True (VIS) Lies: Analyzing How Generative AI Recognizes Intentionality, Rhetoric, and Misleadingness in Visualization Lies
AI 摘要
研究多模态LLM识别可视化谎言的能力,并分析其潜在原因和意图。
主要贡献
- 构建可视化谎言和意图的分析框架
- 评估了16个先进的LLM在识别可视化谎言方面的能力
- 对比了LLM和人类专家在识别可视化谎言上的表现
方法论
使用COVID-19相关推文和VisLies数据,评估LLM识别误导性可视化的能力,并与人类专家进行对比。
原文摘要
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.