🤖 AI Summary
Multimodal disinformation—authentic images paired with misleading captions—poses challenges for large language/vision-language models (LLMs/LVLMs), which often suffer from hallucination due to insufficient contextual reasoning and reliance on parametric knowledge alone.
Method: We propose a dual-graph structured verification framework: an *assertion graph* derived from the image caption and an *evidence graph* constructed from retrieved external textual sources. An attention-enhanced graph neural network models cross-modal consistency between these graphs, enabling explicit contextualization via external evidence while avoiding hallucination. The framework employs lightweight, task-specific graph encoding and contrastive learning.
Contribution/Results: Our method achieves 93.05% accuracy on standard benchmarks—outperforming the best LLM-based approach by 2.82%. It demonstrates that structured graph-based reasoning significantly enhances both efficacy and robustness in multimodal misinformation detection.
📝 Abstract
Multimodal out-of-context (OOC) misinformation is misinformation that repurposes real images with unrelated or misleading captions. Detecting such misinformation is challenging because it requires resolving the context of the claim before checking for misinformation. Many current methods, including LLMs and LVLMs, do not perform this contextualization step. LLMs hallucinate in absence of context or parametric knowledge. In this work, we propose a graph-based method that evaluates the consistency between the image and the caption by constructing two graph representations: an evidence graph, derived from online textual evidence, and a claim graph, from the claim in the caption. Using graph neural networks (GNNs) to encode and compare these representations, our framework then evaluates the truthfulness of image-caption pairs. We create datasets for our graph-based method, evaluate and compare our baseline model against popular LLMs on the misinformation detection task. Our method scores $93.05%$ detection accuracy on the evaluation set and outperforms the second-best performing method (an LLM) by $2.82%$, making a case for smaller and task-specific methods.