← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.01935 · v1
No Note Is an Island: Probing LLMs' Understanding of Crowdsourced Fact-Checking Environments
首次提交 2026-11-01 22:13
版本更新 2026-11-01 22:13
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:43
摘要
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.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-01 22:13 · 最新观测版本
No Note Is an Island: Probing LLMs' Understanding of Crowdsourced Fact-Checking Environments
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.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗