arXiv:2608.27358cs.CLcs.AI2026-08

提出读者中心的误导性分析框架,揭示话语如何通过隐含手法影响认知。

RCMN: Understanding Misleadingness in Influential Public Discourse

论文配图:RCMN: Understanding Misleadingness in Influential Public Discourse
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 构建五维误导性分析框架,涵盖机制、解读、证据、情绪与意图
  • 实证发现误导多源于夸大、推断和遗漏,常伴随情绪激发与扭曲意图
  • 轻量级表示可捕捉读者反应,但识别误导机制仍需丰富上下文

有影响力的社会话语不仅传递内容,更通过框架、省略、语境化与传播方式误导公众。为填补对此类误导成因与读者理解影响的研究空白,本文提出读者中心误导性理解(RCMN)框架,从五个维度定义误导性:误导机制、读者可能解读、证据支持解读、情绪唤起与沟通意图。基于此框架,构建了一个基于证据的有影响力公共话语数据集。实证显示,误导形式多样,远超虚假陈述,常见机制包括无依据推断、夸大与信息缺失,且常伴随强烈情绪唤醒与扭曲的沟通意图。进一步研究发现,仅使用轻量级声明与上下文表示即可在多数情况下还原读者理解,但准确识别误导生成机制仍面临挑战。评估五种主流生成模型表明,轻量表示具备规模化分析潜力,而可靠理解误导机制仍需依赖更丰富的上下文与证据支撑。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Influential public discourse shapes public beliefs and can also mislead, not only through what is stated, but also through how information is framed, omitted, contextualised, and communicated. Yet less research has focused on how such misleadingness arises and shapes the interpretations formed by readers. To address this gap, we introduce Reader-Centric Misleadingness Understanding (RCMN), a framework that operationalises misleadingness through five dimensions: misleading mechanism, likely reader interpretation, evidence-warranted interpretation, emotional arousal, and communicative intent. Based on this framework, we construct an evidence-grounded dataset of influential public discourse. Empirical findings show that misleadingness is diverse and extends well beyond fabrication, with unsupported inference, exaggeration, and omission among the prevalent mechanisms, and is frequently associated with heightened emotional arousal and distortive communicative intent. Moreover, we investigate whether lightweight claim-and-context representations retain sufficient cues for understanding reader-centric misleadingness without access to richer contextual, evidential, and multimodal information. Evaluation across five recent generative foundation models shows that reader-level interpretations can often be recovered from such limited representations, whereas identifying how misleadingness is produced remains considerably more challenging. These findings highlight the potential of lightweight representations for scalable misleadingness analysis, while reliable understanding of misleading mechanisms continues to require richer contextual and evidential grounding.

误导性分析话语理解轻量表示情感唤醒

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。