Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 200 references

A cross-domain map of AI-generated content: trends, challenges, and a research agenda

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 16:59 UTC pith:NHEDYKHJ

load-bearing objection Useful broad-strokes survey of AIGC's cross-domain impact, but citation errors and an unsystematic reference base need fixing before I'd rely on it. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.11151 v1 pith:NHEDYKHJ submitted 2025-09-14 cs.AI

AI-Generated Content in Cross-Domain Applications: Research Trends, Challenges and Propositions

Jianxin Li , Liang Qu , Taotao Cai , Zhixue Zhao , Nur Al Hasan Haldar , Aneesh Krishna , Xiangjie Kong , Flavio Romero Macau
show 8 more authors
Tanmoy Chakraborty Aniket Deroy Binshan Lin Karen Blackmore Nasimul Noman Jingxian Cheng Ningning Cui Jianliang Xu
This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords AI-generated contentlarge language modelscontent detectionmisinformation spreadpublic trustdigital marketingpublic healthdata sovereignty
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This vision paper argues that AI-generated content (AIGC) has grown powerful and widespread enough to reshape how information is made, spread, and trusted across many fields, yet most research still looks at individual domains in isolation. To close that gap, the authors bring together scholars from multiple disciplines to synthesize what is known about AIGC's technical foundations, its detection, its spread through digital platforms, and its societal impacts on public trust, marketing, health, organizations, and education. They also identify persistent technical challenges and propose a set of research propositions meant to guide future work. A sympathetic reader would take this as a useful orientation for a fragmented field, and as a call to treat AIGC not just as a tool but as a trust-sensitive, sovereignty-sensitive technology.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a cross-domain perspective on AIGC reveals a small number of recurring dynamics: an escalating arms race between generative models and detection systems, platform algorithms that amplify synthetic content regardless of origin, trust erosion that varies by domain but follows common patterns, and unresolved trade-offs between data sovereignty, security, and model functionality. On this basis, the paper proposes research directions such as LLM-assisted detection frameworks (e.g., the 'bad actor, good advisor' paradigm), provenance-preserving generation and watermarking, spread-aware governance, trust-by-design system building, and privacy-aware training. The au

What carries the argument

The organizing framework is a two-stage generative AI pipeline—pre-training, fine-tuning, and prompt-based utilization—which the paper uses to anchor its review of detection, spread, and domain impacts. The proposed research agenda relies on a set of named mechanisms and paradigms: the 'Bad Actor, Good Advisor' approach (large language models as reasoning advisors to specialized detectors), tool-using fact-checking agents (e.g., FacTool, LEMMA), explainable reasoning frameworks (e.g., ProgramFC, TELLER), transformation-resilient watermarking, and trust-by-design. These are presented as modular building blocks for future cross-domain solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The overview and its research propositions rest on the assumption that the informally selected collection of studies and expert opinions fairly represents each domain's current research landscape, even though no systematic search or inclusion criteria are stated.

What would settle it

A systematic review of AIGC research that follows a documented search protocol and finds that a major domain or a significant body of work is missing from the paper's synthesis would call the cross-domain perspective into question. Alternatively, a benchmark showing that the proposed 'LLM as advisor' detection approach performs no better than fine-tuned small models on multimodal adversarial inputs would weaken a key proposition.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the cross-domain synthesis is correct, AIGC research should shift from single-modality, single-platform detection toward integrated, multimodal, and spread-aware frameworks.
  • The proposed 'LLM as advisor' paradigm, if validated, would make large language models a standard component of detection pipelines rather than the final classifier.
  • Provenance-preserving generation and watermarking, if made transformation-robust, could give platforms a practical way to label and trace synthetic content across sharing chains.
  • Trust-centric design, if adopted, would change how AIGC systems are evaluated: perceived transparency and fairness would join accuracy as first-class metrics.
  • The sovereignty-functionality trade-off, if unresolved, could limit the global scaling of generative models, pushing training and deployment toward regional or federated designs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The paper's proposition that culture-aware and health-literacy-aware content generation should be a research priority implies a testable prediction: models fine-tuned on low-resource languages and local infrastructure data will produce measurably more actionable advice than purely English-centric models.
  • Editorial inference: The 'arms race' framing suggests that no static detection benchmark will remain valid for long; the community may need continuously updated adversarial benchmark suites, analogous to those used in computer security.
  • Editorial inference: If the spread-velocity differential between AI-generated and human-generated content is as large as the paper suggests, then platform-level detection integrated into recommender systems could be more effective than post-hoc moderation, a claim that could be tested with controlled field experiments.
  • Editorial inference: The paper's emphasis on trust as a cross-cutting concern implies that future AIGC governance may be organized around domain-specific trust thresholds (e.g., high for health, lower for entertainment), rather than a single global policy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This vision paper offers a narrative, cross-disciplinary review of AI-generated content (AIGC). It covers generative-model training and prompting (Section 2), content generation and detection (Section 3), spread and use (Section 4), and societal impacts in public trust, digital marketing, public health, organizational behavior, and education (Sections 5–9), followed by data sovereignty and security risks (Section 10). The paper claims to bridge a gap by assembling 16 scholars from multiple disciplines and offers research propositions in most sections. The intended contribution is a broad synthesis rather than a formal systematic review.

Significance. If the evidence base were dependable, this would be a useful interdisciplinary entry point: it consolidates technical detection/provenance work with domain-specific trust- and ethics-centered findings, and it formulates concrete, testable research propositions (e.g., Section 8.3's hybrid human-AI content creation hypotheses; Section 7.3's health-literacy alignment questions). The multi-author breadth and accessible organization are genuine strengths. However, because the paper is a non-systematic narrative review, its value is conditional on accurate citation of canonical results and a representative reference base; as shown below, that condition is not currently met.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, first paragraph] The sentence 'False information spreads up to six times faster than truthful news [25]' is a concrete misattribution. Reference [25] is J. Su et al., 'Adapting fake news detection to the era of large language models' (arXiv:2311.04917); that work does not establish the six-times statistic, which is the well-known result from Vosoughi et al. (Science, 2018) and is not cited anywhere in the paper. Because this sentence is the key motivation for the detection section, the misattribution is not cosmetic.
  2. [Section 3.1] The sentence describing 'propagation-aware graph transformers [42]' maps to Ref. [42], M. Zhou, 'AI-generated learning material in education' (2024), which is unrelated. The intended citation is presumably Ref. [36], Zhu et al., 'Propagation Structure-Aware Graph Transformer...' (SIGKDD 2024). This indicates a systematic reference-mapping issue that should be audited across the whole reference list.
  3. [Sections 3–10 (overall method)] The abstract claims to provide 'a cross-domain perspective on the trends and challenges of AIGC' and the paper derives research propositions from the reviewed literature, yet Sections 3–10 state no search strategy, inclusion criteria, or selection protocol for the references. Without this, the overview cannot be checked for representativeness, and the propositions built on the selection lose evidential grounding. This is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.
  4. [Sections 4 and 10] In a review with no explicit selection protocol, the heavy clusters of self-citations (e.g., [58]–[60] in Section 4.1, [192]–[196] in Section 10.2) are a concern. They may be legitimate examples, but the absence of selection criteria makes it impossible to rule out citation bias; the authors should either justify why these clusters are representative or replace them with a broader set of independent works.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, 3.4, 2.1, 10] Typos and spacing issues: 'primarily challenge', 'attaks', and 'artifaxts' in Section 3.2; 'landsape' in Section 3.4; 'V AEs' in Section 2.1; 'GPDR' in Section 10 should be 'GDPR'.
  2. [Sections 4.3–4.4] The abbreviation 'AIGI' is used without definition; define it at first use or replace with 'AIGC'.
  3. [Section 5.4] Section 5.4 labels the paper an 'opinion paper', while the abstract calls it a 'vision paper'; the genre labels should be aligned.
  4. [References] Several entries are inconsistent or incomplete (e.g., [26] lacks a date; some arXiv and report entries are missing version information). A reference cleanup is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a narrative review with no derivation chain that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no predictions from fitted parameters and contains no equations; its contribution is a synthesized overview and a set of forward-looking research propositions. The self-citation clusters ([9]-[11] in the GAN discussion, [52]-[53] in the LLM-agent discussion, [58]-[60] for recommender systems, and [192]-[196] for federated learning) are used as illustrative references for established topics rather than as premises that force the paper's conclusions. The proposition sections (3.3, 4.3, 5.3, 6.3, 7.3, 8.3, 9.3, 10.3) are framed as research directions or testable hypotheses, not as results derived from the authors' own prior work. The statement in Section 3 that 'False information spreads up to six times faster than truthful news [25]' misattributes a well-known result from Vosoughi et al. (Science, 2018) to reference [25]; this is a citation-integrity and correctness concern, but it is not circular because the statistic is not derived from [25] or from any model or equation in the paper. No step in the paper equates an input with an output by construction, so the circularity burden is very low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a review paper, so no free parameters are fitted and no new theoretical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on the fidelity of the literature synthesis, the correctness of cited statistics, and the representativeness of the informally selected sources. The three axioms listed capture those load-bearing dependencies.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The statistic that false information spreads up to six times faster than truthful news is accurate as cited.
    Invoked in Section 3 to argue that AIGC accelerates disinformation; the paper does not verify the number and attaches it to reference [25], which is not the original empirical study.
  • domain assumption The cited papers, more than 200 references, are accurately summarized and representative of each domain's literature.
    The central overview relies on secondary synthesis, yet no systematic protocol or selection criteria are stated, so the accuracy and representativeness of the chosen references is assumed.
  • domain assumption The authors' research propositions are grounded in the cited literature rather than personal opinion.
    Sections 5 to 10 present propositions without empirical validation; their relevance and completeness rest on the adequacy of the underlying literature selection and on the collective expertise of the 16 authors.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33853 in / 10685 out tokens · 119956 ms · 2026-08-04T16:59:45.128458+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) has rapidly emerged with the capability to generate different forms of content, including text, images, videos, and other modalities, which can achieve a quality similar to content created by humans. As a result, AIGC is now widely applied across various domains such as digital marketing, education, and public health, and has shown promising results by enhancing content creation efficiency and improving information delivery. However, there are few studies that explore the latest progress and emerging challenges of AIGC across different domains. To bridge this gap, this paper brings together 16 scholars from multiple disciplines to provide a cross-domain perspective on the trends and challenges of AIGC. Specifically, the contributions of this paper are threefold: (1) It first provides a broader overview of AIGC, spanning the training techniques of Generative AI, detection methods, and both the spread and use of AI-generated content across digital platforms. (2) It then introduces the societal impacts of AIGC across diverse domains, along with a review of existing methods employed in these contexts. (3) Finally, it discusses the key technical challenges and presents research propositions to guide future work. Through these contributions, this vision paper seeks to offer readers a cross-domain perspective on AIGC, providing insights into its current research trends, ongoing challenges, and future directions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.11151 by Aneesh Krishna, Aniket Deroy, Binshan Lin, Flavio Romero Macau, Jianliang Xu, Jianxin Li, Jingxian Cheng, Karen Blackmore, Liang Qu, Nasimul Noman, Ningning Cui, Nur Al Hasan Haldar, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Taotao Cai, Xiangjie Kong, Zhixue Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the generative AI training and utilization pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: AI-Generated Video Of Trump Kissing Elon Musk’s Feet Reportedly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples comparing human-crafted ad titles and AI-generated ad titles for online shopping platform [119]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of generating diverse advertising image backgrounds using di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

200 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Knill, S

    K. Knill, S. Young, Hidden markov models in speech and language pro- cessing, in: Corpus-based Methods in Language and Speech Processing, Springer, 1997, pp. 27–68

    1997

  2. [2]

    Reynolds, Gaussian mixture models, in: Encyclopedia of Biometrics, Springer, 2015, pp

    D. Reynolds, Gaussian mixture models, in: Encyclopedia of Biometrics, Springer, 2015, pp. 827–832

    2015

  3. [3]

    Bengio, R

    Y . Bengio, R. Ducharme, P. Vincent, C. Jauvin, A neural probabilistic language model, Journal of Machine Learning Research 3 (Feb) (2003) 1137–1155

    2003

  4. [4]

    Mikolov, M

    T. Mikolov, M. Karafiát, L. Burget, J. Cernock `y, S. Khudanpur, Re- current neural network based language model., in: Interspeech, V ol. 2, Makuhari, 2010, pp. 1045–1048

    2010

  5. [5]

    Graves, Supervised Sequence Labelling with Recurrent Neural Net- works, 2012.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24797-2

    A. Graves, Supervised Sequence Labelling with Recurrent Neural Net- works, 2012.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24797-2. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24797-2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24797-2 2012

  6. [6]

    R. Dey, F. M. Salem, Gate-variants of gated recurrent unit (gru) neural networks, in: 2017 IEEE 60th International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS), IEEE, 2017, pp. 1597–1600

    2017

  7. [7]

    D. P. Kingma, M. Welling, Auto-encoding variational bayes, arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Goodfellow, J

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, Y . Bengio, Generative adversarial networks, Communications of the ACM 63 (11) (2020) 139–144

    2020

  9. [9]

    S. Ho, Y . Qu, B. Gu, L. Gao, J. Li, Y . Xiang, Dp-gan: Differentially pri- vate consecutive data publishing using generative adversarial nets, Jour- nal of Network and Computer Applications 185 (2021) 103066

    2021

  10. [10]

    S. Ho, Y . Qu, L. Gao, J. Li, Y . Xiang, Generative adversarial nets en- hanced continual data release using differential privacy, in: International Conference on Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing, Springer, 2019, pp. 418–426

    2019

  11. [11]

    L. Qu, H. Zhu, R. Zheng, Y . Shi, H. Yin, Imgagn: Imbalanced network embedding via generative adversarial graph networks, in: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 2021, pp. 1390–1398

    2021

  12. [12]

    Y . Song, S. Ermon, Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    W. X. Zhao, K. Zhou, J. Li, T. Tang, X. Wang, Y . Hou, Y . Min, B. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Dong, et al., A survey of large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223 1 (2) (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Brown, B

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al., Language mod- els are few-shot learners, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020) 1877–1901

    2020

  16. [16]

    Touvron, L

    H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y . Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, et al., Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Ouyang, J

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al., Training language mod- els to follow instructions with human feedback, Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems 35 (2022) 27730–27744

    2022

  18. [18]

    Glaese, N

    A. Glaese, N. McAleese, M. Tr˛ ebacz, J. Aslanides, V . Firoiu, T. Ewalds, M. Rauh, L. Weidinger, M. Chadwick, P. Thacker, et al., Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14375 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    J. D. M.-W. C. Kenton, L. K. Toutanova, Bert: Pre-training of deep bidi- rectional transformers for language understanding, in: Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 2019, pp. 4171–4186

    2019

  20. [20]

    Huang, Y

    Y . Huang, Y . Cheng, A. Bapna, O. Firat, D. Chen, M. Chen, H. Lee, J. Ngiam, Q. V . Le, Y . Wu, et al., Gpipe: Efficient training of giant neural networks using pipeline parallelism, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Shoeybi, M

    M. Shoeybi, M. Patwary, R. Puri, P. LeGresley, J. Casper, B. Catanzaro, Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism, arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053 (2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  22. [22]

    V . Liu, L. B. Chilton, Design guidelines for prompt engineering text-to- image generative models, in: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2022, pp. 1–23

    2022

  23. [23]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou, et al., Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022) 24824–24837

    2022

  24. [24]

    A. Loth, M. Kappes, M.-O. Pahl, Blessing or curse? a survey on the impact of generative ai on fake news, arXiv:2404.03021 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    J. Su, C. Cardie, P. Nakov, Adapting fake news detection to the era of large language models, arXiv:2311.04917 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Christopher, N

    F. Christopher, N. Nicholas, N. Madeleine, D. Karoun, Fake video of trump and musk appears on tvs at housing agency, The New York Times. URLhttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/us/politics/ musk-trump-toes-video.html

    2025

  27. [27]

    C. Chen, K. Shu, Can llm-generated misinformation be detected?, arXiv 18 preprint arXiv:2309.13788 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    S. K. Hamed, M. J. Ab Aziz, M. R. Yaakub, A review of fake news detec- tion approaches: A critical analysis of relevant studies and highlighting key challenges associated with the dataset, feature representation, and data fusion, Heliyon 9 (10) (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    S. V . Balshetwar, A. Rs, D. J. R, Fake news detection in social me- dia based on sentiment analysis using classifier techniques, Multimedia tools and applications 82 (23) (2023) 35781–35811

    2023

  30. [30]

    X. Zhou, J. Li, Q. Li, R. Zafarani, Linguistic-style-aware neural net- works for fake news detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.02792 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Mahyoob, J

    M. Mahyoob, J. Al-Garaady, M. Alrahaili, Linguistic-based detection of fake news in social media, Forthcoming, International Journal of English Linguistics 11 (1) (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    L. Wei, D. Hu, W. Zhou, Z. Yue, S. Hu, Towards propagation uncer- tainty: Edge-enhanced bayesian graph convolutional networks for rumor detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.11934 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Meyers, G

    M. Meyers, G. Weiss, G. Spanakis, Fake news detection on twitter using propagation structures, in: Multidisciplinary International Symposium on Disinformation in Open Online Media, Springer, 2020, pp. 138–158

    2020

  34. [34]

    C. Yuan, Q. Ma, W. Zhou, J. Han, S. Hu, Early detection of fake news by utilizing the credibility of news, publishers, and users based on weakly supervised learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.04233 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    L. Wu, L. Wang, Y . Zhao, Unified evidence enhancement inference framework for fake news detection, in: IJCAI 2024

    2024

  36. [36]

    J. Zhu, C. Gao, Z. Yin, X. Li, J. Kurths, Propagation structure-aware graph transformer for robust and interpretable fake news detection, in: SIGKDD 2024

    2024

  37. [37]

    Z. Ma, M. Luo, H. Guo, Z. Zeng, Y . Hao, X. Zhao, Event-radar: Event- driven multi-view learning for multimodal fake news detection, in: Pro- ceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), 2024, pp. 5809–5821

    2024

  38. [38]

    L. Zong, J. Zhou, W. Lin, X. Liu, X. Zhang, B. Xu, Unveiling opinion evolution via prompting and diffusion for short video fake news detec- tion, in: ACL 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    H. Liu, W. Wang, H. Li, H. Li, TELLER: A trustworthy framework for explainable, generalizable and controllable fake news detection, in: ACL 2024

    2024

  40. [40]

    Zhang, X

    L. Zhang, X. Zhang, Z. Zhou, X. Zhang, S. Wang, P. S. Yu, C. Li, Early detection of multimodal fake news via reinforced propagation path gen- eration, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 37 (2) (2025) 613–625

    2025

  41. [41]

    B. Hu, Q. Sheng, J. Cao, Y . Shi, Y . Li, D. Wang, P. Qi, Bad actor, good advisor: Exploring the role of large language models in fake news de- tection, in: AAAI 2024

    2024

  42. [42]

    Zhou, Ai-generated learning material in education, AI in Education Review (2024)

    M. Zhou, Ai-generated learning material in education, AI in Education Review (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    J. Wu, J. Guo, B. Hooi, Fake news in sheep’s clothing: Robust fake news detection against llm-empowered style attacks, in: Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2024, pp. 3367–3378

    2024

  44. [44]

    Akhtar, M

    M. Akhtar, M. Schlichtkrull, Z. Guo, O. Cocarascu, E. Simperl, A. Vla- chos, Multimodal automated fact-checking: A survey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13507 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Z. Guo, M. Schlichtkrull, A. Vlachos, A survey on automated fact- checking, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 10 (2022) 178–206

    2022

  46. [46]

    B. Yao, A. Shah, L. Sun, J.-H. Cho, L. Huang, End-to-end multimodal fact-checking and explanation generation: A challenging dataset and models, in: SIGIR, 2023, pp. 2733–2743

    2023

  47. [47]

    Manakul, A

    P. Manakul, A. Liusie, M. J. Gales, Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black- box hallucination detection for generative large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08896 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Muhammed, G

    D. Muhammed, G. Rabby, S. Auer, Selfcheckagent: Zero-resource hal- lucination detection in generative large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01812 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    S. Park, X. Du, M.-H. Yeh, H. Wang, Y . Li, Steer llm latents for halluci- nation detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01917 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Azaria, T

    A. Azaria, T. Mitchell, The internal state of an llm knows when it’s lying, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13734 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Hosseini, H

    S. Hosseini, H. Seilani, The role of agentic ai in shaping a smart future: A systematic review, Array (2025) 100399

    2025

  52. [52]

    Z. Liu, J. Li, Y . Huang, N. Cui, L. Pei, Knowledge-based natural answer generation via effective graph learning, Knowledge-Based Systems 316 (2025) 113288

    2025

  53. [53]

    Z. Li, X. Wang, J. Zhao, W. Guo, J. Li, Hycube: Efficient knowledge hypergraph 3d circular convolutional embedding, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    Chern, S

    I. Chern, S. Chern, S. Chen, W. Yuan, K. Feng, C. Zhou, J. He, G. Neu- big, P. Liu, et al., Factool: Factuality detection in generative ai–a tool augmented framework for multi-task and multi-domain scenarios, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13528 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    K. Xuan, L. Yi, F. Yang, R. Wu, Y . R. Fung, H. Ji, Lemma: towards lvlm- enhanced multimodal misinformation detection with external knowledge augmentation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11943 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    L. Pan, X. Wu, X. Lu, A. T. Luu, W. Y . Wang, M.-Y . Kan, P. Nakov, Fact-checking complex claims with program-guided reasoning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12744 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    H. Liu, W. Wang, H. Li, H. Li, Teller: A trustworthy framework for explainable, generalizable and controllable fake news detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07776 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    W. Yuan, C. Yang, L. Qu, Q. V . H. Nguyen, J. Li, H. Yin, Hide your model: A parameter transmission-free federated recommender sys- tem, in: 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), IEEE, 2024, pp. 611–624

    2024

  59. [59]

    Y . Chen, Y . Li, X. Huang, Y . Wang, G. Zhu, G. Min, J. Li, An explain- able recommendation method for artificial intelligence of things based on reinforcement learning with knowledge graph inference, IEEE Trans- actions on Consumer Electronics (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    J. Li, K. Deng, J. Li, Y . Ren, Session-oriented fairness-aware recommen- dation via dual temporal convolutional networks, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    Cillo, G

    P. Cillo, G. Rubera, Generative ai in innovation and marketing processes: A roadmap of research opportunities, Journal of the Academy of Mar- keting Science (2024) 1–18

    2024

  62. [62]

    Reisenbichler, T

    M. Reisenbichler, T. Reutterer, D. A. Schweidel, D. Dan, Supporting content marketing with natural language generation, Marketing Science 41 (3) (2022) 441–452

    2022

  63. [63]

    X. Chen, W. Feng, Z. Du, W. Wang, Y . Chen, H. Wang, L. Liu, Y . Li, J. Zhao, Y . Li, et al., Ctr-driven advertising image generation with mul- timodal large language models, in: Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, 2025, pp. 2262–2275

    2025

  64. [64]

    Sharma, F

    K. Sharma, F. Qian, T. Jiang, N. Ruchansky, M. Zhang, Y . Liu, Combat- ing online misinformation: A survey of algorithms and systems, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 13 (2) (2022) 1–42

    2022

  65. [65]

    Horta Ribeiro, J

    M. Horta Ribeiro, J. Blackburn, B. Bradlyn, E. D. Cristofaro, S. Zannet- tou, G. Stringhini, The spread of misinformation on online platforms: A case study of cross-platform diffusion, in: Proceedings of the Interna- tional AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 2021

    2021

  66. [66]

    Uchendu, T

    A. Uchendu, T. Le, K. Shu, D. Lee, Turingbench: A benchmark envi- ronment for detecting machine-generated text, in: Findings of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (EMNLP Findings), 2021, pp. 4271–4285

    2021

  67. [67]

    Krishna, R

    K. Krishna, R. Y . Pang, E. Nijkamp, Y . Zhou, G. Neubig, Z. C. Lipton, M. Sachan, Paraphrasing elicits structural changes that evade machine- generated text detectors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13408 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Liang, R

    P. Liang, R. Bommasani, et al., Gpt detectors are biased against non- native english writers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13662 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    Mitchell, Y

    E. Mitchell, Y . Lee, A. Khazatsky, P. Isola, C. D. Manning, C. Finn, Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11305 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Neekhara, B

    P. Neekhara, B. Dolhansky, R. Howes, Y . Bitton, J. Pan, J. C. Wang, N. Baram, C. C. Ferrer, S. Warfield, A. Finkelstein, Adversarial per- turbations for exposing and resisting deepfakes, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 15336–15345

    2021

  71. [71]

    Y . Li, X. Yang, P. Sun, H. Qi, S. Lyu, Celeb-df: A large-scale challenging dataset for deepfake forensics, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 3207– 3216

    2020

  72. [72]

    Jiang, R

    L. Jiang, R. Li, W. Wu, C. Qian, C. C. Loy, Deeperforensics-1.0: A large-scale dataset for real-world face forgery detection, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2020, pp. 2889–2898. 19

    2020

  73. [73]

    Y . Wen, M. Gharbi, T. Park, R. Zhang, J.-Y . Zhu, T. Zhang, Tree-ring watermarks: Invisible fingerprints for diffusion images, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11179 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Kirchenbauer, J

    J. Kirchenbauer, J. Geiping, Y . Wen, J. Katz-Samuels, T. Goldstein, I. Alabdulmohsin, F. Tramèr, I. Shumailov, A watermark for large lan- guage models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10226 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Carlini, M

    N. Carlini, M. Jagielski, K. Lee, F. Tramèr, D. Ippolito, Others, On the robustness of watermarking to text transformations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08495 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Z. Ji, N. Lee, et al., Survey of hallucination in natural language genera- tion, ACM Computing Surveys (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    Z. Zhao, N. Aletras, Comparing explanation faithfulness between mul- tilingual and monolingual fine-tuned language models, in: K. Duh, H. Gomez, S. Bethard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: Human Language Technologies (V olume 1: Long Papers), 2024

    2024

  78. [78]

    D. G. Takale, P. N. Mahalle, B. Sule, Exploring watermarking tech- niques in generative ai: A brief overview, Journal of Image Processing and Artificial Intelligence 10 (3) (2024) 1–5

    2024

  79. [79]

    T. Lancaster, Artificial intelligence, text generation tools and chat- gpt–does digital watermarking offer a solution?, International Journal for Educational Integrity 19 (1) (2023) 10

    2023

  80. [80]

    X. Chen, N. Wang, Rumor spreading model considering rumor credibil- ity, correlation and crowd classification based on personality, Scientific reports 10 (1) (2020) 5887

    2020

Showing first 80 references.