{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2024:2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3","short_pith_number":"pith:2QTP7ZTB","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"d426ffe66172eeef4a0c89d2b48b4f86f1cfe924a23dd561da0cdf39de2e289b","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2411.15396","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"The Decoy Dilemma in Online Medical Information Evaluation: A Comparative Study of Credibility Assessments by LLM and Human Judges","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.AI","cs.HC"],"primary_cat":"cs.IR","authors_text":"Jiangen He, Jiqun Liu","submitted_at":"2024-11-23T00:43:27Z","abstract_excerpt":"Can AI be cognitively biased in automated information judgment tasks? Despite recent progresses in measuring and mitigating social and algorithmic biases in AI and large language models (LLMs), it is not clear to what extent LLMs behave \"rationally\", or if they are also vulnerable to human cognitive bias triggers. To address this open problem, our study, consisting of a crowdsourcing user experiment and a LLM-enabled simulation experiment, compared the credibility assessments by LLM and human judges under potential decoy effects in an information retrieval (IR) setting, and empirically examine"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2411.15396","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.IR","submitted_at":"2024-11-23T00:43:27Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.AI","cs.HC"],"title_canon_sha256":"b4e3a6880cb9599b1580eb88f423467ad653848da5d0f5c30f489c30b53b6638","abstract_canon_sha256":"e6a04ebaeab05df60489bf93d76e44d36924e48d09c8f070f58c5f56aee98882"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950884Z","signature_b64":"GZl0+FJnv5deJ2dlwC5A4x19d6tqNCboQn01PJ8BJ7zAibLQnBqTTrcwwaFKC+GqxcQql/d6+M5ZYCoinzUkAw==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"d426ffe66172eeef4a0c89d2b48b4f86f1cfe924a23dd561da0cdf39de2e289b","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950432Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950432Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"The Decoy Dilemma in Online Medical Information Evaluation: A Comparative Study of Credibility Assessments by LLM and Human Judges","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.AI","cs.HC"],"primary_cat":"cs.IR","authors_text":"Jiangen He, Jiqun Liu","submitted_at":"2024-11-23T00:43:27Z","abstract_excerpt":"Can AI be cognitively biased in automated information judgment tasks? Despite recent progresses in measuring and mitigating social and algorithmic biases in AI and large language models (LLMs), it is not clear to what extent LLMs behave \"rationally\", or if they are also vulnerable to human cognitive bias triggers. To address this open problem, our study, consisting of a crowdsourcing user experiment and a LLM-enabled simulation experiment, compared the credibility assessments by LLM and human judges under potential decoy effects in an information retrieval (IR) setting, and empirically examine"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2411.15396","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2411.15396/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2411.15396","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950487+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2411.15396v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950487+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2411.15396","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950487+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"2QTP7ZTBOLXO","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950487+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQM","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950487+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"2QTP7ZTB","created_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950487+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.25273","citing_title":"LLM-as-a-Judge in Healthcare: A Scoping Analysis of Applications, Methods, and Human Alignment","ref_index":88,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3","json":"https://pith.science/pith/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/2QTP7ZTB"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/2QTP7ZTB","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2411.15396&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/2QTP7ZTBOLXO6SQMRHJLJC2PQ3/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950487+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T09:39:33.950487+00:00"}