arXiv subjects

Mahjabin Nahar

Publications and source records attributed to Mahjabin Nahar.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

When AI Says "I Am Unable to Answer": Understanding User Responses to AI Refusals

While refusal-based safeguards to mitigate hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly common, they may conflict with users' preferences for definitive answers. However, we know little about how users respond to refusals across repeated interactions, when refusals become more or less acceptable, and for whom. In this work, we examine how refusal frequency, explanations, and need for cognitive closure (NFCC) shape responses to AI refusals. Participants (N=599) interacted with an AI system that never refused, refused infrequently, or refused frequently, with refusals either explained or unexplained. Participants were most satisfied with genuine responses, followed by hallucinations and then refusals, despite recognizing hallucinations as less accurate. Explanations increased satisfaction with infrequent, but not frequent, refusals. Higher-NFCC participants evaluated AI systems that refused more negatively. These findings reveal a tension between hallucination avoidance and user satisfaction and highlight the importance of designing balanced refusal strategies.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Label Over Logic? How Source Cues Bias Human Fallacy Judgments More Than LLMs

As AI-generated and AI-assisted content floods online spaces, source labels attached to such content can distort human reasoning judgments, with downstream consequences for moderation, evaluation, and decision-making. Whether LLMs share this vulnerability, or offer more source-agnostic evaluation, remains an open question with strong implications for human-AI collaboration. We examine this issue using logical fallacies as a controlled setting to isolate source-label effects on reasoning quality, independent of domain knowledge. We conduct an online study (N=505) where participants are assigned to a source condition (human, AI, human with AI assistance, AI with human assistance, or no disclosure) and evaluate comments containing logical fallacies, comparing their judgments with those of LLMs (GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5), which were evaluated across the same source conditions. Human evaluators were significantly more susceptible to fallacies labeled as 'written by human' or 'written by human with AI assistance' and assigned higher trust ratings in these conditions. LLM evaluations remained comparatively stable across source labels, though performance varied across models. Confidence levels were similarly high across conditions for both humans and LLMs, regardless of the presence of fallacies. Our findings indicate that source-label bias is primarily a human vulnerability for logical fallacy evaluation, with potential implications in human-LLM collaboration in increasingly AI-mediated environments.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

TRILOGUE: A Trilingual Spoken Dialogue Fact-Checking Benchmark with Evidence and Paired Audio

Modern misinformation is often heard before it is read, yet fact-checking systems are still evaluated mainly on clean written claims. Spoken dialogue remains different even when systems operate on transcripts: claims may be distributed across speakers and turns, depend on prior context, and become harder to verify when Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) errors distort the available text. Prior spoken dialogue fact-checking resources are small, English-centric, or focused on annotation rather than end-to-end benchmarking, leaving no large multilingual benchmark with paired speech and turn-level labels. We introduce TRILOGUE (TRIlingual spoken diaLOGUE fact-checking), a large-scale trilingual benchmark of source-grounded spoken dialogues in English, Russian, and Kazakh. It contains nearly 12K dialogues, 187K turns, and 390 hours of paired audio with ASR transcripts and word-level timestamp alignments across all three languages, including nearly 5K human-recorded Russian and Kazakh dialogue files. TRILOGUE supports claim check-worthiness detection, source-article evidence retrieval, and claim verification with claim-only, gold-evidence, and retrieved-evidence inputs. Baselines show that ASR degradation and cross-lingual transfer remain challenging, especially for Kazakh, while retrieved source evidence substantially narrows the gap to gold-evidence verification.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Beyond checkmate: exploring the creative chokepoints in AI text

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized text generation but also raised concerns about potential misuse, making detecting LLM-generated text (AI text) increasingly essential. While prior work has focused on identifying AI text and effectively checkmating it, our study investigates a less-explored territory: portraying the nuanced distinctions between human and AI texts across text segments (introduction, body, and conclusion). Whether LLMs excel or falter in incorporating linguistic ingenuity across text segments, the results will critically inform their viability and boundaries as effective creative assistants to humans. Through an analogy with the structure of chess games, comprising opening, middle, and end games, we analyze segment-specific patterns to reveal where the most striking differences lie. Although AI texts closely resemble human writing in the body segment due to its length, deeper analysis shows a higher divergence in features dependent on the continuous flow of language, making it the most informative segment for detection. Additionally, human texts exhibit greater stylistic variation across segments, offering a new lens for distinguishing them from AI. Overall, our findings provide fresh insights into human-AI text differences and pave the way for more effective and interpretable detection strategies. Codes available at https://github.com/tripto03/chess_inspired_human_ai_text_distinction.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Catch Me if You Search: When Contextual Web Search Results Affect the Detection of Hallucinations

While we increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs) for various tasks, these models are known to produce inaccurate content or 'hallucinations' with potentially disastrous consequences. The recent integration of web search results into LLMs prompts the question of whether people utilize them to verify the generated content, thereby accurately detecting hallucinations. An online experiment (N=560) investigated how the provision of search results, either static (i.e., fixed search results provided by LLM) or dynamic (i.e., participant-led searches), affects participants' perceived accuracy of LLM-generated content (i.e., genuine, minor hallucination, major hallucination), self-confidence in accuracy ratings, as well as their overall evaluation of the LLM, as compared to the control condition (i.e., no search results). Results showed that participants in both static and dynamic conditions (vs. control) rated hallucinated content to be less accurate and perceived the LLM more negatively. However, those in the dynamic condition rated genuine content as more accurate and demonstrated greater overall self-confidence in their assessments than those in the static search or control conditions. We highlighted practical implications of incorporating web search functionality into LLMs in real-world contexts.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Generative AI Policies under the Microscope: How CS Conferences Are Navigating the New Frontier in Scholarly Writing

As the use of Generative AI (Gen-AI) in scholarly writing and peer reviews continues to rise, it is essential for the computing field to establish and adopt clear Gen-AI policies. This study examines the landscape of Gen-AI policies across 64 major Computer Science conferences and offers recommendations for promoting more effective and responsible use of Gen-AI in the field.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Fakes of Varying Shades: How Warning Affects Human Perception and Engagement Regarding LLM Hallucinations

The widespread adoption and transformative effects of large language models (LLMs) have sparked concerns regarding their capacity to produce inaccurate and fictitious content, referred to as `hallucinations'. Given the potential risks associated with hallucinations, humans should be able to identify them. This research aims to understand the human perception of LLM hallucinations by systematically varying the degree of hallucination (genuine, minor hallucination, major hallucination) and examining its interaction with warning (i.e., a warning of potential inaccuracies: absent vs. present). Participants (N=419) from Prolific rated the perceived accuracy and engaged with content (e.g., like, dislike, share) in a Q/A format. Participants ranked content as truthful in the order of genuine, minor hallucination, and major hallucination, and user engagement behaviors mirrored this pattern. More importantly, we observed that warning improved the detection of hallucination without significantly affecting the perceived truthfulness of genuine content. We conclude by offering insights for future tools to aid human detection of hallucinations. All survey materials, demographic questions, and post-session questions are available at: https://github.com/MahjabinNahar/fakes-of-varying-shades-survey-materials

cs.HC↗