arXiv subjects

Chichen Lin

Publications and source records attributed to Chichen Lin.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

When Platforms Pay Users to Correct Misinformation: Revenue Incentives and Governance Capacity in Weibo Annotations

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.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

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.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

You Can't Fool Us: Understanding the Resilience of LLM-driven Agent Communities to Misinformation

Misinformation resilience is a dynamic community process: communities differ not only in whether they initially trust false claims, but also in how they recover through interaction, questioning, correction, and support withdrawal. We study this process with an LLM-based agent simulation that constructs synthetic communities along two theoretically motivated dimensions: Actively Open-minded Thinking (AOT), which captures evidence-seeking and willingness to revise beliefs, and Political Ideology (PI), which captures identity-based interpretation of contested claims. These two traits allow us to examine how evidence-oriented reasoning and ideological alignment jointly shape community responses to credible misinformation shocks. Across systematically varied AOT-PI communities, we find that higher AOT improves both resistance to misinformation uptake and recovery after trust peaks. PI shapes the recovery pathway: ideologically moderate communities recover more reliably, while polarized communities retain more residual support. Stance-level analysis shows that resilience depends on whether agents move from questioning a claim to denying or correcting it and withdrawing prior support. Intervention experiments further show that persuasion and fact checking better support post-peak correction, whereas accuracy prompts mainly induce early caution and source warnings have weaker effects. Together, this work provides a mechanism-level account of community misinformation resilience, showing how psychological composition and intervention design shape whether communities move from misinformation exposure toward correction or persistent support.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating Generalization Capabilities of LLM-Based Agents in Mixed-Motive Scenarios Using Concordia

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have demonstrated impressive capabilities for social interaction and are increasingly being deployed in situations where they might engage with both human and artificial agents. These interactions represent a critical frontier for LLM-based agents, yet existing evaluation methods fail to measure how well these capabilities generalize to novel social situations. In this paper, we introduce a method for evaluating the ability of LLM-based agents to cooperate in zero-shot, mixed-motive environments using Concordia, a natural language multi-agent simulation environment. Our method measures general cooperative intelligence by testing an agent's ability to identify and exploit opportunities for mutual gain across diverse partners and contexts. We present empirical results from the NeurIPS 2024 Concordia Contest, where agents were evaluated on their ability to achieve mutual gains across a suite of diverse scenarios ranging from negotiation to collective action problems. Our findings reveal significant gaps between current agent capabilities and the robust generalization required for reliable cooperation, particularly in scenarios demanding persuasion and norm enforcement.

cs.AI↗