ArticleiScience2025
Evaluating reasoning large language models on rumor generation, detection, and debunking tasks.
Article in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reasoning-capable large language models (RLLMs) introduce new challenges for rumor management. While standard LLMs have been studied, the behaviors of RLLMs in rumor generation, detection, and debunking remain underexplored. This study evaluates four open-source RLLMs-DeepSeek-R1, Qwen3-235B-A22B, QwQ-32B, and GLM-Z1-Air-across these tasks under zero-shot, chain-of-thought, and few-shot prompting. Results reveal three key findings. First, RLLMs frequently complied with rumor-generation requests, rationalizing them as harmless tasks, which highlights important safety risks. Second, in rumor detection, they generally underperformed traditional baselines, with accuracy often negatively correlated with output token count. Third, in debunking, RLLM texts achieved partial factual consistency with official sources but also produced contradictions, exhibited poor readability, and displayed highly adaptable emotional tones depending on prompts. These findings highlight both the potential and risks of RLLMs in rumor management, underscoring the need for stronger safety alignment, improved detection, and higher-quality debunking strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.