arXiv subjects

Abolfazl Ansari

Publications and source records attributed to Abolfazl Ansari.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Moderation by Interrogation: Uncovering Concealed Intent in Agent Social Networks

The emergence of multi-agent systems introduces novel moderation challenges that extend beyond content filtering. Agents with $\textit{malicious intent}$ may contribute content that appears benign to evade content-based moderation, while serving a hidden objective. To address this challenge, we introduce Bot-Mod a moderation framework that grounds detection in agent intent rather than traditional content-level signals. Bot-Mod interrogates a target agent using a fixed set of diagnostic probes and infers its intent through Bayesian posterior inference over candidate intents. It starts with a calibrated content-only prior and updates the posterior using the $\textit{likelihood}$ of each answer under every candidate intent, as assigned by the moderator, until a stopping criterion is met. To evaluate our approach, we construct Molt-Intent, a dataset derived from Moltbook, capturing diverse benign and malicious behaviors within real community structures through posts and comments. Across Molt-Intent, an external social engineering dataset, and three agent LLMs, Bot-Mod outperforms content-only moderators, a fine-tuned classifier, and judge-based interrogators both in- and out-of-distribution. On Molt-Intent, it reaches a composite F1 of 0.736 in distribution and 0.684 out of distribution, 22% and 14% above the best baseline.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Who Wrote It Is Not Enough: Detecting Who Contributed the Insight

As LLMs increasingly assist scientific writing and peer review, detecting who wrote the text is no longer sufficient: we need to determine who contributed the underlying insight. We introduce Insight Provenance, the task of identifying whether a review insight originates from a human, an LLM, or their hybrid contribution. We construct InsightProv-v0 from 4,057 scientific papers and 12,660 human reviews, simulating different levels of LLM involvement with GPT-4o, Gemini, and DeepSeek and annotating provenance at the sentence level. We show that strong performance on raw data can be misleading, as models exploit linguistic and textual-authorship shortcuts that degrade substantially under progressively debiased evaluation. We therefore propose a two-stage adversarial framework that suppresses shortcut signals while preserving provenance-relevant information. Beyond detection, extensive analyses reveal what makes intellectual authorship identifiable: paper grounding and neighboring review context provide complementary provenance signals, while human, hybrid, and AI insights systematically differ in their information sources and failure modes. Most strikingly, AI insights predominantly remain close to generic or paper-provided information, whereas human insights more often introduce external knowledge and independent judgment. These findings suggest that while wording can be rewritten by an LLM, the provenance of an idea leaves a deeper and more persistent signal.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

M2-Verify: A Large-Scale Multidomain Benchmark for Checking Multimodal Claim Consistency

Evaluating scientific arguments requires assessing the strict consistency between a claim and its underlying multimodal evidence. However, existing benchmarks lack the scale, domain diversity, and visual complexity needed to evaluate this alignment realistically. To address this gap, we introduce M2-Verify, a large-scale multimodal dataset for checking scientific claim consistency. Sourced from PubMed and arXiv, M2-Verify provides over 469K instances across 16 domains, rigorously validated through expert audits. Extensive baseline experiments show that state-of-the-art models struggle to maintain robust consistency. While top models achieve up to 85.8\% Micro-F1 on low-complexity medical perturbations, performance drops to 61.6\% on high-complexity challenges like anatomical shifts. Furthermore, expert evaluations expose hallucinations when models generate scientific explanations for their alignment decisions. Finally, we demonstrate our dataset's utility and provide comprehensive usage guidelines.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Echoes of Automation: The Increasing Use of LLMs in Newsmaking

The rapid rise of Generative AI (GenAI), particularly LLMs, poses concerns for journalistic integrity and authorship. This study examines AI-generated content across over 40,000 news articles from major, local, and college news media, in various media formats. Using three advanced AI-text detectors (e.g., Binoculars, Fast-Detect GPT, and GPTZero), we find substantial increase of GenAI use in recent years, especially in local and college news. Sentence-level analysis reveals LLMs are often used in the introduction of news, while conclusions usually written manually. Linguistic analysis shows GenAI boosts word richness and readability but lowers formality, leading to more uniform writing styles, particularly in local media.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

DIAGPaper: Diagnosing Valid and Specific Weaknesses in Scientific Papers via Multi-Agent Reasoning

Paper weakness identification using single-agent or multi-agent LLMs has attracted increasing attention, yet existing approaches exhibit key limitations. Many multi-agent systems simulate human roles at a surface level, missing the underlying criteria that lead experts to assess complementary intellectual aspects of a paper. Moreover, prior methods implicitly assume identified weaknesses are valid, ignoring reviewer bias, misunderstanding, and the critical role of author rebuttals in validating review quality. Finally, most systems output unranked weakness lists, rather than prioritizing the most consequential issues for users. In this work, we propose DIAGPaper, a novel multi-agent framework that addresses these challenges through three tightly integrated modules. The customizer module simulates human-defined review criteria and instantiates multiple reviewer agents with criterion-specific expertise. The rebuttal module introduces author agents that engage in structured debate with reviewer agents to validate and refine proposed weaknesses. The prioritizer module learns from large-scale human review practices to assess the severity of validated weaknesses and surfaces the top-K severest ones to users. Experiments on two benchmarks, AAAR and ReviewCritique, demonstrate that DIAGPaper substantially outperforms existing methods by producing more valid and more paper-specific weaknesses, while presenting them in a user-oriented, prioritized manner.

cs.AI↗