REVIEW 1 cited by
Can GPT-4 Models Detect Misleading Visualizations?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The proliferation of misleading visualizations online, particularly during critical events like public health crises and elections, poses a significant risk. This study investigates the capability of GPT-4 models (4V, 4o, and 4o mini) to detect misleading visualizations. Utilizing a dataset of tweet-visualization pairs containing various visual misleaders, we test these models under four experimental conditions with different levels of guidance. We show that GPT-4 models can detect misleading visualizations with moderate accuracy without prior training (naive zero-shot) and that performance notably improves when provided with definitions of misleaders (guided zero-shot). However, a single prompt engineering technique does not yield the best results for all misleader types. Specifically, providing the models with misleader definitions and examples (guided few-shot) proves more effective for reasoning misleaders, while guided zero-shot performs better for design misleaders. This study underscores the feasibility of using large vision-language models to detect visual misinformation and the importance of prompt engineering for optimized detection accuracy.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Do people rely on ChatGPT more than their peers to detect deepfake news?
In a lab deepfake-detection task, students shifted more toward ChatGPT's advice than toward peers' advice (weight-of-advice 0.59 vs 0.33), though in 2025 sessions they trusted linguistic experts slightly more than ChatGPT.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.