Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Diana Riazi

Publications and source records attributed to Diana Riazi.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Images Amplify Misinformation Sharing in Vision-Language Models

As language and vision-language models (VLMs) become central to information access and online interaction, concerns grow about their potential to amplify misinformation. Human studies show that images boost the perceived credibility and shareability of information, raising the question of whether VLMs exhibit the same vulnerability. We present the first study examining how images influence VLMs' propensity to reshare news content, how this effect varies across model families, and how persona conditioning and content attributes modulate such behavior. We develop a jailbreaking-inspired prompting strategy that bypasses VLMs' default refusals to engage with controversial news, allowing them to generate resharing decisions across diverse topics and elicited traits, including antisocial ones. We evaluate four state-of-the-art VLMs on a novel multimodal dataset of fact-checked political news from PolitiFact, paired with images and ground-truth veracity labels. Our experiments show that image presence increases resharing rates by 14.5% for false news and 5.3% for true news. Persona conditioning further modulates this effect: Dark Triad traits amplify resharing of false news, whereas Republican-aligned profiles reduce sensitivity to veracity. Among the tested models, Claude-3-Haiku demonstrates the greatest robustness to visual misinformation. These findings reveal that VLMs replicate human-like biases in response to images, underscoring emerging risks for multimodal AI systems. They point to the need for evaluation frameworks and mitigation strategies that account for visual influence and persona-driven variability, particularly in sociotechnical settings where AI systems shape public discourse and information sharing.

cs.CL↗

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↗

Who should fight the spread of fake news?

This study investigates who should bear the responsibility of combating the spread of misinformation in social networks. Should that be the online platforms or their users? Should that be done by debunking the "fake news" already in circulation or by investing in preemptive efforts to prevent their diffusion altogether? We seek to answer such questions in a stylized opinion dynamics framework, where agents in a network aggregate the information they receive from peers and/or from influential external sources, with the aim of learning a ground truth among a set of competing hypotheses. In most cases, we find centralized sources to be more effective at combating misinformation than distributed ones, suggesting that online platforms should play an active role in the fight against fake news. In line with literature on the "backfire effect", we find that debunking in certain circumstances can be a counterproductive strategy, whereas some targeted strategies (akin to "deplatforming") and/or preemptive campaigns turn out to be quite effective. Despite its simplicity, our model provides useful guidelines that could inform the ongoing debate on online disinformation and the best ways to limit its damaging effects.

physics.soc-ph↗

Mitigating Disinformation in Social Networks through Noise

An abundance of literature has shown that the injection of noise into complex socio-economic systems can improve their resilience. This study aims to understand whether the same applies in the context of information diffusion in social networks. Specifically, we aim to understand whether the injection of noise in a social network of agents seeking to uncover a ground truth among a set of competing hypotheses can build resilience against disinformation. We implement two different stylized policies to inject noise in a social network, i.e., via random bots and via randomized recommendations, and find both to improve the population's overall belief in the ground truth. Notably, we find noise to be as effective as debunking when disinformation is particularly strong. On the other hand, such beneficial effects may lead to a misalignment between the agents' privately held and publicly stated beliefs, a phenomenon which is reminiscent of cognitive dissonance.

physics.soc-ph↗

Public and private beliefs under disinformation in social networks

We develop a model of opinion dynamics where agents in a social network seek to learn a ground truth among a set of competing hypotheses. Agents in the network form private beliefs about such hypotheses by aggregating their neighbors' publicly stated beliefs, in an iterative fashion. This process allows us to keep track of scenarios where private and public beliefs align, leading to population-wide consensus on the ground truth, as well as scenarios where the two sets of beliefs fail to converge. The latter scenario - which is reminiscent of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance - is induced by injecting 'conspirators' in the network, i.e., agents who actively spread disinformation by not communicating accurately their private beliefs. We show that the agents' cognitive dissonance non-trivially reaches its peak when conspirators are a relatively small minority of the population, and that such an effect can be mitigated - although not erased - by the presence of 'debunker' agents in the network.

physics.soc-ph↗