Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Hidden in Plain Sight: Evaluation of the Deception Detection Capabilities of LLMs in Multimodal Settings

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 2506.09424 v1 pith:V7KWRUOS submitted 2025-06-11 cs.CL

Hidden in Plain Sight: Evaluation of the Deception Detection Capabilities of LLMs in Multimodal Settings

classification cs.CL
keywords deceptiondetectionllmsacrossanalyzecapabilitiescuesdeceptive
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Detecting deception in an increasingly digital world is both a critical and challenging task. In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of the automated deception detection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) across diverse domains. We assess the performance of both open-source and commercial LLMs on three distinct datasets: real life trial interviews (RLTD), instructed deception in interpersonal scenarios (MU3D), and deceptive reviews (OpSpam). We systematically analyze the effectiveness of different experimental setups for deception detection, including zero-shot and few-shot approaches with random or similarity-based in-context example selection. Our results show that fine-tuned LLMs achieve state-of-the-art performance on textual deception detection tasks, while LMMs struggle to fully leverage cross-modal cues. Additionally, we analyze the impact of auxiliary features, such as non-verbal gestures and video summaries, and examine the effectiveness of different prompting strategies, including direct label generation and chain-of-thought reasoning. Our findings provide key insights into how LLMs process and interpret deceptive cues across modalities, highlighting their potential and limitations in real-world deception detection applications.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Semantics of Subterfuge: Benchmarking Legal Deception Detection Against General-domain State-of-the-Art

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    On deception detection benchmarks, fine-tuned transformers beat LLMs on data-rich datasets, few-shot GPT-4o wins the small legal corpus, and chain-of-thought prompting frequently reduces F1.