Modern misinformation is often heard before it is read, yet fact-checking systems are still evaluated mainly on clean written claims. Spoken dialogue remains different even when systems operate on transcripts: claims may be distributed across speakers and turns, depend on prior context, and become harder to verify when Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) errors distort the available text. Prior spoken dialogue fact-checking resources are small, English-centric, or focused on annotation rather than end-to-end benchmarking, leaving no large multilingual benchmark with paired speech and turn-level labels. We introduce TRILOGUE (TRIlingual spoken diaLOGUE fact-checking), a large-scale trilingual benchmark of source-grounded spoken dialogues in English, Russian, and Kazakh. It contains nearly 12K dialogues, 187K turns, and 390 hours of paired audio with ASR transcripts and word-level timestamp alignments across all three languages, including nearly 5K human-recorded Russian and Kazakh dialogue files. TRILOGUE supports claim check-worthiness detection, source-article evidence retrieval, and claim verification with claim-only, gold-evidence, and retrieved-evidence inputs. Baselines show that ASR degradation and cross-lingual transfer remain challenging, especially for Kazakh, while retrieved source evidence substantially narrows the gap to gold-evidence verification.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have introduced paradigm-shifting approaches in natural language processing. Yet, their transformative in-context learning (ICL) capabilities remain underutilized, especially in customer service dialogue summarization—a domain plagued by generative hallucinations, detail omission, and inconsistencies. We present Chain-of-Interactions (CoI), a novel single-instance, multi-step framework that orchestrates information extraction, self-correction, and evaluation through sequential interactive generation chains. By strategically leveraging LLMs’ ICL capabilities through precisely engineered prompts, CoI dramatically enhances abstractive task-oriented dialogue summarization (ATODS) quality and usefulness. Our comprehensive evaluation on real-world and benchmark human-agent interaction datasets demonstrates CoI’s effectiveness through rigorous testing across 11 models and 7 prompting approaches, with 9 standard automatic evaluation metrics, 3 LLM-based evaluations, and human studies involving 480 evaluators across 9 quality dimensions. Results reveal CoI’s decisive superiority, outperforming all single-step approaches and achieving 6× better entity preservation, 49% higher quality scores, and 322% improvement in accuracy compared to state-of-the-art multi-step Chain-of-Density (CoD). This research addresses critical gaps in task-oriented dialogue summarization for customer service applications and establishes new standards for harnessing LLMs’ reasoning capabilities in practical, industry-relevant contexts.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized text generation but also raised concerns about potential misuse, making detecting LLM-generated text (AI text) increasingly essential. While prior work has focused on identifying AI text and effectively checkmating it, our study investigates a less-explored territory: portraying the nuanced distinctions between human and AI texts across text segments (introduction, body, and conclusion). Whether LLMs excel or falter in incorporating linguistic ingenuity across text segments, the results will critically inform their viability and boundaries as effective creative assistants to humans. Through an analogy with the structure of chess games, comprising opening, middle, and end games, we analyze segment-specific patterns to reveal where the most striking differences lie. Although AI texts closely resemble human writing in the body segment due to its length, deeper analysis shows a higher divergence in features dependent on the continuous flow of language, making it the most informative segment for detection. Additionally, human texts exhibit greater stylistic variation across segments, offering a new lens for distinguishing them from AI. Overall, our findings provide fresh insights into human-AI text differences and pave the way for more effective and interpretable detection strategies. Codes available at https://github.com/tripto03/chess_inspired_human_ai_text_distinction.