arXiv subjects

Mowafak Allaham

Publications and source records attributed to Mowafak Allaham.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Synthetic Sources?: Auditing Generative Search Engine Citations for Evidence of AI-Generated Sources

The growing accessibility of Large Language Models via conversational interfaces capable of responding to users' questions by drawing on, synthesizing, and citing information from the web (i.e., Generative Search Engines) has simplified the information-seeking process for users. However, with the proliferation of AI-generated content on the web, it is unclear whether these engines can reliably omit citing synthetic sources (i.e., AI-generated sources). Should these engines be unable to do so, this puts users at risk of harm by treating information from AI-generated sources synthesized in responses of generative search engines as equivalent to information from authoritative or official sources. In a step towards identifying whether AI-generated sources are being cited by these engines, this work presents an audit of four generative search engines (ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity) using a total of 712 real-world human-generated queries spanning domains of public importance: politics, health, and the environment. Our findings show evidence of AI-generated sources being cited across all four generative search engines (~16% of cited sources) and identifies key source web domains these sources belong to that are frequently cited across these engines and topics. In addition, we observed that generative search engines include a somewhat narrow set of repeatedly cited domains while predominantly surfacing a large number of minimally cited domains in responses to users' queries. These findings contribute to the growing body of work on assessing the risks of generative search engines with the objective of increasing public awareness of their limitations and encouraging appropriate measures to improve information quality and governance of these systems.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

Emergence WebVoyager: Toward Consistent and Transparent Evaluation of (Web) Agents in The Wild

Reliable evaluation of AI agents operating in complex, real-world environments requires methodologies that are robust, transparent, and contextually aligned with the tasks agents are intended to perform. This study identifies persistent shortcomings in existing AI agent evaluation practices that are particularly acute in web agent evaluation, as exemplified by our audit of WebVoyager, including task-framing ambiguity and operational variability that hinder meaningful and reproducible performance comparisons. To address these challenges, we introduce Emergence WebVoyager, an enhanced version of the WebVoyager benchmark that standardizes evaluation methodology through clear guidelines for task instantiation, failure handling, annotation, and reporting. Emergence WebVoyager achieves an inter-annotator agreement of 95.9\%, indicating improved clarity and reliability in both task formulation and evaluation. Applying this framework to evaluate OpenAI Operator reveals substantial performance variation across domains and task types, with an overall success rate of 68.6\%, substantially lower than the 87\% previously reported by OpenAI, demonstrating the utility of our approach for more rigorous and comparable web agent evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Who Evaluates AI's Social Impacts? Mapping Coverage and Gaps in First and Third Party Evaluations

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor remain uneven. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of social impact evaluation reporting, examining 186 first-party release reports and 248 third-party evaluation sources, supplemented by developer interviews. We find a stark division of labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and declining in areas like environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators provide broader, more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, only developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, costs, and infrastructure, yet interviews reveal these disclosures are deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or compliance. Current practices leave major gaps in assessing societal impacts, underscoring the need for policies that mandate developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure for aggregating third-party evaluations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Informing AI Risk Assessment with News Media: Analyzing National and Political Variation in the Coverage of AI Risks

Risk-based approaches to AI governance often center the technological artifact as the primary focus of risk assessments, overlooking systemic risks that emerge from the complex interaction between AI systems and society. One potential source to incorporate more societal context into these approaches is the news media, as it embeds and reflects complex interactions between AI systems, human stakeholders, and the larger society. News media is influential in terms of which AI risks are emphasized and discussed in the public sphere, and thus which risks are deemed important. Yet, variations in the news media between countries and across different value systems (e.g. political orientations) may differentially shape the prioritization of risks through the media's agenda setting and framing processes. To better understand these variations, this work presents a comparative analysis of a cross-national sample of news media spanning 6 countries (the U.S., the U.K., India, Australia, Israel, and South Africa). Our findings show that AI risks are prioritized differently across nations and shed light on how left vs. right leaning U.S. based outlets not only differ in the prioritization of AI risks in their coverage, but also use politicized language in the reporting of these risks. These findings can inform risk assessors and policy-makers about the nuances they should account for when considering news media as a supplementary source for risk-based governance approaches.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Enhancing LLMs for Governance with Human Oversight: Evaluating and Aligning LLMs on Expert Classification of Climate Misinformation for Detecting False or Misleading Claims about Climate Change

Climate misinformation is a problem that has the potential to be substantially aggravated by the development of Large Language Models (LLMs). In this study we evaluate the potential for LLMs to be part of the solution for mitigating online dis/misinformation rather than the problem. Employing a public expert annotated dataset and a curated sample of social media content we evaluate the performance of proprietary vs. open source LLMs on climate misinformation classification task, comparing them to existing climate-focused computer-assisted tools and expert assessments. Results show (1) open-source models substantially under-perform in classifying climate misinformation compared to proprietary models, (2) existing climate-focused computer-assisted tools leveraging expert-annotated datasets continues to outperform many of proprietary models, including GPT-4o, and (3) demonstrate the efficacy and generalizability of fine-tuning GPT-3.5-turbo on expert annotated dataset in classifying claims about climate change at the equivalency of climate change experts with over 20 years of experience in climate communication. These findings highlight 1) the importance of incorporating human-oversight, such as incorporating expert-annotated datasets in training LLMs, for governance tasks that require subject-matter expertise like classifying climate misinformation, and 2) the potential for LLMs in facilitating civil society organizations to engage in various governance tasks such as classifying false or misleading claims in domains beyond climate change such as politics and health science.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Global Perspectives of AI Risks and Harms: Analyzing the Negative Impacts of AI Technologies as Prioritized by News Media

Emerging AI technologies have the potential to drive economic growth and innovation but can also pose significant risks to society. To mitigate these risks, governments, companies, and researchers have contributed regulatory frameworks, risk assessment approaches, and safety benchmarks, but these can lack nuance when considered in global deployment contexts. One way to understand these nuances is by looking at how the media reports on AI, as news media has a substantial influence on what negative impacts of AI are discussed in the public sphere and which impacts are deemed important. In this work, we analyze a broad and diverse sample of global news media spanning 27 countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, Middle East, North America, and Oceania to gain valuable insights into the risks and harms of AI technologies as reported and prioritized across media outlets in different countries. This approach reveals a skewed prioritization of Societal Risks followed by Legal & Rights-related Risks, Content Safety Risks, Cognitive Risks, Existential Risks, and Environmental Risks, as reflected in the prevalence of these risk categories in the news coverage of different nations. Furthermore, it highlights how the distribution of such concerns varies based on the political bias of news outlets, underscoring the political nature of AI risk assessment processes and public opinion. By incorporating views from various regions and political orientations for assessing the risks and harms of AI, this work presents stakeholders, such as AI developers and policy makers, with insights into the AI risks categories prioritized in the public sphere. These insights may guide the development of more inclusive, safe, and responsible AI technologies that address the diverse concerns and needs across the world.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Towards Leveraging News Media to Support Impact Assessment of AI Technologies

Expert-driven frameworks for impact assessments (IAs) may inadvertently overlook the effects of AI technologies on the public's social behavior, policy, and the cultural and geographical contexts shaping the perception of AI and the impacts around its use. This research explores the potentials of fine-tuning LLMs on negative impacts of AI reported in a diverse sample of articles from 266 news domains spanning 30 countries around the world to incorporate more diversity into IAs. Our findings highlight (1) the potential of fine-tuned open-source LLMs in supporting IA of AI technologies by generating high-quality negative impacts across four qualitative dimensions: coherence, structure, relevance, and plausibility, and (2) the efficacy of small open-source LLM (Mistral-7B) fine-tuned on impacts from news media in capturing a wider range of categories of impacts that GPT-4 had gaps in covering.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Evaluating the Capabilities of LLMs for Supporting Anticipatory Impact Assessment

Gaining insight into the potential negative impacts of emerging Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in society is a challenge for implementing anticipatory governance approaches. One approach to produce such insight is to use Large Language Models (LLMs) to support and guide experts in the process of ideating and exploring the range of undesirable consequences of emerging technologies. However, performance evaluations of LLMs for such tasks are still needed, including examining the general quality of generated impacts but also the range of types of impacts produced and resulting biases. In this paper, we demonstrate the potential for generating high-quality and diverse impacts of AI in society by fine-tuning completion models (GPT-3 and Mistral-7B) on a diverse sample of articles from news media and comparing those outputs to the impacts generated by instruction-based (GPT-4 and Mistral-7B-Instruct) models. We examine the generated impacts for coherence, structure, relevance, and plausibility and find that the generated impacts using Mistral-7B, a small open-source model fine-tuned on impacts from the news media, tend to be qualitatively on par with impacts generated using a more capable and larger scale model such as GPT-4. Moreover, we find that impacts produced by instruction-based models had gaps in the production of certain categories of impacts in comparison to fine-tuned models. This research highlights a potential bias in the range of impacts generated by state-of-the-art LLMs and the potential of aligning smaller LLMs on news media as a scalable alternative to generate high quality and more diverse impacts in support of anticipatory governance approaches.

cs.CL↗