As frontier AI systems increasingly serve as sources of political and current-events information, evaluating the epistemic quality of their responses is now especially consequential. Existing evaluations often focus narrowly on ideological alignment, rely on measures not validated for this setting, or depend on reference labels derived from public opinion or non-expert annotation, potentially producing misleading or miscalibrated results. To address these limitations, we introduce NewsBench, an expert-grounded benchmark that reframes evaluation around editorial standards developed by senior practitioners in journalism, policy, and intelligence analysis. NewsBench operationalizes quality across three dimensions, source quality, factuality, and neutrality, using a two-phase pipeline in which domain experts first define and calibrate evaluation guidelines, which are then transferred to automated AI judges validated against expert-adjudicated gold labels. The benchmark includes approximately $3,000$ evaluation prompts, with roughly $500$ refreshed monthly to capture emerging current events, roughly $2,500$ human expert-annotated items for calibration and validation, and a suite of AI judges designed to enable scalable evaluation. To validate our methodology, we report both inter-rater reliability among human experts and AI judge--human agreement across all three dimensions. Finally, we apply NewsBench to four frontier models, revealing distinct and non-overlapping failure profiles in sourcing, factuality, and neutrality.
NewsBench: Expert-Grounded Evaluation of Epistemic Quality in AI News Reporting
As frontier AI systems increasingly serve as sources of political and current-events information, evaluating the epistemic quality of their responses is now especially consequential. Existing evaluations often focus narrowly on ideological alignment, rely on measures not validated for this setting, or depend on reference labels derived from public opinion or non-expert annotation, potentially producing misleading or miscalibrated results. To address these limitations, we introduce NewsBench, an expert-grounded benchmark that reframes evaluation around editorial standards developed by senior practitioners in journalism, policy, and intelligence analysis. NewsBench operationalizes quality across three dimensions, source quality, factuality, and neutrality, using a two-phase pipeline in which domain experts first define and calibrate evaluation guidelines, which are then transferred to automated AI judges validated against expert-adjudicated gold labels. The benchmark includes approximately $3,000$ evaluation prompts, with roughly $500$ refreshed monthly to capture emerging current events, roughly $2,500$ human expert-annotated items for calibration and validation, and a suite of AI judges designed to enable scalable evaluation. To validate our methodology, we report both inter-rater reliability among human experts and AI judge--human agreement across all three dimensions. Finally, we apply NewsBench to four frontier models, revealing distinct and non-overlapping failure profiles in sourcing, factuality, and neutrality.
NewsBench: AI Model Evaluation Leaderboard | Forum AI
How do leading AI models perform on real news questions? NewsBench scores them on accuracy, neutrality, and source quality with expert-calibrated judges.
AI use in American newspapers is widespread, uneven, and rarely disclosed
AI is rapidly transforming journalism, but the extent of its use in published newspaper articles remains unclear. We address this gap by auditing a large-scale dataset of 186K articles from online editions of 1.5K American newspapers published in the summer of 2025. Using Pangram, a state-of-the-art AI detector, we discover that approximately 9% of newly-published articles are either partially or fully AI-generated. This AI use is unevenly distributed, appearing more frequently in smaller, local outlets, in specific topics such as weather and technology, and within certain ownership groups. We also analyze 45K opinion pieces from Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal, finding that they are 6.4 times more likely to contain AI-generated content than news articles from the same publications, with many AI-flagged op-eds authored by prominent public figures. Despite this prevalence, we find that AI use is rarely disclosed: a manual audit of 100 AI-flagged articles found only five disclosures of AI use. Overall, our audit highlights the immediate need for greater transparency and updated editorial standards regarding the use of AI in journalism to maintain public trust.
AI use in American newspapers is widespread, uneven, and rarely disclosed
AI is rapidly transforming journalism, but the extent of its use in published newspaper articles remains unclear. We address this gap by auditing a large-scale dataset of 186K articles from online editions of 1.5K American newspapers published in the summer of 2025. Using Pangram, a state-of-the-art AI detector, we discover that approximately 9% of newly-published articles are either partially or fully AI-generated. This AI use is unevenly distributed, appearing more frequently in smaller, local outlets, in specific topics such as weather and technology, and within certain ownership groups. We also analyze 45K opinion pieces from Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal, finding that they are 6.4 times more likely to contain AI-generated content than news articles from the same publications, with many AI-flagged op-eds authored by prominent public figures. Despite this prevalence, we find that AI use is rarely disclosed: a manual audit of 100 AI-flagged articles found only five disclosures of AI use. Overall, our audit highlights the immediate need for greater transparency and updated editorial standards regarding the use of AI in journalism to maintain public trust.
RealFactBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Real-World Fact-Checking
Large Language Models (LLMs) hold significant potential for advancing fact-checking by leveraging their capabilities in reasoning, evidence retrieval, and explanation generation. However, existing benchmarks fail to comprehensively evaluate LLMs and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in realistic misinformation scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealFactBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess the fact-checking capabilities of LLMs and MLLMs across diverse real-world tasks, including Knowledge Validation, Rumor Detection, and Event Verification. RealFactBench consists of 6K high-quality claims drawn from authoritative sources, encompassing multimodal content and diverse domains. Our evaluation framework further introduces the Unknown Rate (UnR) metric, enabling a more nuanced assessment of models' ability to handle uncertainty and balance between over-conservatism and over-confidence. Extensive experiments on 7 representative LLMs and 4 MLLMs reveal their limitations in real-world fact-checking and offer valuable insights for further research. RealFactBench is publicly available at https://github.com/kalendsyang/RealFactBench.git.
RealFactBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Real-World Fact-Checking
Large Language Models (LLMs) hold significant potential for advancing fact-checking by leveraging their capabilities in reasoning, evidence retrieval, and explanation generation. However, existing benchmarks fail to comprehensively evaluate LLMs and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in realistic misinformation scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealFactBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess the fact-checking capabilities of LLMs and MLLMs across diverse real-world tasks, including Knowledge Validation, Rumor Detection, and Event Verification. RealFactBench consists of 6K high-quality claims drawn from authoritative sources, encompassing multimodal content and diverse domains. Our evaluation framework further introduces the Unknown Rate (UnR) metric, enabling a more nuanced assessment of models' ability to handle uncertainty and balance between over-conservatism and over-confidence. Extensive experiments on 7 representative LLMs and 4 MLLMs reveal their limitations in real-world fact-checking and offer valuable insights for further research. RealFactBench is publicly available at https://github.com/kalendsyang/RealFactBench.git.
Can AI Agents Synthesize Scientific Conclusions?
Scientific AI agents increasingly retrieve evidence, reason across sources, and synthesize conclusions used in consequential decisions. Yet, their ability to do so in high-stakes domains such as health remains unclear. We introduce SciConBench, a large-scale live benchmark of 9.11K questions and expert-written conclusions from systematic reviews to evaluate open-domain scientific conclusion synthesis. The benchmark draws on an expert-validated automated evaluation pipeline that decomposes conclusions into atomic facts and measures correctness and comprehensiveness via factual precision and recall. To mitigate data leakage, we further introduce SciConHarness, a clean-room evaluation harness that equips agents with controlled web interaction to ensure valid measurement. Evaluating 8 frontier models and deep research agents, we find that factual quality remains low: under clean-room settings, the best agent achieves only a factual F1 of 0.337. Our clean-room setting consistently reduces performance relative to unconstrained evaluation, suggesting that leakage inflates estimates of models' true synthesis capabilities. Finally, we audit consumer-facing agents (e.g., Google AI Overview, OpenEvidence) and find they frequently generate incomplete and sometimes contradictory conclusions, even when the ground-truth answer is available. Overall, our results show that reliable synthesis of scientific conclusions remains an open challenge, and that clean-room evaluation is essential for assessing open-domain AI agents.
ReviewBench: An Extensible Framework for Benchmarking Human and AI Manuscript Review
The volume of scientific manuscripts is rising faster than the available pool of expert reviewers, and AI tools are emerging as a possible response, ranging from frontier large language models applied directly to peer review to purpose-built multi-agent systems. Scalable, standardized benchmarks are needed to regularly evaluate how these tools compare to one another and to human reviewers. We present ReviewBench, an open-source, venue-agnostic framework that compares human and AI reviews across structure, alignment with a paper’s major claims, impact, and critique category. We apply ReviewBench to 145,021 review comments from human reviewers, frontier large language models (GPT-5.2, and Gemini 3 Pro), and Reviewer3.com (R3), a multi-agent peer review system. The dataset spans papers in computer science (ICLR 2025, n = 1,000), social science (Nature Human Behaviour, n = 142), and life science (eLife, n = 1,000). Across disciplines, AI reviews are more structured and engage more directly with a paper’s major claims, with R3 more often surfacing consequential comments, defined as comments capable of undermining those claims. When restricting to critical comments, however, human reviewers rank first on consequential rate on more individual papers than any AI source, despite a lower average. We identify a bimodal reviewer distribution with peaks near 0% and 100%, indicating that many reviewers outperform AI on this metric, but a substantial fraction of reviewers near 0% brings the average down. Critique typing demonstrates systematic differences, where humans emphasize contribution and clarity, while AI emphasizes validity, sufficiency, and transparency. Together, these findings argue against framing AI as a replacement for human review and instead support a complementary model in which AI scales technical verification of major claims while human judgment remains essential for evaluating contribution and shaping editorial decisions.
Large Language Models Require Curated Context for Reliable Political Fact-Checking—Even with Reasoning and Web Search
Large language models (LLMs) have raised hopes for automated end-to-end fact-checking, but prior studies report mixed results. As mainstream chatbots increasingly ship with reasoning capabilities and web search tools—and millions of users already rely on them for verification—rigorous evaluation is urgent. We evaluate 15 recent LLMs from OpenAI, Google, Meta, and DeepSeek on more than 6,000 claims fact-checked by PolitiFact, comparing standard models with reasoning- and web-search variants. Standard models perform poorly, reasoning offers minimal benefits, and web search provides only moderate gains, despite fact-checks being available on the web. In contrast, a curated RAG system using PolitiFact summaries improved macro F1 by 233% on average across model variants. These findings suggest that giving models access to curated high-quality context is a promising path for automated fact-checking.
AI False Claims Monitor
As the domain experts in data reliability in the topic of news and information, NewsGuard provides the leading red-teaming analysis for information reliability. AI models continue to face significant challenges in ensuring their models provide safe, accurate responses to prompts instead of spreading false claims on the internet or refusing to respond to topics in the news.
AI Article Reviews Dominate Human Peer Reviews at Their Best: Evidence and Policy Choices
We show that AI-generated article reviews are now better, by every measure we could construct, than reviews written by well-compensated human experts and judged to be of unusually high quality by journal editors and authors. We then discuss how this result may inform journal policy choices, with concerning downsides as well as potential paths to increase publication speed and quality; reduce adversarial interactions; improve the experience of editors, reviewers, authors, and readers; and advance science.
SimpleQA Verified: A Reliable Factuality Benchmark to Measure Parametric Knowledge
We introduce SimpleQA Verified, a 1,000-prompt benchmark for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) short-form factuality based on OpenAI's SimpleQA. It addresses critical limitations in OpenAI's benchmark, including noisy and incorrect labels, topical biases, and question redundancy. SimpleQA Verified was created through a rigorous multi-stage filtering process involving de-duplication, topic balancing, and source reconciliation to produce a more reliable and challenging evaluation set, alongside improvements in the autorater prompt. On this new benchmark, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieves a state-of-the-art F1-score of 55.6, outperforming other frontier models, including GPT-5. This work provides the research community with a higher-fidelity tool to track genuine progress in parametric model factuality and to mitigate hallucinations. The benchmark dataset, evaluation code, and leaderboard are available at: https://www.kaggle.com/benchmarks/deepmind/simpleqa-verified.
SimpleQA Verified: A Reliable Factuality Benchmark to Measure Parametric Knowledge
We introduce SimpleQA Verified, a 1,000-prompt benchmark for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) short-form factuality based on OpenAI's SimpleQA. It addresses critical limitations in OpenAI's benchmark, including noisy and incorrect labels, topical biases, and question redundancy. SimpleQA Verified was created through a rigorous multi-stage filtering process involving de-duplication, topic balancing, and source reconciliation to produce a more reliable and challenging evaluation set, alongside improvements in the autorater prompt. On this new benchmark, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieves a state-of-the-art F1-score of 55.6, outperforming other frontier models, including GPT-5. This work provides the research community with a higher-fidelity tool to track genuine progress in parametric model factuality and to mitigate hallucinations. The benchmark dataset, evaluation code, and leaderboard are available at: https://www.kaggle.com/benchmarks/deepmind/simpleqa-verified.
People are getting their news from AI – and it’s altering their views
Even when information is factually accurate, how it’s presented can introduce subtle biases. As large language models increasingly bring people the news, this bias is a looming problem.
People are getting their news from AI – and it’s altering their views
Even when information is factually accurate, how it’s presented can introduce subtle biases. As large language models increasingly bring people the news, this bias is a looming problem.
AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilot
Scientific peer review faces mounting strain as submission volumes surge, making it increasingly difficult to sustain review quality, consistency, and timeliness. Recent advances in AI have led the community to consider its use in peer review, yet a key unresolved question is whether AI can generate technically sound reviews at real-world conference scale. Here we report the first large-scale field deployment of AI-assisted peer review: every main-track submission at AAAI-26 received one clearly identified AI review from a state-of-the-art system. The system combined frontier models, tool use, and safeguards in a multi-stage process to generate reviews for all 22,977 full-review papers in less than a day. A large-scale survey of AAAI-26 authors and program committee members showed that participants not only found AI reviews useful, but actually preferred them to human reviews on key dimensions such as technical accuracy and research suggestions. We also introduce a novel benchmark and find that our system substantially outperforms a simple LLM-generated review baseline at detecting a variety of scientific weaknesses. Together, these results show that state-of-the-art AI methods can already make meaningful contributions to scientific peer review at conference scale, opening a path toward the next generation of synergistic human-AI teaming for evaluating research.