We introduce Enhancing Perception, a framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) designed to streamline the time-intensive task typically undertaken by professional fact-checkers of crafting explanations for fake news. This study investigates the effectiveness of enhancing LLM explanations through conversational refinement. We compare various questioner agents, including state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4, Claude 2, PaLM 2, and 193 American participants acting as human questioners. Based on the histories of these refinement conversations, we further generate comprehensive summary explanations. We evaluated the effectiveness of these initial, refined, and summary explanations across 40 news claims by involving 2,797 American participants, measuring their self-reported belief change regarding both real and fake claims after receiving the explanations. Our findings reveal that, in the context of fake news, explanations that have undergone conversational refinement—whether by GPT-4 or human questioners, who ask more diverse and detail-oriented questions—were significantly more effective than both the initial unrefined explanations and the summary explanations. Moreover, these refined explanations achieved a level of effectiveness comparable to that of expert-written explanations. The results highlight the potential of automatic explanation refinement by LLMs in debunking fake news claims.

With advancements in natural language processing (NLP) models, automatic explanation generation has been proposed to mitigate misinformation on social media platforms in addition to adding warning labels to identified fake news. While many researchers have focused on generating good explanations, how these explanations can really help humans combat fake news is under-explored. In this study, we compare the effectiveness of a warning label and the state-of- the-art counterfactual explanations generated by GPT-4 in debunking misinformation. In a two-wave, online human-subject study, participants (N = 215) were randomly assigned to a control group in which false contents are shown without any intervention, a warning tag group in which the false claims were labeled, or an explanation group in which the false contents were accompanied by GPT-4 generated explanations. Our results show that both interventions significantly decrease participants’ self-reported belief in fake claims in an equivalent manner for the short-term and long-term. We discuss the implications of our findings and directions for future NLP-based misinformation debunking strategies.

Thematic analysis (TA) has been widely used for analyzing qualitative data in many disciplines and fields. To ensure reliable analysis, the same piece of data is typically assigned to at least two human coders. Moreover, to produce meaningful and useful analysis, human coders develop and deepen their data interpretation and coding over multiple iterations, making TA labor-intensive and time-consuming. Recently the emerging field of large language models (LLMs) research has shown that LLMs have the potential replicate human-like behavior in various tasks: in particular, LLMs outperform crowd workers on text-annotation tasks, suggesting an opportunity to leverage LLMs on TA. We propose a human–LLM collaboration framework (i.e., LLM-in-the-loop) to conduct TA with in-context learning (ICL). This framework provides the prompt to frame discussions with a LLM (e.g., GPT-3.5) to generate the final codebook for TA. We demonstrate the utility of this framework using survey datasets on the aspects of the music listening experience and the usage of a password manager. Results of the two case studies show that the proposed framework yields similar coding quality to that of human coders but reduces TA’s labor and time demands.