arXiv subjects

Jean-Francois Godbout

Publications and source records attributed to Jean-Francois Godbout.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

It's the Thought that Counts: Evaluating the Attempts of Frontier LLMs to Persuade on Harmful Topics

Persuasion is a powerful capability of large language models (LLMs) that both enables beneficial applications (e.g. helping people quit smoking) and raises significant risks (e.g. large-scale, targeted political manipulation). Prior work has found models possess a significant and growing persuasive capability, measured by belief changes in simulated or real users. However, these benchmarks overlook a crucial risk factor: the propensity of a model to attempt to persuade in harmful contexts. Understanding whether a model will blindly ``follow orders'' to persuade on harmful topics (e.g. glorifying joining a terrorist group) is key to understanding the efficacy of safety guardrails. Moreover, understanding if and when a model will engage in persuasive behavior in pursuit of some goal is essential to understanding the risks from agentic AI systems. We propose the Attempt to Persuade Eval (APE) benchmark, that shifts the focus from persuasion success to persuasion attempts, operationalized as a model's willingness to generate content aimed at shaping beliefs or behavior. Our evaluation framework probes frontier LLMs using a multi-turn conversational setup between simulated persuader and persuadee agents. APE explores a diverse spectrum of topics including conspiracies, controversial issues, and non-controversially harmful content. We introduce an automated evaluator model to identify willingness to persuade and measure the frequency and context of persuasive attempts. We find that many open and closed-weight models are frequently willing to attempt persuasion on harmful topics and that jailbreaking can increase willingness to engage in such behavior. Our results highlight gaps in current safety guardrails and underscore the importance of evaluating willingness to persuade as a key dimension of LLM risk. APE is available at github.com/AlignmentResearch/AttemptPersuadeEval

cs.AI↗

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↗

arXiv2024

Web Retrieval Agents for Evidence-Based Misinformation Detection

This paper develops an agent-based automated fact-checking approach for detecting misinformation. We demonstrate that combining a powerful LLM agent, which does not have access to the internet for searches, with an online web search agent yields better results than when each tool is used independently. Our approach is robust across multiple models, outperforming alternatives and increasing the macro F1 of misinformation detection by as much as 20 percent compared to LLMs without search. We also conduct extensive analyses on the sources our system leverages and their biases, decisions in the construction of the system like the search tool and the knowledge base, the type of evidence needed and its impact on the results, and other parts of the overall process. By combining strong performance with in-depth understanding, we hope to provide building blocks for future search-enabled misinformation mitigation systems.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2024

Regional and Temporal Patterns of Partisan Polarization during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States and Canada

Public health measures were among the most polarizing topics debated online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Much of the discussion surrounded specific events, such as when and which particular interventions came into practise. In this work, we develop and apply an approach to measure subnational and event-driven variation of partisan polarization and explore how these dynamics varied both across and within countries. We apply our measure to a dataset of over 50 million tweets posted during late 2020, a salient period of polarizing discourse in the early phase of the pandemic. In particular, we examine regional variations in both the United States and Canada, focusing on three specific health interventions: lockdowns, masks, and vaccines. We find that more politically conservative regions had higher levels of partisan polarization in both countries, especially in the US where a strong negative correlation exists between regional vaccination rates and degree of polarization in vaccine related discussions. We then analyze the timing, context, and profile of spikes in polarization, linking them to specific events discussed on social media across different regions in both countries. These typically last only a few days in duration, suggesting that online discussions reflect and could even drive changes in public opinion, which in the context of pandemic response impacts public health outcomes across different regions and over time.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2024

Comparing GPT-4 and Open-Source Language Models in Misinformation Mitigation

Recent large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective for misinformation detection. However, the choice of LLMs for experiments varies widely, leading to uncertain conclusions. In particular, GPT-4 is known to be strong in this domain, but it is closed source, potentially expensive, and can show instability between different versions. Meanwhile, alternative LLMs have given mixed results. In this work, we show that Zephyr-7b presents a consistently viable alternative, overcoming key limitations of commonly used approaches like Llama-2 and GPT-3.5. This provides the research community with a solid open-source option and shows open-source models are gradually catching up on this task. We then highlight how GPT-3.5 exhibits unstable performance, such that this very widely used model could provide misleading results in misinformation detection. Finally, we validate new tools including approaches to structured output and the latest version of GPT-4 (Turbo), showing they do not compromise performance, thus unlocking them for future research and potentially enabling more complex pipelines for misinformation mitigation.

cs.CL↗