Recent reasoning LLMs (RLMs), especially those trained with verifier-based reinforcement learning, often perform worse with few-shot CoT than with direct answering. We revisit this paradox using high-quality reasoning traces from DeepSeek-R1 as demonstrations and find that adding more exemplars consistently degrades accuracy, even when demonstrations are optimal. A detailed analysis reveals two mechanisms behind this decline: (i) *semantic misguidance*, where high textual similarity leads the model to treat the target as the same as the exemplar and to copy intermediate steps verbatim; and (ii) *strategy transfer failure*, where the model struggles to extract useful reasoning strategies and apply them to target questions. Guided by these findings, we introduce Insight-to-Solve (I2S), which converts demonstrations into target-conditioned insights before solving, and I2S+, which adds iterative refinement. Across open- and closed-source models, both variants outperform direct answering and sequential test-time baselines. On a frozen 500-problem Omni-MATH transfer set, I2S+ improves R1-Distill-Qwen-7B and Qwen3-14B by +4.2 and +4.0 points, respectively. The same prompt stack also transfers to GPT-4.1, o1-mini, and R1-Distill-Llama-8B, showing that reasoning demonstrations can be converted from liabilities into useful test-time guidance.

Large Language Model (LLM)-augmented Community Notes offer a scalable path for timely, evidence-grounded correction of health misinformation on social platforms. However, they still reset at every post, leaving useful correction experience from prior cases unused. We introduce EvoNote, an agentic framework that enables health Community Notes generation to self-evolve through an evolving experience memory of prior misinformation correction episodes. Its core is fine-grained credit assignment: EvoNote grounds trajectory-level feedback in health-specific note qualities and distills it into action-level memory for claim analysis, evidence acquisition, and note writing. We evaluate EvoNote on MM-HealthCN, a 1.2K-instance multimodal benchmark of user-flagged health posts with human-written Community Notes and crowd-derived helpfulness labels. Under a human-validated hierarchical utility judge, EvoNote-generated notes are preferred over corresponding human-written notes in 89.6% of cases; on a separate set of Needs More Ratings posts without a crowd helpfulness verdict, EvoNote produces helpful notes for 82.0% of cases. It also reduces time to an available candidate correction from multi-hour post-to-note delays to under 2 minutes on average. Analyses link these quality gains to stronger evidence use and reusable correction strategies, positioning self-evolving note generation as a promising paradigm for scalable health misinformation governance.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a central paradigm for post-training large language models (LLMs), particularly for complex reasoning tasks, yet it often suffers from exploration collapse: policies prematurely concentrate on a small set of dominant reasoning patterns, improving pass@1 while limiting rollout-level diversity and gains in pass@k. We argue that this failure stems from regularizing local token behavior rather than diversity over sets of solutions. To address this, we propose Uniqueness-Aware Reinforcement Learning, a rollout-level objective that explicitly rewards correct solutions that exhibit rare high-level strategies. Our method uses an LLM-based judge to cluster rollouts for the same problem according to their high-level solution strategies, ignoring superficial variations, and reweights policy advantages inversely with cluster size. As a result, correct but novel strategies receive higher rewards than redundant ones. Across mathematics, physics, and medical reasoning benchmarks, our approach consistently improves pass@k across large sampling budgets and increases the area under the pass@k curve (AUC@K) without sacrificing pass@1, while sustaining exploration and uncovering more diverse solution strategies at scale. Code is in Software part under submission page.

Short-form news videos increasingly shape public perception through strategic framing, yet existing verification methods largely overlook the communicative intent underlying such content. By emphasizing surface semantics, current models struggle to separate stylistic presentation from factual evidence, which leads to shortcut learning and brittle generalization. To address this limitation, we propose the Origin–Objective–Means (OOM) framework, a theory-grounded representation of communicative intent that captures creator stance, audience need activation, and communication strategy. We validate OOM through large-scale human annotation, revealing distinct and consistent lexical and structural patterns across intent dimensions. Building on this representation, we operationalize intent as an explicit semantic condition rather than a prediction target. Concretely, we introduce Intent-Guided Prompting (IGP) to condition LLM reasoning and intent-conditioned multimodal detection framework (ICMD), which injects intent into multimodal detectors via feature-wise modulation. Experiments on FakeSV and FakeTT show that modeling intent as an intermediate condition consistently improves accuracy and robustness across diverse vision–language backbones, while substantially reducing reliance on spurious stylistic correlations.

To reliably assist human decision-making, LLMs must maintain factual internal beliefs against misleading injections. While current models resist explicit misinformation, we uncover a fundamental vulnerability to sophisticated, hard-to-falsify evidence. To systematically probe this weakness, we introduce MisBelief, a framework that generates misleading evidence via collaborative, multi-round interactions among multi-role LLMs. This process mimics subtle, defeasible reasoning and progressive refinement to create logically persuasive yet factually deceptive claims. Using MisBelief, we generate 4,800 instances across three difficulty levels to evaluate 7 representative LLMs. Results indicate that while models are robust to direct misinformation, they are highly sensitive to this refined evidence: belief scores in falsehoods increase by an average of 93.0%, fundamentally compromising downstream recommendations. To address this, we propose Deceptive Intent Shielding (DIS), a governance mechanism that provides an early warning signal by inferring the deceptive intent behind evidence. Empirical results demonstrate that DIS consistently mitigates belief shifts and promotes more cautious evidence evaluation.

Offensive dark humor presents a high-context safety challenge: its harmful meaning is often absent from surface wording and emerges only after recovering background knowledge and rhetorical transformation. To explore this problem, we introduce HellHumor-CN, a benchmark of 2,168 Chinese jokes annotated for three subtasks: (1) offense detection, (2) sensitive topic prediction, and (3) target identification. We further propose HumorLens, a knowledge-grounded and rhetoric-aware multi-agent framework that retrieves relevant background information and analyzes three common mechanisms in dark humor: mockery, irony, and pun. Experiments show that toxic content detectors and strong LLMs struggle with Chinese dark humor, especially on topic and target interpretation. HumorLens consistently improves performance across multiple models, suggesting that background grounding and mechanism-specific analysis help identify implicit offensive meanings. Further analyses reveal persistent challenges, including visually implied harm, coded sexual innuendo, lexical oversensitivity, and abstract target grounding.

Despite the growing adoption of large language models (LLMs) in academic workflows, their capabilities remain limited in supporting high-quality scientific writing. Most existing systems are designed for general-purpose scientific text generation and fail to meet the sophisticated demands of research communication beyond surface-level polishing, for example, maintaining conceptual coherence across sections. Furthermore, academic writing is inherently iterative and revision-driven, a process that is not well supported by direct prompting-based paradigms. To address these scenarios, we propose a human-AI collaboration framework for academic paper revision, centered on criteria-guided intent alignment and context-aware modeling. To validate the framework, we curate a dataset of 7,000 research papers from top-tier venues, annotated with 140,000 instruction–response pairs that reflect realistic, section-level scientific revisions. We instantiate the framework in XtraGPT, the first suite of open-source LLMs (1.5B to 14B parameters) specifically fine-tuned for context-aware academic paper revision. Extensive experiments show that XtraGPT significantly outperforms same-scale baselines and rivals the quality of proprietary counterparts. Both automated preference assessments and human evaluations confirm the effectiveness of XtraGPT in improving scientific drafts. Our code and models are available at https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/XtraGPT and https://huggingface.co/collections/Xtra-Computing/xtragpt.

Even when factually correct, social-media news previews (image-headline pairs) can induce interpretation drift: by selectively omitting crucial context, they lead readers to form judgments that diverge from what the full article supports. This covert harm is subtler than explicit misinformation, yet remains underexplored. To address this gap, we develop a multi-stage pipeline that simulates preview-based and context-based understanding, enabling construction of the MM-Misleading benchmark. Using MM-Misleading, we systematically evaluate open-source LVLMs and uncover pronounced blind spots in omission-based misleadingness detection. We further propose OMGuard, which combines (1) Interpretation-Aware Fine-Tuning for misleadingness detection and (2) Rationale-Guided Misleading Content Correction, where explicit rationales guide headline rewriting to reduce misleading impressions. Experiments show that OMGuard lifts an 8B model’s detection accuracy to the level of a 235B LVLM while delivering markedly stronger end-to-end correction. Further analysis shows that misleadingness usually arises from local narrative shifts, such as missing background, instead of global frame changes, and identifies image-driven cases where text-only correction fails, underscoring the need for visual interventions.

Community Notes, the crowd-sourced misinformation governance system on X (formerly Twitter), allows users to flag misleading posts, attach contextual notes, and rate the notes’ helpfulness. However, our empirical analysis of 30.8K health-related notes reveals substantial latency, with a median delay of 17.6 hours before notes receive a helpfulness status. To improve responsiveness during real-world misinformation surges, we propose CrowdNotes+, a unified LLM-based framework that augments Community Notes for faster and more reliable health misinformation governance. CrowdNotes+ integrates two modes: (1) evidence-grounded note augmentation and (2) utility-guided note automation, supported by a hierarchical three-stage evaluation of relevance, correctness, and helpfulness. We instantiate the framework with HealthNotes, a benchmark of 1.2K health notes annotated for helpfulness, and a fine-tuned helpfulness judge. Our analysis first uncovers a key loophole in current crowd-sourced governance: voters frequently conflate stylistic fluency with factual accuracy. Addressing this via our hierarchical evaluation, experiments across 15 representative LLMs demonstrate that CrowdNotes+ significantly outperforms human contributors in note correctness, helpfulness, and evidence utility.

Video misinformation detection is often approached as a binary veracity classification problem, overlooking the complex reasoning required to explain how and why content misleads. Existing benchmarks fail to capture the diversity of manipulation strategies, such as AI-generated edits and out-of-context manipulation, and do not evaluate whether models can provide process-level justifications for their judgments. We address these limitations with MisVideoQA, a multi-turn benchmark designed to assess comprehensive understanding and reasoning in video misinformation analysis. MisVideoQA covers 12 fine-grained deception categories and evaluates models along six dimensions, progressing from perceptual attribution to intent and persuasion analysis. Recognizing that standard MLLMs struggle to sustain such structured, evidence-based deduction, we propose MisAgent, a Delphi-inspired multi-agent framework in which specialized agents collaboratively integrate multimodal cues with external evidence. Experimental results show that state-of-the-art multimodal large language models perform poorly on MisVideoQA, while MisAgent consistently improves reasoning accuracy and explanation quality. Together, our benchmark and framework establish a unified foundation for reliable, interpretable, and evidence-grounded video misinformation analysis.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in visual reasoning and text generation. While previous studies have explored the application of MLLM for detecting out-of-context (OOC) misinformation, our empirical analysis reveals two persisting challenges of this paradigm. Evaluating the representative GPT-4o model on direct reasoning and evidence augmented reasoning, results indicate that MLLM struggle to capture the deeper relationships—specifically, cases in which the image and text are not directly connected but are associated through underlying semantic links. Moreover, noise in the evidence further impairs detection accuracy.To address these challenges, we propose CMIE, a novel OOC misinformation detection framework that incorporates a Coexistence Relationship Generation (CRG) strategy and an Association Scoring (AS) mechanism. CMIE identifies the underlying coexistence relationships between images and text, and selectively utilizes relevant evidence to enhance misinformation detection. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms existing methods.

While recent advances in fake news video detection have shown promising potential, existing approaches typically (1) focus on a specific domain (e.g., politics) and (2) assume the availability of multiple modalities, including video, audio, description texts, and related images. However, these methods struggle to generalize to real-world scenarios, where questionable information spans diverse domains and is often modality-incomplete due to factors such as upload degradation or missing metadata. To address these challenges, we introduce two real-world multi-domain news video benchmarks that reflect modality incompleteness and propose IMOL, an incomplete-modality-tolerant learning framework for multi-domain fake news video detection. Inspired by cognitive theories suggesting that humans infer missing modalities through cross-modal guidance and retrieve relevant knowledge from memory for reference, IMOL employs a hierarchical transferable information integration strategy. This consists of two key phases: (1) leveraging cross-modal consistency to reconstruct missing modalities and (2) refining sample-level transferable knowledge through cross-sample associative reasoning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that IMOL significantly enhances the performance and robustness of multi-domain fake news video detection while effectively generalizing to unseen domains under incomplete modality conditions.