Singapore, Haonan Wang, Fanxiao Li, Jiafeng Guo Institute of Computing Technolgy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Preslav Nakov Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, Min-Yen Kan National University of Singapore
Community Notes, the crowd-sourced misinformation governance system on X (formerly Twitter), allows users to flag misleading posts, attach contextual notes, and rate the notes’ helpfulness. However, our empirical analysis of 30.8K health-related notes reveals substantial latency, with a median delay of 17.6 hours before notes receive a helpfulness status. To improve responsiveness during real-world misinformation surges, we propose CrowdNotes+, a unified LLM-based framework that augments Community Notes for faster and more reliable health misinformation governance. CrowdNotes+ integrates two modes: (1) evidence-grounded note augmentation and (2) utility-guided note automation, supported by a hierarchical three-stage evaluation of relevance, correctness, and helpfulness. We instantiate the framework with HealthNotes, a benchmark of 1.2K health notes annotated for helpfulness, and a fine-tuned helpfulness judge. Our analysis first uncovers a key loophole in current crowd-sourced governance: voters frequently conflate stylistic fluency with factual accuracy. Addressing this via our hierarchical evaluation, experiments across 15 representative LLMs demonstrate that CrowdNotes+ significantly outperforms human contributors in note correctness, helpfulness, and evidence utility.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表
Fanxiao Li, Jiaying Wu National University of Singapore, Tingchao Fu, Dayang Li, Herun Wan, Wei Zhou Yunnan University, Min-Yen Kan National University of Singapore
Even when factually correct, social-media news previews (image-headline pairs) can induce interpretation drift: by selectively omitting crucial context, they lead readers to form judgments that diverge from what the full article supports. This covert harm is subtler than explicit misinformation, yet remains underexplored. To address this gap, we develop a multi-stage pipeline that simulates preview-based and context-based understanding, enabling construction of the MM-Misleading benchmark. Using MM-Misleading, we systematically evaluate open-source LVLMs and uncover pronounced blind spots in omission-based misleadingness detection. We further propose OMGuard, which combines (1) Interpretation-Aware Fine-Tuning for misleadingness detection and (2) Rationale-Guided Misleading Content Correction, where explicit rationales guide headline rewriting to reduce misleading impressions. Experiments show that OMGuard lifts an 8B model’s detection accuracy to the level of a 235B LVLM while delivering markedly stronger end-to-end correction. Further analysis shows that misleadingness usually arises from local narrative shifts, such as missing background, instead of global frame changes, and identifies image-driven cases where text-only correction fails, underscoring the need for visual interventions.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL · cs.CV
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表
Nuo Chen National University of Singapore, Andre Lin HuiKai National University of Singapore, Jiaying Wu National University of Singapore, Junyi Hou National University of Singapore, Zining Zhang National University of Singapore, Qian Wang, Xidong Wang, Bingsheng He National University of Singapore
Despite the growing adoption of large language models (LLMs) in academic workflows, their capabilities remain limited in supporting high-quality scientific writing. Most existing systems are designed for general-purpose scientific text generation and fail to meet the sophisticated demands of research communication beyond surface-level polishing, for example, maintaining conceptual coherence across sections. Furthermore, academic writing is inherently iterative and revision-driven, a process that is not well supported by direct prompting-based paradigms. To address these scenarios, we propose a human-AI collaboration framework for academic paper revision, centered on criteria-guided intent alignment and context-aware modeling. To validate the framework, we curate a dataset of 7,000 research papers from top-tier venues, annotated with 140,000 instruction–response pairs that reflect realistic, section-level scientific revisions. We instantiate the framework in XtraGPT, the first suite of open-source LLMs (1.5B to 14B parameters) specifically fine-tuned for context-aware academic paper revision. Extensive experiments show that XtraGPT significantly outperforms same-scale baselines and rivals the quality of proprietary counterparts. Both automated preference assessments and human evaluations confirm the effectiveness of XtraGPT in improving scientific drafts. Our code and models are available at https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/XtraGPT and https://huggingface.co/collections/Xtra-Computing/xtragpt.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表