analiza aiqbench
This study reveals that human evaluators are significantly more susceptible to source-label bias when judging logical fallacies compared to LLMs, which maintain stable assessments regardless of whether content is attributed to humans or AI. The findings highlight a critical vulnerability in human-AI collaboration where trust ratings are distorted by perceived authorship rather than actual reasoning quality. For the industry, this underscores the urgent need for robust moderation frameworks that mitigate these cognitive biases to ensure fair evaluation in increasingly AI-mediated environments.
Label Over Logic? How Source Cues Bias Human Fallacy Judgments More Than LLMs
arXiv:2605.29928v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As AI-generated and AI-assisted content floods online spaces, source labels attached to such content can distort human reasoning judgments, with downstream consequences for moderation, evaluation, and decision-making. Whether LLMs share this vulnerability, or offer more source-agnostic evaluation, remains an open question with strong implications for human-AI collaboration. We examine this issue using logical fallacies as a controlled setting to isolate source-label effects on reasoning quality, independent of domain knowledge. We conduct an online study (N=505) where participants are assigned to a source condition (human, AI, human with AI assistance, AI with human assistance, or no disclosure) and evaluate comments containing logical fallacies, comparing their judgments with those of LLMs (GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5), which were evaluated across the same source conditions. Human evaluators were significantly more susceptible to fallacies labeled as 'written by human' or 'written by human with AI assistance' and assigned higher trust ratings in these conditions. LLM evaluations remained comparatively stable across source labels, though performance varied across models. Confidence levels were similarly high across conditions for both humans and LLMs, regardless of the presence of fallacies. Our findings indicate that source-label bias is primarily a human vulnerability for logical fallacy evaluation, with potential implications in human-LLM collaboration in increasingly AI-mediated environments.
Title:Label Over Logic? How Source Cues Bias Human Fallacy Judgments More Than LLMs
Abstract:As AI-generated and AI-assisted content floods online spaces, source labels attached to such content can distort human reasoning judgments, with downstream consequences for moderation, evaluation, and decision-making. Whether LLMs share this vulnerability, or offer more source-agnostic evaluation, remains an open question with strong implications for human-AI collaboration. We examine this issue using logical fallacies as a controlled setting to isolate source-label effects on reasoning quality, independent of domain knowledge. We conduct an online study (N=505) where participants are assigned to a source condition (human, AI, human with AI assistance, AI with human assistance, or no disclosure) and evaluate comments containing logical fallacies, comparing their judgments with those of LLMs (GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5), which were evaluated across the same source conditions. Human evaluators were significantly more susceptible to fallacies labeled as 'written by human' or 'written by human with AI assistance' and assigned higher trust ratings in these conditions. LLM evaluations remained comparatively stable across source labels, though performance varied across models. Confidence levels were similarly high across conditions for both humans and LLMs, regardless of the presence of fallacies. Our findings indicate that source-label bias is primarily a human vulnerability for logical fallacy evaluation, with potential implications in human-LLM collaboration in increasingly AI-mediated environments.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2605.29928 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2605.29928v3 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.29928 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 316 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Label Over Logic? How Source Cues Bias Human Fallacy Judgments More Than LLMs
arXiv · 4 iun. 2026

Why You Shouldn’t Always Trust LLMs as Judges: Understanding Bias in Automated Evaluation
Analytics Vidhya · 12 aug. 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · 15 iun. 2026
Beyond Surface Cues: Disentangling Sociocultural Signals in Multilingual LLMs
arXiv · 25 aug. 2026