Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2408.12617 v1 pith:TQWVFJVE submitted 2024-08-08 cs.CV cs.CYcs.SI

classification cs.CVcs.CYcs.SI
keywords modelsdetectmisleadersmisleadingvisualizationsgpt-4guidedzero-shot
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Do people rely on ChatGPT more than their peers to detect deepfake news?

    econ.GN 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools