mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Can GPT-4 Models Detect Misleading Visualizations?

arXiv 2408.12617 ↗First posted 8 Aug 2024cs.CV cs.CY cs.SIcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2024.

Builds on

11 of 39 references.

References · 11

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2023Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 4,362
  3. 2017The spread of low-credibility content by social botscited by 73
  4. 2023Do LVLMs Understand Charts? Analyzing and Correcting Factual Errors in Chart Captioningcited by 47
  5. 2023How Good is ChatGPT in Giving Advice on Your Visualization Design?cited by 20
  6. 2022Misinformed by Visualization: What Do We Learn From Misinformative Visualizations?cited by 19
  7. 2024Are LLMs ready for Visualization?cited by 16
  8. 2023Beneath the Surface: Unveiling Harmful Memes with Multimodal Reasoning Distilled from Large Language Modelscited by 14
  9. 2023Do LLMs Work on Charts? Designing Few-Shot Prompts for Chart Question Answering and Summarizationcited by 10
  10. 2018Ethical Dimensions of Visualization Researchcited by 9
  11. 2024Comparing GPT-4 and Open-Source Language Models in Misinformation Mitigationcited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 7; 2026: 3.

10 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Is this chart lying to me? Automating the detection of misleading visualizations
  2. 2026When Visuals Aren't the Problem: Evaluating Vision-Language Models on Misleading Data Visualizations
  3. 2025GPT-5 Model Corrected GPT-4V's Chart Reading Errors, Not Prompting
  4. 2026True (VIS) Lies: Analyzing How Generative AI Recognizes Intentionality, Rhetoric, and Misleadingness in Visualization Lies
  5. 2025Exploring ChatGPT for Face Presentation Attack Detection in Zero and Few-Shot in-Context Learning
  6. 2025GPT-ImgEval: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Diagnosing GPT4o in Image Generation
  7. 2025Can ChatGPT Perform Image Splicing Detection? A Preliminary Study
  8. 2026SynCred-Bench: Benchmarking Synthetic Credibility in AI-Generated Visual Misinformation