RCMN: Understanding Misleadingness in Influential Public Discourse

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.

ReliableRAG: Combating Misinformation in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Reliability-Guided Reasoning Chains

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a powerful architecture for Question Answering (QA) by integrating external information into Large Language Models (LLMs). However, false, inaccurate, and misleading information in news and social media poses a serious challenge to real-world RAG systems, especially in multi-hop QA, where complex multi-step reasoning can be misled by even a single deceptive misinformation segment in the retrieved documents. Existing approaches mainly rely on implicit alignment or explicit regulation, but their limited ability to assess fine-grained information reliability makes them vulnerable to deceptive misinformation that is semantically relevant to the question yet factually incorrect, leading to erroneous answers. To address this limitation, we propose ReliableRAG, which, to the best of our knowledge, is the first reliability-driven framework that mitigates deceptive misinformation in multi-hop QA through fine-grained evaluation of individual triples. ReliableRAG first extracts information segments from source documents and represents them as structured triples. It then quantifies triple reliability by combining query-triple semantic relevance with triple credibility, retaining only the top-$K$ reliable and non-redundant triples. Based on these refined triples, ReliableRAG autoregressively constructs robust reasoning chains to consolidate trustworthy evidence and filter deceptive misinformation, producing accurate answers faithful to reliable information. Experiments on three multi-hop QA datasets show that ReliableRAG outperforms existing methods, substantially improving the factual reliability and robustness of RAG systems under deceptive misinformation injection.

Beyond Verdicts: A Graph-Based Analysis of Human and LLM Reasoning in Scientific Fact-Checking

Misinformation that cites legitimate papers can be especially harmful when it distorts what those studies actually report. While existing automatic fact-checking systems based on large language models (LLMs) can assess whether a model assigns an Incorrect verdict and can gen- erate explanations for that decision, they typi- cally do not indicate whether the model follows the same reasoning path as human experts or arrives at the verdict through a different but still valid path. In this work, we introduce a graph- based framework (typed reasoning graph) for comparing human and LLM reasoning paths in scientific fact-checking. Building on prior work on fallacious reasoning in biomedical misinformation, MISSCIPLUS (Glockner et al., 2025), we model each explanation as a rea- soning graph that links the false claim to the relevant study context, study findings, fallacy- supporting premises, and fallacy labels. This representation enables one-to-one alignment of human and LLM reasoning at the level of fallacy-specific sub-graphs. For non-human- aligned LLM paths, we validate grounding in the cited study, relevance to the claim, and suf- ficiency for the verdict. Using 84 false claims from MISSCIPLUS, we evaluate GPT-5, Claude Opus 4.7, and Qwen3-32B across prompt and evidence settings. Results show distinct perfor- mance dimensions: Qwen3-32B has the lowest verdict failure rate, GPT-5 the highest human alignment, and Claude Opus 4.7 weak verdict prediction but often valid reasoning in success- ful cases

MIRAGE: Defending Long-Form RAG Against Misinformation Pollution

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves factuality by grounding LLMs in external evidence, but real-world retrieval is often polluted: semantically relevant passages may contain subtle misinformation, misleading framings, or fabrications. We introduce MIRAGE, a training-free, model-agnostic defense for long-form RAG. MIRAGE builds an NLI-based cross-document claim graph and applies a Defended-Claims Gate to either condition generation on a consistent, multi-source supported subset or to block retrieval and answer parametrically. We also release a minimal-edit pollution protocol spanning four perturbation families (Unambiguous, Conflicting, Misleading, Fabricated) to construct matched clean, mixed, and fully polluted evaluation regimes. Across four long-form QA benchmarks and multiple commercial and open-weight LLMs, pollution severely degrades vanilla RAG, while MIRAGE consistently restores factuality under mixed and fully polluted evidence and outperforms prior robust-RAG methods. Our implementation and datasets are available at https://github.com/SaadElDine/MIRAGE.

CATCH-ME if you RAG: a dataset of Contextually Annotated multi-Turn Counterspeech against Hate and Misinformation Exchanges

Online hate speech and misinformation frequently overlap, yet NLP research has mainly treated them in isolation. While LLMs represent a scalable solution for assisting humans in the generation of counterspeech for both threats, zero-shot models frequently generate repetitive and vague responses, underscoring the need for high-quality examples to steer model generation. However, existing counterspeech datasets against the overlap of hate and misinformation are scarce and limited to single-turn English dialogues, while real-life interactions span across multiple turns and languages. To bridge this gap, we introduce the first large-scale, expert-curated, multilingual dataset of dialogues tackling the intersection of hate and misinformation. To ensure factual grounding, the dialogues are also anchored in verified external knowledge (i.e., fact-checking articles and NGO reports) and include document- and chunk-level span annotations, making it directly applicable for RAG systems. Covering five languages and targeting hate directed at seven marginalized groups, this novel resource enables the training and evaluation of more persuasive, factually grounded counterspeech models.

Evaluating RAG Reliability under Clean, Misleading, and Mixed Retrieval

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely used to improve the factual reliability of large language models (LLMs) by grounding answers in retrieved evidence. In misinformation-rich environments, however, retrieved content may include plausible but incorrect information, raising concerns about the reliability of RAG-based information access systems. In this work, we propose an evaluation protocol to systematically test how the RAG system handles conflicts between parametric knowledge and evidence retrieved from context with varying amounts of misleading information. We target correct answers to factoid questions that the model responds to correctly, even when there is no retrieval, and use this to test the system with clean, poisoned, and mixed evidence. The proposed analytical framework combines parametric override and confidence metrics to assess when and how misleading information affects the generation process of LLMs. This study aims to provide insights into the robustness of RAG systems in information disorder scenarios.

Assisted Counterspeech Writing at the Crossroads of Hate Speech and Misinformation

Hate speech and misinformation frequently co-occur online, amplifying prejudice and polarization. Given their scale, using Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist expert counterspeech (CS) writing has gained interest, yet prior work has addressed these phenomena separately. We bridge this gap by studying CS generation in contexts where both hate and misinformation co-occur. We test three knowledge-driven generation strategies: first we prompt an LLM with fact-checkers' guidelines and fact-checking articles; secondly, with NGOs' guidelines and reports; thirdly, we create a mixed strategy that combines guidelines and documents from both. 23 experts revise the generated CS, which are assessed via human and automatic metrics. While LLMs produce adequate CS in 40% of cases, expert edits substantially improve naturalness, exhaustiveness, and adherence to guidelines. Based on the post-edited CS, the mixed strategy proves to be the most effective in crowdsourcing evaluation, pairing strong factual correction with stereotype mitigation and empathetic engagement. We release a dataset of hateful and misinformed claims with expert-verified CS and supporting knowledge.