Jing Ma

This is an erratum for the article “A Graph-Enhanced Defense Framework for Explainable Fake News Detection with LLM” published in ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 44, 5, Article 112 (June 2026), 36 pages.

Explainable fake news detection aims to assess the veracity of news claims while providing human-friendly explanations. Existing methods incorporating investigative journalism are often inefficient and struggle with breaking news. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) enable leveraging externally retrieved reports as evidence for detection and explanation generation, but unverified reports may introduce inaccuracies. Moreover, effective explainable fake news detection should provide a comprehensible explanation for all aspects of a claim to assist the public in verifying its accuracy. To address these challenges, we propose a graph-enhanced defense framework (G-Defense) that provides fine-grained explanations based solely on unverified reports. Specifically, we construct a claim-centered graph by decomposing the news claim into several sub-claims and modeling their dependency relationships. For each sub-claim, we use the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) technique to retrieve salient evidence and generate competing explanations. We then introduce a defense-like inference module based on the graph to assess the overall veracity. Finally, we prompt an LLM to generate an intuitive explanation graph. Experimental results demonstrate that G-Defense achieves state-of-the-art performance in both veracity detection and the quality of its explanations.

Humor is a commonly used and intricate human language in daily life. Humor generation, especially in multi-modal scenarios, is a challenging task for large language models (LLMs), which is typically as funny caption generation for images, requiring visual understanding, humor reasoning, creative imagination, and so on. Existing LLM-based approaches rely on reasoning chains or self-improvement, which suffer from limited creativity and interpretability. To address these bottlenecks, we develop a novel LLM-based humor generation mechanism based on a fundamental humor theory, GTVH. To produce funny and script-opposite captions, we introduce a humor-theory-driven multi-role LLM collaboration framework augmented with humor retrieval (HOMER). The framework consists of three LLM-based roles: (1) conflicting-script extractor that grounds humor in key script oppositions, forming the basis of caption generation; (2) retrieval-augmented hierarchical imaginator that identifies key humor targets and expands the creative space of them through diverse associations structured as imagination trees; and (3) caption generator that produces funny and diverse captions conditioned on the obtained knowledge. Extensive experiments on two New Yorker Cartoon benchmarking datasets show that HOMER outperforms state-of-the-art baselines and powerful LLM reasoning strategies on multi-modal humor captioning.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents have fundamentally reshaped artificial intelligence by integrating external tools and planning capabilities. While memory mechanisms have emerged as the architectural cornerstone of these systems, current research remains fragmented, oscillating between operating system engineering and cognitive science. This theoretical divide prevents a unified view of technological synthesis and a coherent evolutionary perspective. To bridge this gap, this survey proposes a novel evolutionary framework for LLM agent memory mechanisms, formalizing the development process into three stages: Storage (trajectory preservation), Reflection (trajectory refinement), and Experience (trajectory abstraction). We first formally define these three stages before analyzing the three core drivers of this evolution: the necessity for long-range consistency, the challenges in dynamic environments, and the ultimate goal of continual learning. Furthermore, we specifically explore two transformative mechanisms in the frontier Experience stage: proactive exploration and cross-trajectory abstraction. By synthesizing these disparate views, this work offers robust design principles and a clear roadmap for the development of next-generation LLM agents.

Human behaviors are often guided or constrained by social norms, which are defined as shared, commonsense rules. For example, underlying an action ``\textit{report a witnessed crime}" are social norms that inform our conduct, such as ``\textit{It is expected to be brave to report crimes}''. Current AI systems that assess valence (i.e., support or oppose) of human actions by leveraging large-scale data training not grounded on explicit norms may be difficult to explain, and thus untrustworthy. Emulating human assessors by considering social norms can help AI models better understand and predict valence. While multiple norms come into play, conflicting norms can create tension and directly influence human behavior. For example, when deciding whether to ``\textit{report a witnessed crime}'', one may balance \textit{bravery} against \textit{self-protection}. In this paper, we introduce \textit{ClarityEthic}, a novel ethical assessment approach, to enhance valence prediction and explanation by generating conflicting social norms behind human actions, which strengthens the moral reasoning capabilities of language models by using a contrastive learning strategy. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms strong baseline approaches, and human evaluations confirm that the generated social norms provide plausible explanations for the assessment of human behaviors.

Identifying harmful memes is challenging due to their implicit meanings, which are not always evident from texts and images alone. Existing solutions often lack clear explanations to justify their decisions. To address this gap, we propose an explainable approach, ExplainHM++, which detects harmful memes by reasoning over competing rationales from both harmful and harmless perspectives. First, inspired by the capabilities of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) in text generation and multimodal reasoning, we develop ExplainHM, a one-stage multimodal debate in which LMMs generate explanations through contradictory arguments. Second, we fine-tune a small language model to serve as a judge in the debate, improving the integration of harmfulness rationales with the multimodal content of memes. However, we observe that a naive multimodal debate remains vulnerable, as it heavily depends on the inherent reasoning ability of LMMs to understand the memes. Given the evolving and noisy nature of memes, we further introduce a meme sample retrieval mechanism and a retrieval-augmented debate paradigm to strengthen and refine LMM-generated explanations. Extensive experiments on three public meme datasets demonstrate that ExplainHM++ not only outperforms state-of-the-art methods but also provides superior, interpretable explanations for harmful meme detection.

The ability of critique is vital for models to self-improve and serve as reliable AI assistants. While extensively studied in language-only settings, multimodal critique of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) remains underexplored despite their growing capabilities in tasks like captioning and visual reasoning. In this work, we introduce MM-CRITIC, a holistic benchmark for evaluating the critique ability of LMMs across multiple dimensions: basic, correction, and comparison. Covering 8 main task types and over 500 tasks, MM-CRITIC collects responses from various LMMs with different model sizes and is composed of 4471 samples. To enhance the evaluation reliability, we integrate expert-informed ground answers into scoring rubrics that guide GPT-4o in annotating responses and generating reference critiques, which serve as anchors for trustworthy judgments. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of MM-CRITIC and provide a comprehensive assessment of leading LMMs' critique capabilities under multiple dimensions. Further analysis reveals some key insights, including the correlation between response quality and critique, and varying critique difficulty across evaluation dimensions. Our code is available at https://github.com/MichealZeng0420/MM-Critic.

The proliferation of memes on social media necessitates the capabilities of multimodal Large Language Models (mLLMs) to effectively understand multimodal harmfulness. Existing evaluation approaches predominantly focus on mLLMs' detection accuracy for binary classification tasks, which often fail to reflect the in-depth interpretive nuance of harmfulness across diverse contexts. In this paper, we propose MemeArena, an agent-based arena-style evaluation framework that provides a context-aware and unbiased assessment for mLLMs' understanding of multimodal harmfulness. Specifically, MemeArena simulates diverse interpretive contexts to formulate evaluation tasks that elicit perspective-specific analyses from mLLMs. By integrating varied viewpoints and reaching consensus among evaluators, it enables fair and unbiased comparisons of mLLMs' abilities to interpret multimodal harmfulness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework effectively reduces the evaluation biases of judge agents, with judgment results closely aligning with human preferences, offering valuable insights into reliable and comprehensive mLLM evaluations in multimodal harmfulness understanding. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Lbotirx/MemeArena.