mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

LLMs in Political Science: Heralding a New Era of Visual Analysis

arXiv 2403.00154 ↗First posted 29 Feb 2024cs.CV cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Interest is increasing among political scientists in leveraging the extensive information available in images. However, the challenge of interpreting these images lies in the need for specialized knowledge in computer vision and access to specialized hardware. As a result, image analysis has been limited to a relatively small group within the political science community. This landscape could potentially change thanks to the rise of large language models (LLMs). This paper aims to raise awareness of the feasibility of using Gemini for image content analysis. A retrospective analysis was conducted on a corpus of 688 images. Content reports were elicited from Gemini for each image and then manually evaluated by the authors. We find that Gemini is highly accurate in performing object detection, which is arguably the most common and fundamental task in image analysis for political scientists. Equally important, we show that it is easy to implement as the entire command consists of a single prompt in natural language; it is fast to run and should meet the time budget of most researchers; and it is free to use and does not require any specialized hardware. In addition, we illustrate how political scientists can leverage Gemini for other image understanding tasks, including face identification, sentiment analysis, and caption generation. Our findings suggest that Gemini and other similar LLMs have the potential to drastically stimulate and accelerate image research in political science and social sciences more broadly.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Feb 2024.

Builds on

3 of 13 references.

References · 3

  1. 2013Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentationcited by 2,162
  2. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
  3. 2023Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speechcited by 166

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.