arXiv subjects

Bijean Ghafouri

Publications and source records attributed to Bijean Ghafouri.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

What do people want to fact-check?

Research on misinformation has focused almost exclusively on supply, asking what falsehoods circulate, who produces them, and whether corrections work. A basic demand-side question remains unanswered. When ordinary people can fact-check anything they want, what do they actually ask about? We provide the first large-scale evidence on this question by analyzing close to 2{,}500 statements submitted by 457 participants to an open-ended AI fact-checking system. Each claim is classified along five semantic dimensions (domain, epistemic form, verifiability, target entity, and temporal reference), producing a behavioral map of public verification demand. Three findings stand out. First, users range widely across topics but default to a narrow epistemic repertoire, overwhelmingly submitting simple descriptive claims about present-day observables. Second, roughly one in four requests concerns statements that cannot be empirically resolved, including moral judgments, speculative predictions, and subjective evaluations, revealing a systematic mismatch between what users seek from fact-checking tools and what such tools can deliver. Third, comparison with the FEVER benchmark dataset exposes sharp structural divergences across all five dimensions, indicating that standard evaluation corpora encode a synthetic claim environment that does not resemble real-world verification needs. These results reframe fact-checking as a demand-driven problem and identify where current AI systems and benchmarks are misaligned with the uncertainty people actually experience.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

RLHF May Not Reflect Genuine Preferences

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) assumes that annotation responses reflect genuine human preferences. They often do not. Behavioral scientists have documented for sixty years that people produce responses without holding genuine opinions, construct preferences on the spot from contextual cues, and interpret identical questions differently. Importantly, these failures are common for the judgments on values that matter most for AI alignment. We argue that measurement validity is logically prior to preference aggregation. Before asking how to combine annotations, the field must ask whether the responses being combined are preferences at all. We organize annotation responses along a spectrum, from non-attitudes (no signal) to genuine preferences (full signal), and develop diagnostics that locate responses on this spectrum. In two RLHF datasets, we show that inconsistency is systematic and directionally biased. Filtering high-inconsistency annotators flips majority harm classifications for 18.6% of prompts and shifts mean ratings by over 13 points on a 100-point scale. As such, much of the current RLHF practice models noise as signal and elicitation artifacts as human values.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Lost Before Translation: Social Information Transmission and Survival in AI-AI Communication

When AI systems summarize and relay information, they inevitably transform it. But how? We introduce an experimental paradigm based on the telephone game to study what happens when AI talks to AI. Across five studies tracking content through AI transmission chains, we find three consistent patterns. The first is convergence, where texts differing in certainty, emotional intensity, and perspectival balance collapse toward a shared default of moderate confidence, muted affect, and analytical structure. The second is selective survival, where narrative anchors persist while the texture of evidence, hedges, quotes, and attributions is stripped away. The third is competitive filtering, where strong arguments survive while weaker but valid considerations disappear when multiple viewpoints coexist. In downstream experiments, human participants rated AI-transmitted content as more credible and polished. Importantly, however, humans also showed degraded factual recall, reduced perception of balance, and diminished emotional resonance. We show that the properties that make AI-mediated content appear authoritative may systematically erode the cognitive and affective diversity on which informed judgment depends.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

The Variance Paradox: How AI Reduces Diversity but Increases Novelty

The diversity of human expression is the raw material of discovery. Generative artificial intelligence threatens this resource even as it promises to accelerate innovation, a paradox now visible across science, culture, and professional work. We propose a framework to explain this tension. AI systems compress informational variance through statistical optimization, and users amplify this effect through epistemic deference. We call this process the AI Prism. Yet this same compression can enable novelty. Standardized forms travel across domain boundaries, lowering translation costs and creating opportunities for recombination that we term the Paradoxical Bridge. The interaction produces a U-shaped temporal dynamic, an initial decline in diversity followed by recombinant innovation, but only when humans actively curate rather than passively defer. The framework generates testable predictions about when compression constrains versus amplifies creativity. As AI becomes infrastructure for knowledge work, managing this dynamic is essential. Without intervention, the conditions for recovery may not arrive.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Epistemic Integrity in Large Language Models

Large language models are increasingly relied upon as sources of information, but their propensity for generating false or misleading statements with high confidence poses risks for users and society. In this paper, we confront the critical problem of epistemic miscalibration $\unicode{x2013}$ where a model's linguistic assertiveness fails to reflect its true internal certainty. We introduce a new human-labeled dataset and a novel method for measuring the linguistic assertiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) which cuts error rates by over 50% relative to previous benchmarks. Validated across multiple datasets, our method reveals a stark misalignment between how confidently models linguistically present information and their actual accuracy. Further human evaluations confirm the severity of this miscalibration. This evidence underscores the urgent risk of the overstated certainty LLMs hold which may mislead users on a massive scale. Our framework provides a crucial step forward in diagnosing this miscalibration, offering a path towards correcting it and more trustworthy AI across domains.

cs.CL↗