True (VIS) Lies: Analyzing How Generative AI Recognizes Intentionality, Rhetoric, and Misleadingness in Visualization Lies
On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → Chart understanding and anomaly detection
Abstract (arXiv)
This study investigates the ability of multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify and interpret misleading visualizations, and recognize these observations along with their underlying causes and potential intentionality. Our analysis leverages concepts from visualization rhetoric and a newly developed taxonomy of authorial intents as explanatory lenses. We formulated three research questions and addressed them experimentally using a dataset of 2,336 COVID-19-related tweets, half of which contain misleading visualizations, and supplemented it with real-world examples of perceptual, cognitive, and conceptual errors drawn from VisLies, the IEEE VIS community event dedicated to showcasing deceptive and misleading visualizations. To ensure broad coverage of the current LLM landscape, we evaluated 16 state-of-the-art models. Among them, 15 are open-weight models, spanning a wide range of model sizes, architectural families, and reasoning capabilities. The selection comprises small models, namely Nemotron-Nano-V2-VL (12B parameters), Mistral-Small-3.2 (24B), DeepSeek-VL2 (27B), Gemma3 (27B), and GTA1 (32B); medium-sized models, namely Qianfan-VL (70B), Molmo (72B), GLM-4.5V (108B), LLaVA-NeXT (110B), and Pixtral-Large (124B); and large models, namely Qwen3-VL (235B), InternVL3.5 (241B), Step3 (321B), Llama-4-Maverick (400B), and Kimi-K2.5 (1000B). In addition, we employed OpenAI GPT-5.4, a frontier proprietary model. To establish a human perspective on these tasks, we also conducted a user study with visualization experts to assess how people perceive rhetorical techniques and the authorial intentions behind the same misleading visualizations. This allows comparison between model and expert behavior, revealing similarities and differences that provide insights into where LLMs align with human judgment and where they diverge.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Chart understanding and anomaly detection, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. First posted on arXiv 1 Apr 2026.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026When Visuals Aren't the Problem: Evaluating Vision-Language Models on Misleading Data Visualizations
- 2025Is this chart lying to me? Automating the detection of misleading visualizations
- 2025Seeing Through Deception: Uncovering Misleading Creator Intent in Multimodal News with Vision-Language Models
- 2026Chart Deception in Vision-Language Models: From Vulnerability to Mitigation
- 2025The Perils of Chart Deception: How Misleading Visualizations Affect Vision-Language Models
- 2026Do Large Language Models Understand Data Visualization Principles?
- 2025Protecting multimodal large language models against misleading visualizations
- 2024How Good (Or Bad) Are LLMs at Detecting Misleading Visualizations?