arXiv:2608.30311cs.HCcs.AI2026-08中稿 · HCOMP 2026

AI信誉标签影响公众判断,过度依赖可能固化错误信息。

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

论文配图:One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 用贝叶斯级联模型分析用户如何受AI信誉标签及他人判断影响。
  • 实验证明,用户平均轻信AI但重于他人判断,个体差异大。
  • 弱AI若被过度依赖会加剧错误传播,多样化信号更有效。

社交媒体平台越来越多地使用基于AI的可信度指标来帮助用户判断虚假信息。与个体人机决策不同,这些指标嵌入信息传播链条:用户同时看到AI预测和由同一AI塑造的先前判断,而自身判断也可能成为公开历史的一部分。然而,这一过程的分析方法仍不充分。为此,我们引入社会学习视角,将经典贝叶斯级联模型扩展为以AI指标作为共享公共信号。由此产生的‘通路条件’比较了来自AI预测的证据与用户的私人印象。从这一视角看,AI改变了公共历史的意义:群体共识可能反映独立的人类证据,也可能只是反复依赖同一AI预测的结果。这导致‘保留-纠正’权衡:更强的AI依赖可保留正确预测,但也可能因抑制纠正性私人印象而锁定错误信息。我们使用人类实验数据校准模型,发现尽管AI表现优于人类用户,平均用户仍低估自身印象、高估多个同伴判断,个体差异从完全忽视AI到过度依赖并引发级联。模拟显示,对弱AI的过度依赖尤其有害,而跨用户多样化AI信号更能维持群体信息有效性。最后,论文讨论了该研究对理解人机交互在信息传播中的作用以及设计反虚假信息干预策略的启示。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

人机交互虚假信息贝叶斯模型社会学习

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。