AOR-Bench: Do Large Audio Language Models Over-Refuse Pseudo-Harmful Queries?

Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of audio tasks. As they are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, ensuring their safety alignment has become more important. Although refusal mechanisms serve as a key safeguard by preventing LALMs from responding to harmful requests, they can also lead to {\em over-refusal}, where models incorrectly reject benign queries. This issue is especially challenging in the audio domain because speech that appears harmful in isolation may become benign when interpreted together with the surrounding acoustic context, such as background sounds. To study this problem, we introduce \textbf{AOR-Bench} (\textbf{A}udio \textbf{O}ver-\textbf{R}efusal \textbf{Bench}mark), the first benchmark for over-refusal specifically designed for LALMs. AOR-Bench contains 3,000 pseudo-harmful audio samples across six scenario categories. Evaluating 12 representative LALMs from six major model families, we find that over-refusal is widespread (Figure~\ref{fig:overall_performance}) and uncover several important patterns in their safety judgments. As a preliminary effort to mitigate this issue, we further explore two lightweight strategies (e.g., Chain-of-Thought and activation steering) to reduce over-refusal.

Context-Aware Multimodal Claim Verification in Spoken Dialogues

Every day, millions absorb claims from podcasts and streams that no fact-checker ever sees. Spoken misinformation is built through conversation, where credibility comes not from facts alone but from how claims are framed, reinforced, or left unchallenged across turns. Yet fact-checking has focused on isolated text, leaving dialogue audio under-studied. We introduce MAD2, a new Multi-turn Audio Dialogues benchmark for spoken claim verification, containing 1,000 two-speaker dialogues with 3,368 check-worthy claims and approximately 10 hours of audio, and propose calibrated multimodal fusion of a context-aware audio encoder and a dialogue-aware text model. Across settings, adding dialogue context improves verification, but the gains depend on scenario type. Using only preceding context often matches offline performance, supporting live-moderation settings, and audio contributes most when transcript-based models are destabilized by additional context. Overall, conversational structure matters more for verification than misinformation framing.

Label Over Logic? How Source Cues Bias Human Fallacy Judgments More Than LLMs

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 direct 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), who were evaluated across the same source conditions. Human evaluators were significantly more susceptible to fallacies labeled as written by human or human with AI assistance and assigned higher trust and evaluation 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 fallacy presence. Our findings indicate that source-label bias in reasoning evaluation is primarily a human vulnerability and highlight the potential of human-LLM collaboration in increasingly AI-mediated environments.

LLM Benchmark Datasets Should Be Contamination-Resistant

Benchmark datasets are critical for reproducible, reliable, and discriminative evaluation of LLMs. However, recent studies reveal that many benchmark datasets are included in pretraining corpora, i.e., $\textit{contaminated}$, which diminishes their value as reliable measures of model generalization. In this paper, we argue that benchmark datasets should be $\textit{contamination-resistant}$, i.e., $\textit{unlearnable}$, but support $\textit{inference}$. To accomplish this, we first highlight the wide prevalence of benchmark dataset contamination and outline the properties of contamination-resistant datasets. Second, we highlight how the asymmetry between the inference and training pipelines in the Transformer architecture can be leveraged to support contamination-resistance. Third, we outline mathematical advancements to make these datasets interoperable across various LLM architectures. Based on the above, we call on the community to ensure the reliability of LLM benchmarking by: (i) advancing novel contamination-resistant methodologies, (ii) developing supporting methods and platforms, and (iii) adopting contamination-resistant benchmarks into existing evaluation pipelines.

Moltbook Moderation: Uncovering Hidden Intent Through Multi-Turn Dialogue

The emergence of multi-agent systems introduces novel moderation challenges that extend beyond content filtering. Agents with malicious intent may contribute harmful content that appears benign to evade content-based moderation, while compromising the system through exploitative and malicious behavior manifested across their overall interaction patterns within the community. To address this, we introduce BOT-MOD (BOT-MODeration), a moderation framework that grounds detection in agent intent rather than traditional content level signals. BOT-MOD identifies the underlying intent by engaging with the target agent in a multi-turn exchange guided by Gibbs-based sampling over candidate intent hypotheses. This progressively narrows the space of plausible agent objectives to identify the underlying behavior. To evaluate our approach, we construct a dataset derived from Moltbook that encompasses diverse benign and malicious behaviors based on actual community structures, posts, and comments. Results demonstrate that BOT-MOD reliably identifies agent intent across a range of adversarial configurations, while maintaining a low false positive rate on benign behaviors. This work advances the foundation for scalable, intent-aware moderation of agents in open multi-agent environments.

DIA-HARM: Dialectal Disparities in Harmful Content Detection Across 50 English Dialects

Harmful content detectors-particularly disinformation classifiers-are predominantly developed and evaluated on Standard American English (SAE), leaving their robustness to dialectal variation unexplored. We present DIA-HARM, the first benchmark for evaluating disinformation detection robustness across 50 English dialects spanning U.S., British, African, Caribbean, and Asia-Pacific varieties. Using Multi-VALUE's linguistically grounded transformations, we introduce D3 (Dialectal Disinformation Detection), a corpus of 195K samples derived from established disinformation benchmarks. Our evaluation of 16 detection models reveals systematic vulnerabilities: human-written dialectal content degrades detection by 1.4-3.6% F1, while AI-generated content remains stable. Fine-tuned transformers substantially outperform zero-shot LLMs (96.6% vs. 78.3% best-case F1), with some models exhibiting catastrophic failures exceeding 33% degradation on mixed content. Cross-dialectal transfer analysis across 2,450 dialect pairs shows that multilingual models (mDeBERTa: 97.2% average F1) generalize effectively, while monolingual models like RoBERTa and XLM-RoBERTa fail on dialectal inputs. These findings demonstrate that current disinformation detectors may systematically disadvantage hundreds of millions of non-SAE speakers worldwide. We release the DIA-HARM framework, D3 corpus, and evaluation tools: https://github.com/jsl5710/dia-harm

M2-Verify: A Large-Scale Multidomain Benchmark for Checking Multimodal Claim Consistency

Evaluating scientific arguments requires assessing the strict consistency between a claim and its underlying multimodal evidence. However, existing benchmarks lack the scale, domain diversity, and visual complexity needed to evaluate this alignment realistically. To address this gap, we introduce M2-Verify, a large-scale multimodal dataset for checking scientific claim consistency. Sourced from PubMed and arXiv, M2-Verify provides over 469K instances across 16 domains, rigorously validated through expert audits. Extensive baseline experiments show that state-of-the-art models struggle to maintain robust consistency. While top models achieve up to 85.8\% Micro-F1 on low-complexity medical perturbations, performance drops to 61.6\% on high-complexity challenges like anatomical shifts. Furthermore, expert evaluations expose hallucinations when models generate scientific explanations for their alignment decisions. Finally, we demonstrate our dataset's utility and provide comprehensive usage guidelines.

BLUFF: Benchmarking the Detection of False and Synthetic Content across 58 Low-Resource Languages

Multilingual falsehoods threaten information integrity worldwide, yet detection benchmarks remain confined to English or a few high-resource languages, leaving low-resource linguistic communities without robust defense tools. We introduce BLUFF, a comprehensive benchmark for detecting false and synthetic content, spanning 79 languages with over 202K samples, combining human-written fact-checked content (122K+ samples across 57 languages) and LLM-generated content (79K+ samples across 71 languages). BLUFF uniquely covers both high-resource "big-head" (20) and low-resource "long-tail" (59) languages, addressing critical gaps in multilingual research on detecting false and synthetic content. Our dataset features four content types (human-written, LLM-generated, LLM-translated, and hybrid human-LLM text), bidirectional translation (English$\leftrightarrow$X), 39 textual modification techniques (36 manipulation tactics for fake news, 3 AI-editing strategies for real news), and varying edit intensities generated using 19 diverse LLMs. We present AXL-CoI (Adversarial Cross-Lingual Agentic Chainof-Interactions), a novel multi-agentic framework for controlled fake/real news generation, paired with mPURIFY, a quality filtering pipeline ensuring dataset integrity. Experiments reveal state-of-theart detectors suffer up to 25.3% F1 degradation on low-resource versus high-resource languages. BLUFF provides the research community with a multilingual benchmark, extensive linguistic-oriented benchmark evaluation, comprehensive documentation, and opensource tools to advance equitable falsehood detection. Dataset and code are available at: https://jsl5710.github.io/BLUFF/

GPTZero: Robust Detection of LLM-Generated Texts

While historical considerations surrounding text authenticity revolved primarily around plagiarism, the advent of large language models (LLMs) has introduced a new challenge: distinguishing human-authored from AI-generated text. This shift raises significant concerns, including the undermining of skill evaluations, the mass-production of low-quality content, and the proliferation of misinformation. Addressing these issues, we introduce GPTZero a state-of-the-art industrial AI detection solution, offering reliable discernment between human and LLM-generated text. Our key contributions include: introducing a hierarchical, multi-task architecture enabling a flexible taxonomy of human and AI texts, demonstrating state-of-the-art accuracy on a variety of domains with granular predictions, and achieving superior robustness to adversarial attacks and paraphrasing via multi-tiered automated red teaming. GPTZero offers accurate and explainable detection, and educates users on its responsible use, ensuring fair and transparent assessment of text.

MEVER: Multi-Modal and Explainable Claim Verification with Graph-based Evidence Retrieval

Verifying the truthfulness of claims usually requires joint multi-modal reasoning over both textual and visual evidence, such as analyzing both textual caption and chart image for claim verification. In addition, to make the reasoning process transparent, a textual explanation is necessary to justify the verification result. However, most claim verification works mainly focus on the reasoning over textual evidence only or ignore the explainability, resulting in inaccurate and unconvincing verification. To address this problem, we propose a novel model that jointly achieves evidence retrieval, multi-modal claim verification, and explanation generation. For evidence retrieval, we construct a two-layer multi-modal graph for claims and evidence, where we design image-to-text and text-to-image reasoning for multi-modal retrieval. For claim verification, we propose token- and evidence-level fusion to integrate claim and evidence embeddings for multi-modal verification. For explanation generation, we introduce multi-modal Fusion-in-Decoder for explainability. Finally, since almost all the datasets are in general domain, we create a scientific dataset, AIChartClaim, in AI domain to complement claim verification community. Experiments show the strength of our model.