arXiv subjects

Yuwei Chuai

Publications and source records attributed to Yuwei Chuai.

17 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

CoVer: Conflict-Aware Claim Verification

Social media fact-checking has long been challenged by evidence-level and aggregation-level conflicts, where erroneous evidence mimics authoritative news sources. To capture this challenge and support conflict verification tasks, we present ContraNote, a large-scale real-world dataset curated from X's Community Notes system. It includes 33,686 posts for evaluating evidence-level conflict resolution, and 54,474 instances for evaluating aggregation-level prioritization. Additionally, we propose CoVer, a factual adjudication framework with three-stage pipelines: evidence schema normalization, factual consensus and support verification. This prioritizes evidence over noise to prevent it from compromising the final verdict. Technical evaluations show that CoVer achieves strong performance compared with state-of-the-art baselines across ContraNote (86.0% Acc., 68.0% mac. F1, 64.5 bal. Acc. on Conflict; and 88.5% Acc., 88.5 mac. F1 and 89.2 bal. Acc. on Prioritization), CONFACT-HumC (88.4% Acc.) and CONFACT-ModC (89.4% Acc.).

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Community corrections have divergent downstream effects across corrected accounts

Community-based fact-checking can reduce the spread of annotated misleading posts, but whether it produces lasting behavioral change among corrected authors remains unclear. Here, we conduct a large-scale quasi-experimental study of the Community Notes system on X (formerly Twitter), tracking four weeks of activity before and after note display for 19,854 accounts and 57,935 corrections (noted posts and matched controls), covering 11,909,591 original posts. Difference-in-Differences estimates show that note display is followed by an average 2.9% increase in corrected accounts' original-post activity. This aggregate conceals two divergent trajectories. Accounts corrected only once reduce their activity by 2.4% and subsequently publish less toxic and less misleading content. Repeatedly corrected accounts, which constitute 28.6% of corrected accounts but produce 73.4% of fact-checked posts, instead increase their activity by 4.4% after their first correction and show no detectable response to later ones. They exhibit no comparable content improvement, and instead publish more highly misleading posts, cite lower-quality domains, and post more political content. Community notes can thus constrain individual misleading posts without durably improving the behavior of the accounts most responsible for them, indicating that correcting content and changing its producers are distinct objectives for platform design.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

CANote: Empowering Fact-checking Note Writing Through Scaffolded and Provenance-based Human-AI Collaboration

Crowdsourced fact-checking mechanisms, such as X's Community Notes, play a critical role in mitigating the spread of misinformation. However, drafting high-quality, evidence-based debunking notes imposes a substantial burden on contributors. We present CANote, an AI-assisted debunking note writing system featuring evidence correlation and structured co-drafting. CANote scaffolds the workflow by extracting subclaims from social media posts, providing provenance through explicit links between subclaims and retrieved evidence, and generating neutral, structural drafts to support human reasoning. We evaluated CANote against manual writing (N=52 fact-checkers, N=52 lay users) on simulated X platform, where we found CANote significantly improves note quality. Notably, CANote enables lay users to write notes that have comparable quality to those written by experts. While the task completion time and perceived cognitive load remain comparable to manual drafting, CANote significantly increases user satisfaction. However, this assistance introduces a trade-off, resulting in a reduced sense of user ownership and control over the debunking note.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Towards Multi-Agent-Simulation-Based Community Note Evaluation

Community-based fact-checking that relies on cross-consensus is expanding rapidly on social media platforms. However, the delay and low-ratio of cross-consensus community fact-checks rated by human contributors remains a significant challenge. To address this, we first created ComRate, a large-scale dataset comprising 2.5 million community notes and over 209 million ratings sourced from $\mathbb{X}$. We then propose MultiCom, a persona-guided multi-agent rating framework for community note evaluation. MultiCom simulates diverse rater population by clustering contributors in a matrix-factorized rater space and prompting persona agents to generate structured assessments based on the official community notes rating schema. These agents output structured and explainable judgments, such as confidence, agreement signals and reasons. An out-of-fold calibrated aggregation algorithm combines features such as raw votes and diagnostic reason signals for reliable prediction. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that MultiCom outperforms alternative methods, achieving an average accuracy of 84.7% (balanced accuracy 68.3%, macro-F1 60.1%) on the evaluation set.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

Collab: Fostering Critical Identification of Deepfake Videos on Social Media via Synergistic Annotation

Identifying deepfake videos on social media platforms is challenged by dynamic spatio-temporal artifacts and inadequate user tools. This hinders both critical viewing by users and scalable moderation on platforms. Here, we present Collab, a web plugin enabling users to collaboratively annotate deepfake videos. Collab integrates three key components: (i) an intuitive interface for spatio-temporal labeling where users provide confidence scores and rationales, facilitating detailed input even from non-experts, (ii) a novel confidence-weighted spatio-temporal Intersection-over-Union (IoU) algorithm to aggregate diverse user annotations into accurate aggregations, and (iii) a hierarchical demonstration strategy presenting aggregated results to guide attention toward contentious regions and foster critical evaluation. A seven-day online study (N=90), where participants annotated suspicious videos when viewing an online experimental platforms, compared Collab against two conditions without aggregation or demonstration respectively. Collab significantly improved identification accuracy and enhanced reflection compared to non-demonstration condition, while outperforming non-aggregation condition for its novelty and effectiveness.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Consensus Stability of Community Notes on X

Community-based fact-checking systems, such as Community Notes on X (formerly Twitter), aim to mitigate online misinformation by surfacing annotations judged helpful by contributors with diverse viewpoints. While prior work has shown that the platform's bridging-based algorithm effectively selects helpful notes at the time of display, little is known about how evaluations change after notes become visible. Using a large-scale dataset of 437,396 community notes and 35 million ratings from over 580,000 contributors, we examine the stability of helpful notes and the rating dynamics that follow their initial display. We find that 30.2% of displayed notes later lose their helpful status and disappear. Using interrupted time series models, we further show that note display triggers a sharp increase in rating volume and a significant shift in rating leaning, but these effects differ across rater groups. Contributors with viewpoints similar to note authors tend to increase supportive ratings, while dissimilar contributors increase negative ratings, producing systematic post-display polarization. Counterfactual analyses suggest that this post-display polarization, particularly from dissimilar raters, plays a substantial role in note disappearance. These findings highlight the vulnerability of consensus-based fact-checking systems to polarized rating behavior and suggest pathways for improving their resilience.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

Hiding Liker Identity Did Not Increase Engagement With Reputationally Risky Content on X (Formerly Twitter)

In June 2024, X (formerly Twitter) made likes from public to private, offering a rare, platform-level opportunity to study how the visibility of engagement signals affects users' behavior. Here, we investigate whether hiding liker identities increases the number of likes received by high-reputational-risk content, content for which public endorsement may carry high social or reputational costs due to its topic (e.g., politics) or the account context in which it appears (e.g., partisan accounts). To this end, we conduct two complementary studies: 1) a Difference-in-Differences analysis of 153,704 posts that are created by 1045 accounts and have received over 324 million likes on X (formerly Twitter) before and after the policy change; 2) a within-subject survey experiment with 203 X (formerly Twitter) users on participants' self-reported willingness to like different kinds of content. We find no detectable platform-level increase in likes for high-reputational-risk content (Study 1). Additionally, while participants in the survey experiment, particularly those with higher education and income, report modest increases in willingness to like high-reputational-risk content under private versus public visibility, these increases do not lead to significant changes in the group-level average likelihood of liking posts (Study 2). Taken together, our results suggest that hiding liker identity produces a limited behavioral response at the platform level, which may be caused by a gap between user intention and behavior.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2025

Fact-Checking Comments Precede Community Notes to Misleading Posts on X

Community-based fact-checking systems, such as X's Community Notes program, offer a potentially scalable approach against online misinformation diffusion. However, their efficacy is substantially undermined by the delay of fact-check delivery. To address this challenge, we investigated the promise of organic user comments as rapid corrective signals by analyzing a large-scale dataset of over 2.2 million comments directed to 1,841 community fact-checked misleading posts. We developed a high-performance language model pipeline to identify ``fact-checking (FC) comments'', i.e., comments that correct source posts with reasoning or evidence (91% accuracy). Using this pipeline, we find that 99.4% of misleading posts receive their first FC comments before the official community note is created. Notably, the median time to the initial FC comment is only 0.1 hours, while the creation of community notes has a median latency of 9.7 hours since the publication of misleading posts. Additionally, compared to random posts, those misleading posts with displayed notes have significantly more FC comments. This suggests that FC comments are a unique pattern for misleading posts. We further identified characteristics of FC comments' intensity and speed: (i) FC comments' volume is significantly associated with content richness and misinformation type, favoring multimedia content and missing-context scenarios; (ii) the speed of FC comments remains robust across diverse topics and emotional intensities. These results suggest that platforms could use FC comments as early-warning signals, and potential resource for complementing community notes or automated synthesis.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Request a Note: How the Request Function Shapes X's Community Notes System

X's Community Notes is a crowdsourced fact-checking system. To improve its scalability, X introduced ``Request Community Note'' feature, enabling users to solicit fact-checks from contributors on specific posts. Yet, its implications for the system -- what gets checked, by whom, and with what quality -- remain unclear. Using 98,685 requested posts and their associated notes, we evaluate how requests shape the Community Notes system. We find that requested posts with higher GPT-estimated misleadingness and from authors with greater misinformation exposure are more likely to receive notes. Conversely, requested political posts (vs. non-political) are less likely to receive notes. We also observe partisan asymmetries: posts from Republicans are more likely to receive notes than those from Democrats. Although only 12% of requested posts receive request-fostered notes from top contributors, these notes are rated as more helpful and less polarized than others, partly reflecting top contributors' selective fact-checking of misleading posts. Our findings highlight both the limitations and promise of requests for scaling high-quality community-based fact-checking.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2025

More Than Just Warnings:Exploring the Ways of Communicating Credibility Assessment on Social Media

Reducing the spread of misinformation is challenging. AI-based fact verification systems offer a promising solution by addressing the high costs and slow pace of traditional fact-checking. However, the problem of how to effectively communicate the results to users remains unsolved. Warning labels may seem an easy solution, but they fail to account for fuzzy misinformation that is not entirely fake. Additionally, users' limited attention spans and social media information should be taken into account while designing the presentation. The online experiment (n = 537) investigates the impact of sources and granularity on users' perception of information veracity and the system's usefulness and trustworthiness. Findings show that fine-grained indicators enhance nuanced opinions, information awareness, and the intention to use fact-checking systems. Source differences had minimal impact on opinions and perceptions, except for informativeness. Qualitative findings suggest the proposed indicators promote critical thinking. We discuss implications for designing concise, user-friendly AI fact-checking feedback.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Changes in Sentiments and User Engagement for 2024 U.S. Presidential Candidates After Biden's Withdrawal: An Analysis of TikTok Videos

The 2024 U.S. presidential election has sparked widespread online discussions about the presidential candidates. Joe Biden's withdrawal from the race and Kamala Harris's subsequent entry as the Democratic candidate likely alter the dynamics of these online discussions; yet, this hypothesis requires evidence. Here, we study how sentiments and user engagement in social media posts mentioning presidential candidates change after Biden's withdrawal. Our analysis is based on N=680,609 TikTok videos that have accumulated over 4 billion views, with more than 23 million comments, 31 million shares, and 335 million likes from November 1, 2023, to October 6, 2024. We find that: (i) Before Biden's withdrawal, video posts mentioning the Republican candidate (Donald Trump) have higher positive sentiment and lower negative sentiment compared to those mentioning the Democratic candidate (Joe Biden). (ii) Following Biden's withdrawal, positive sentiment in video posts mentioning the Democratic candidate (Kamala Harris) increases by 46.8%, while negative sentiment decreases by 52.0%. (iii) Regarding user engagement, before Biden's withdrawal, video posts mentioning the Democratic candidate have 64.9% higher odds of being shared and 39.5% higher odds of receiving likes compared to posts mentioning the Republican candidate, with similar odds of receiving comments. (iv) After Biden's withdrawal, the odds of being shared increase by 53.3%, and the odds of receiving likes increase by 77.4% in both video posts mentioning the Democratic candidate and video posts mentioning the Republican candidate. Our findings offer insights into how sentiments and user engagement in online posts about the 2024 U.S. presidential candidates shift following Biden's dropping out from the presidential race.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2024

Community-based fact-checking reduces the spread of misleading posts on social media

Community-based fact-checking is a promising approach to verify social media content and correct misleading posts at scale. Yet, causal evidence regarding its effectiveness in reducing the spread of misinformation on social media is missing. Here, we performed a large-scale empirical study to analyze whether community notes reduce the spread of misleading posts on X. Using a Difference-in-Differences design and repost time series data for N=237,677 (community fact-checked) cascades that had been reposted more than 431 million times, we found that exposing users to community notes reduced the spread of misleading posts by, on average, 62.0%. Furthermore, community notes increased the odds that users delete their misleading posts by 103.4%. However, our findings also suggest that community notes might be too slow to intervene in the early (and most viral) stage of the diffusion. Our work offers important implications to enhance the effectiveness of community-based fact-checking approaches on social media.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2024

Community Fact-Checks Trigger Moral Outrage in Replies to Misleading Posts on Social Media

Displaying community fact-checks is a promising approach to reduce engagement with misinformation on social media. However, how users respond to misleading content emotionally after community fact-checks are displayed on posts is unclear. Here, we employ quasi-experimental methods to causally analyze changes in sentiments and (moral) emotions in replies to misleading posts following the display of community fact-checks. Our evaluation is based on a large-scale panel dataset comprising N=2,225,260 replies across 1841 source posts from X's Community Notes platform. We find that informing users about falsehoods through community fact-checks significantly increases negativity (by 7.3%), anger (by 13.2%), disgust (by 4.7%), and moral outrage (by 16.0%) in the corresponding replies. These results indicate that users perceive spreading misinformation as a violation of social norms and that those who spread misinformation should expect negative reactions once their content is debunked. We derive important implications for the design of community-based fact-checking systems.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2024

From News Source Sharers to Post Viewers: How Topic Diversity and Conspiracy Theories Shape Engagement With Misinformation During a Health Crisis

Online engagement with misinformation threatens societal well-being, particularly during health crises when susceptibility to misinformation is heightened in a multi-topic context. Here, we focus on the COVID-19 pandemic and address a critical gap in understanding engagement with multi-topic misinformation on social media at two user levels: news source sharers (who post news items) and post viewers (who engage with news posts). To this end, we analyze 7273 fact-checked source news items and their associated posts on X through the lens of topic diversity and conspiracy theories. We find that false news, especially those containing conspiracy theories, exhibits higher topic diversity than true news. At news source sharer level, false news has a longer lifetime and receives more posts on X than true news, with conspiracy theories further extending its longevity. However, topic diversity does not significantly influence news source sharers' engagement. At post viewer level, contrary to news source sharer level, posts characterized by heightened topic diversity receive more reposts, likes, and replies. Notably, post viewers tend to engage more with misinformation containing conspiracy narratives: false news posts that contain conspiracy theories, on average, receive 40.8% more reposts, 45.2% more likes, and 44.1% more replies compared to those without conspiracy theories. Our findings suggest that news source sharers and post viewers exhibit distinct engagement patterns on X, offering valuable insights into refining misinformation interventions at these two user levels.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2023

Is Fact-Checking Politically Neutral? Asymmetries in How U.S. Fact-Checking Organizations Pick Up False Statements Mentioning Political Elites

Political elites play an important role in the proliferation of online misinformation. However, an understanding of how fact-checking platforms pick up politicized misinformation for fact-checking is still in its infancy. Here, we conduct an empirical analysis of mentions of U.S. political elites within fact-checked statements. For this purpose, we collect a comprehensive dataset consisting of 35,014 true and false statements that have been fact-checked by two major fact-checking organizations (Snopes, PolitiFact) in the U.S. between 2008 and 2023, i.e., within an observation period of 15 years. Subsequently, we perform content analysis and explanatory regression modeling to analyze how veracity is linked to mentions of U.S. political elites in fact-checked statements. Our analysis yields the following main findings: (i) Fact-checked false statements are, on average, 20% more likely to mention political elites than true fact-checked statements. (ii) There is a partisan asymmetry such that fact-checked false statements are 88.1% more likely to mention Democrats, but 26.5% less likely to mention Republicans, compared to fact-checked true statements. (iii) Mentions of political elites in fact-checked false statements reach the highest level during the months preceding elections. (iv) Fact-checked false statements that mention political elites carry stronger other-condemning emotions and are more likely to be pro-Republican, compared to fact-checked true statements. In sum, our study offers new insights into understanding mentions of political elites in false statements on U.S. fact-checking platforms, and bridges important findings at the intersection between misinformation and politicization.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2023

Did the Roll-Out of Community Notes Reduce Engagement With Misinformation on X/Twitter?

Developing interventions that successfully reduce engagement with misinformation on social media is challenging. One intervention that has recently gained great attention is X/Twitter's Community Notes (previously known as "Birdwatch"). Community Notes is a crowdsourced fact-checking approach that allows users to write textual notes to inform others about potentially misleading posts on X/Twitter. Yet, empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness in reducing engagement with misinformation on social media is missing. In this paper, we perform a large-scale empirical study to analyze whether the introduction of the Community Notes feature and its roll-out to users in the U.S. and around the world have reduced engagement with misinformation on X/Twitter in terms of retweet volume and likes. We employ Difference-in-Differences (DiD) models and Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) to analyze a comprehensive dataset consisting of all fact-checking notes and corresponding source tweets since the launch of Community Notes in early 2021. Although we observe a significant increase in the volume of fact-checks carried out via Community Notes, particularly for tweets from verified users with many followers, we find no evidence that the introduction of Community Notes significantly reduced engagement with misleading tweets on X/Twitter. Rather, our findings suggest that Community Notes might be too slow to effectively reduce engagement with misinformation in the early (and most viral) stage of diffusion. Our work emphasizes the importance of evaluating fact-checking interventions in the field and offers important implications to enhance crowdsourced fact-checking strategies on social media.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2020

Anger makes fake news viral online

Fake news that manipulates political elections, strikes financial systems, and even incites riots is more viral than real news online, resulting in unstable societies and buffeted democracy. The easier contagion of fake news online can be causally explained by the greater anger it carries. The same results in Twitter and Weibo indicate that this mechanism is independent of the platform. Moreover, mutations in emotions like increasing anger will progressively speed up the information spread. Specifically, increasing the occupation of anger by 0.1 and reducing that of joy by 0.1 will produce nearly 6 more retweets in the Weibo dataset. Offline questionnaires reveal that anger leads to more incentivized audiences in terms of anxiety management and information sharing and accordingly makes fake news more contagious than real news online. Cures such as tagging anger in social media could be implemented to slow or prevent the contagion of fake news at the source.

cs.SI↗