Social media platforms have become primary sources for news consumption due to their real-time and interactive nature, yet they have also facilitated the widespread proliferation of misinformation, negatively impacting public health, social cohesion, and market stability. While professional fact-checking is essential for debunking rumors, the process is time-consuming, necessitating automation to effectively combat fake news. Existing approaches, such as extractive methods, often lack coherence and context, whereas abstractive methods leveraging large language models (LLMs) can generate more readable and informative debunking passages. However, readability alone is insufficient for effective misinformation correction; user acceptance is critical. Recent advancements in LLMs offer new opportunities for personalized debunking, as these models can generate context-sensitive responses and adapt to user profiles. Building on this, we propose the MUti-round Refinement and Simulated fEedback-enhanced framework (MURSE), which generates Chinese user-specific debunking passages by iteratively refining outputs based on simulated user feedback. Specifically, MURSE-generated user-specific debunking passages were preferred twice as often as general debunking passages in most cases, highlighting its potential to improve misinformation correction and foster positive dissemination chains.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to factual hallucinations, risking their reliability in real-world applications. Existing hallucination detectors mainly extract micro-level intrinsic patterns for uncertainty quantification or elicit macro-level self-judgments through verbalized prompts. However, these methods address only a single facet of the hallucination, focusing either on implicit neural uncertainty or explicit symbolic reasoning, thereby treating these inherently coupled behaviors in isolation and failing to exploit their interdependence for a holistic view. In this paper, we propose LaaB (Logical Consistency-as-a-Bridge), a framework that bridges neural features and symbolic judgments for hallucination detection. LaaB introduces a “meta-judgment” process to map symbolic labels back into the feature space. By leveraging the inherent logical bridge where response and meta-judgment labels are either the same or opposite based on the self-judgment’s semantics, LaaB aligns and integrates dual-view signals via mutual learning and enhances the hallucination detection. Extensive experiments on 4 public datasets, across 4 LLMs, against 8 baselines demonstrate the superiority of LaaB.

Concept-based explainable approaches have emerged as a promising method in explainable AI because they can interpret models in a way that aligns with human reasoning. However, their adaption in the text domain remains limited. Most existing methods rely on predefined concept annotations and cannot discover unseen concepts, while other methods that extract concepts without supervision often produce explanations that are not intuitively comprehensible to humans, potentially diminishing user trust. These methods fall short of discovering comprehensible concepts automatically. To address this issue, we propose ECO-Concept, an intrinsically interpretable framework to discover comprehensible concepts with no concept annotations. ECO-Concept first utilizes an object-centric architecture to extract semantic concepts automatically. Then the comprehensibility of the extracted concepts is evaluated by large language models. Finally, the evaluation result guides the subsequent model fine-tuning to obtain more understandable explanations using relatively comprehensible concepts. Experiments show that our method achieves superior performance across diverse tasks. Further concept evaluations validate that the concepts learned by ECO-Concept surpassed current counterparts in comprehensibility.

Ethical decision-making is a critical aspect of human judgment, and the growing use of LLMs in decision-support systems necessitates a rigorous evaluation of their moral reasoning capabilities. However, existing assessments primarily rely on single-step evaluations, failing to capture how models adapt to evolving ethical challenges. Addressing this gap, we introduce the Multi-step Moral Dilemmas (MMDs), the first dataset specifically constructed to evaluate the evolving moral judgments of LLMs across 3,302 five-stage dilemmas. This framework enables a fine-grained, dynamic analysis of how LLMs adjust their moral reasoning across escalating dilemmas. Our evaluation of nine widely used LLMs reveals that their value preferences shift significantly as dilemmas progress, indicating that models recalibrate moral judgments based on scenario complexity. Furthermore, pairwise value comparisons demonstrate that while LLMs often prioritize the value of care, this value can sometimes be superseded by fairness in certain contexts, highlighting the dynamic and context-dependent nature of LLM ethical reasoning. Our findings call for a shift toward dynamic, context-aware evaluation paradigms, paving the way for more human-aligned and value-sensitive development of LLMs.