Skip to content
← Back to explorer

To Lie or Not to Lie? Investigating The Biased Spread of Global Lies by LLMs

Zohaib Khan, Mustafa Dogan, Ifeoma Okoh, Pouya Sadeghi, Siddhartha Shrestha, Sergius Justus Nyah, Mahmoud O. Mokhiamar, Michael J. Ryan, Tarek Naous · Apr 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Recent

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Recent

Trust level

Low

Signals: Recent

What still needs checking

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Signal confidence: 0.30

Abstract

Misinformation is on the rise, and the strong writing capabilities of LLMs lower the barrier for malicious actors to produce and disseminate false information. We study how LLMs behave when prompted to spread misinformation across languages and target countries, and introduce GlobalLies, a multilingual parallel dataset of 440 misinformation generation prompt templates and 6,867 entities, spanning 8 languages and 195 countries. Using both human annotations and large-scale LLM-as-a-judge evaluations across hundreds of thousands of generations from state-of-the-art models, we show that misinformation generation varies systematically based on the country being discussed. Propagation of lies by LLMs is substantially higher in many lower-resource languages and for countries with a lower Human Development Index (HDI). We find that existing mitigation strategies provide uneven protection: input safety classifiers exhibit cross-lingual gaps, and retrieval-augmented fact-checking remains inconsistent across regions due to unequal information availability. We release GlobalLies for research purposes, aiming to support the development of mitigation strategies to reduce the spread of global misinformation: https://github.com/zohaib-khan5040/globallies

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.30 (below strong-reference threshold).
  • No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Misinformation is on the rise, and the strong writing capabilities of LLMs lower the barrier for malicious actors to produce and disseminate false information.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Llm As Judge

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Misinformation is on the rise, and the strong writing capabilities of LLMs lower the barrier for malicious actors to produce and disseminate false information.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Misinformation is on the rise, and the strong writing capabilities of LLMs lower the barrier for malicious actors to produce and disseminate false information.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Not found

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Misinformation is on the rise, and the strong writing capabilities of LLMs lower the barrier for malicious actors to produce and disseminate false information.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Not found

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Misinformation is on the rise, and the strong writing capabilities of LLMs lower the barrier for malicious actors to produce and disseminate false information.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Not found

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Misinformation is on the rise, and the strong writing capabilities of LLMs lower the barrier for malicious actors to produce and disseminate false information.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Multilingual
  • Signal basis: Structured extraction plus abstract evidence.

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Llm As Judge
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Signal confidence: 0.30
  • Known cautions: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Misinformation is on the rise, and the strong writing capabilities of LLMs lower the barrier for malicious actors to produce and disseminate false information.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Misinformation is on the rise, and the strong writing capabilities of LLMs lower the barrier for malicious actors to produce and disseminate false information.
  • We study how LLMs behave when prompted to spread misinformation across languages and target countries, and introduce GlobalLies, a multilingual parallel dataset of 440 misinformation generation prompt templates and 6,867 entities, spanning 8 languages and 195 countries.
  • Using both human annotations and large-scale LLM-as-a-judge evaluations across hundreds of thousands of generations from state-of-the-art models, we show that misinformation generation varies systematically based on the country being discussed.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Using both human annotations and large-scale LLM-as-a-judge evaluations across hundreds of thousands of generations from state-of-the-art models, we show that misinformation generation varies systematically based on the country being…
  • Propagation of lies by LLMs is substantially higher in many lower-resource languages and for countries with a lower Human Development Index (HDI).
  • We find that existing mitigation strategies provide uneven protection: input safety classifiers exhibit cross-lingual gaps, and retrieval-augmented fact-checking remains inconsistent across regions due to unequal information availability.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Using both human annotations and large-scale LLM-as-a-judge evaluations across hundreds of thousands of generations from state-of-the-art models, we show that misinformation generation varies systematically based on the country being…
  • Propagation of lies by LLMs is substantially higher in many lower-resource languages and for countries with a lower Human Development Index (HDI).

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Llm As Judge

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.