Cited by 32Misinformation and Its ImpactsTopic ModelingSpam and Phishing Detection

Silver Lining in the Fake News Cloud: Can Large Language Models Help Detect Misinformation?

Kumar, Raghvendra, Goddu, Bhargav, Saha, Sriparna, Jatowt, Adam·2025·IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

In the times of advanced generative artificial intelligence, distinguishing truth from fallacy and deception has become a critical societal challenge. This research attempts to analyze the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for detecting misinformation. Our study employs a versatile approach, covering multiple LLMs with few- and zero-shot prompting. These models are rigorously evaluated across various fake news and rumor detection datasets. Introducing a novel dimension, we additionally incorporate sentiment and emotion annotations to understand the emotional influence on misinformation detection using LLMs. Moreover, to extend our inquiry, we employ ChatGPT to intentionally distort authentic news as well as human-written fake news, utilizing zero-shot and iterative prompts. This deliberate corruption allows for a detailed examination of various parameters such as abstractness, concreteness, and named entity density, providing insights into differentiating between unaltered news, human-written fake news, and its LLM-corrupted counterpart. Our findings aspire to furnish a refined framework for discerning authentic news, human-generated misinformation, and LLM-induced distortions. This multifaceted approach, utilizing various prompt techniques, contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the subtle variations shaping misinformation sources.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tai.2024.3440248

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumar, R., Goddu, B., Saha, S., & Jatowt, A.
Affiliations
  • Indian Institute of Technology Patna (IN)
  • Universität Innsbruck (AT)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2025-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
14-24
ISSN
2691-4581 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401413600
Cited by
32
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 18
FWCI
22.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
misinformation detection, fake news, rumor detection, large language models, generative AI, ChatGPT, zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, concreteness, abstractness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review