Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.30311

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

Zhuoran Lu·Weilong Wang·Yangyang Yu·Xinru Wang·Zhuoyan Li·Zhiwei Liu·Sophia Ananiadou
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.HCcs.AIcs.SI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Zhuoran Lu, Weilong Wang, Yangyang Yu, Xinru Wang, Zhuoyan Li, Zhiwei Liu, Sophia Ananiadou. 2026-08-31. One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30311

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subjectcs.HC subjectcs.SI subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

arXiv2026

Beyond Truth Discovery: A Two-Stage Framework to Assess the Severity of False Claim during Disasters

False information spreads rapidly on social media during disasters and can undermine emergency response efforts, public trust, and crisis communication. Existing research primarily focuses on determining whether social media posts contain false information, but provides limited insight into the specific false claims embedded within posts and the severity of individual false claims. To address the limitations, we propose a two-stage framework to assess the severity of false claims during disasters. In the first stage, we develop a false claim extraction agent that identifies false claims from multimodal social media posts containing text, images, videos, and links. A subsequent verification step validates extracted claims with supporting evidence. In the second stage, we define false claim severity as the combination of two complementary dimensions: believability, which determines the likelihood that a claim will be believed, and harmfulness, which captures the potential consequences if it is believed. Human annotators assess both dimensions to construct a claim-level severity benchmark using false claims extracted from Reddit posts related to hurricanes and wildfires. Building upon this benchmark, we investigate false claim severity assessment as a human-AI alignment problem, evaluating whether models can reproduce human judgments under a shared evaluation rubric rather than merely predicting severity labels. Experiments on the benchmark show that traditional supervised models exhibit limited alignment with human judgments, whereas Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve substantially stronger performance. Among the evaluated strategies, in-context learning consistently achieves the strongest alignment with human judgments, highlighting the importance of human examples and shared decision criteria for severity assessment.

cs.SI↗
arXiv2026

A Network Science Perspective on Evaluating Deep Graph Generative Models

Traditional network models from network science, such as the Erdos-Renyi and configuration models, generate random networks that reproduce few selected topological properties observed in real-world networks. Deep graph generative models emerge as a data-driven approach, leveraging deep neural network architectures to learn complex structural distributions directly from real-world networks to generate more realistic synthetic networks. Because real social contact networks cannot be shared due to privacy risks, synthetic networks serve as an alternative for developing and evaluating epidemic mitigation strategies. In this work, we evaluate deep graph generative models as well as the configuration from a network science perspective by assessing both the topological similarity between generated and real-world networks and their utility in identifying effective node immunization strategies to sup- press epidemic/misinformation spreading. It is found that two deep graph generative models produce synthetic networks that closely resemble the structural properties of real-world networks, enabling them to identify effective immunization strategies.

cs.SI↗
arXiv2026

AI agents reshape consensus formation in human groups

As large language model (LLM) agents shift from tools to participants in human groups, a fundamental question for collective behavior is how their growing presence reshapes consensus formation. Here we study mixed human-AI groups in a collaborative description game, in which shared conventions emerge through repeated rounds of random pairwise communication. Varying the proportions of LLM agents, we identify three distinct regimes of consensus formation: low agent proportions facilitate human-led consensus, intermediate proportions disrupt convergence, and high proportions restore strong consensus while shifting it toward agent-led conventions. Crucially, these regimes differ not only in the strength of convergence, but also in the semantic grounding and communicative form of the resulting consensus: human-led consensus is more concrete, holistic, and grounded in shared real-world analogies, whereas agent-led consensus is more abstract, less information-dense, and more geometrically segmented. Mechanistically, agent influence arises from a shared linguistic prior that places agents near one another in the expression space, combined with relatively stable expression choices across rounds; humans initially resist adopting expressions from partners perceived as AI but gradually yield to conformity pressure. These findings provide evidence that AI composition can shape the emergence, content, and perceived legitimacy of group norms, making agent proportion and transparency important design variables for human-AI systems.

cs.CL↗