Large Visual-Language Models Are Also Good Classifiers: A Study of In-Context Multimodal Fake News Detection

Previous studies on FND can be classified into three primary categories: image-based, text-based and multimodal approaches.

Image-based approach aims to utilize traces of edits to ascertain the authenticity of visual content. Certain research focuses on the spatial domain, identifying artifact traces using techniques such as blending [17], achieving patch consistency [23], and implementing reconstruction methods [24].

Text-based methods have concentrated on the analysis of textual statistical features, such as length, punctuation, and exclamation marks [25], along with metadata attributes like likes and shares [26, 27], to manually detect fake news. Recently, deep learning strategies have predominantly employed BiLSTM [28, 29], GNNs [30], and pre-trained models [31, 32, 33, 34] for text feature analysis.

Multimodal approaches amalgamate cross-modal features to construct semantic representations. For example, MCAN [8] utilizes several co-attention layers to enhance the integration of textual and visual features for FND. CAFE [9] measures cross-modal ambiguity by evaluating the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between distributions of unimodal features. LIIMR [35] identifies the modality with higher confidence for FND. COOLANT [36] aims to refine the alignment between image and textual representations, applying contrastive learning to achieve precise semantic alignment and cross-modal fusion for understanding inter-modality correlations. However, the efficacy of such methodologies is constrained due to their reliance on substantial volumes of annotated data and their typical training within isolated systems. This overlooks the potential benefits of assimilating and leveraging the expansive knowledge encompassed within LVLMs.

LLMs [37, 20] have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in a range of downstream tasks. Recently, efforts have been made to expand LLMs’ abilities to interpret visual signals. For example, LLaVA [12] and Mini-GPT4 [38] initially enable the alignment of image-text features, subsequently optimizing for visual instruction tuning. PandaGPT [39] utilizes a straightforward linear layer to connect ImageBind [40] with the Vicuna model [41], thereby facilitating multimodal inputs. CogVLM [21] narrows the divide between the frozen pre-trained language model and the image encoder through a trainable visual expert module integrated within the attention and Feedforward Neural Network (FFN) layers.

Although LVLMs have achieved significant advances on diverse cross-modal benchmarks, recent studies [19, 14] suggest that LLM, such as GPT-3.5, still underperforms well-trained smaller models, such as BERT, in FND task, raising the question of whether LVLMs similarly fall short in FND performance. However, while fine-tuning LVLMs could enhance performance, the extensive parameters necessary for LVLMs make it a resource-intensive process for FND.

ICL, as an alternative, utilizes LLMs for new tasks without modifying the model’s parameters and was first introduced in the GPT-3 model [18]. It has been successfully applied to downstream tasks, including machine translation [42] and data generation [43]. Recent LVLMs, developed on the foundation of LLMs, have also demonstrated this ICL capability [44, 45, 46]. For example, the demonstration of precise labels can significantly affect the performance of ICL in specific contexts [47].

However, ICL on LVLMs varies due to the supplementary visual information in the demonstrations and the variation in model components. In this paper, we focus on ICL applied to LVLMs in the FND task, seeking to ascertain which component of information within the multimodal fake news demonstrations is of paramount importance.

The standard in-context methodology integrates the ground-truth label with the text input directly, encouraging LVLMs to concentrate on data specific to the task. However, the outputs generated by LVLMs remain characterized by a lack of confidence and are frequently accompanied by uncertainty (e.g., ”I’m sorry, I can’t assist with verifying the authenticity of news articles”).

To address this, the IMFND first trains a smaller model to be able to generate the predictions and their probabilities for the in-context examples and test inputs. Specifically, a smaller model learns from $n$ samples of a labeled dataset $(t_{i},m_{i},y_{i})$, where $t_{i},m_{i}$ are the text and the image inputs respectively and $i\in[1,n]$ (i.e., $n$ samples per class), passing to a pre-trained frozen multimodal encoder. Inspired by [48], which posits that few-shot samples from a singular modality may inadequately encapsulate the entirety of a concept class, each training sample is augmented to encompass five distinct feature representations: 1) a solely text feature, denoted as $f_{t}$; 2) a solely image feature, denoted as $f_{m}$; 3) the aggregation of L2-normalized features $f_{c}=[f_{t}\oplus f_{m}]$, where $\oplus$ denotes the operation of concatenation; 4) an image-to-text cross-attention feature, denoted as $f_{mt}$; 5) a text-to-image cross-attention feature, denoted by $f_{tm}$.

The cross-attention $CrossAtt()$ involves interchanging the textual query $f_{t}$ with the imagery query $f_{m}$ to derive the cross-attended feature $f_{mt}$ is, and is defined as:

Conversely, interchanging the imagery query $f_{m}$ with the textual query $f_{t}$ facilitates the acquisition of the cross-attended feature $f_{tm}$ as outlined:

where $d$ denotes the dimensionality of the smaller model. Subsequently, the multimodal features are comprised of the aforementioned five features, each feature is then passed through a linear classifier MLP to deduce five inferred probabilities. Finally, we concatenate the five deduced probabilities into a singular input for a meta-linear MLP classifier, thereby facilitating the formulation of the final prediction:

The ultimate goal is to allocate a binary classification label of $y_{i}\in\{0,1\}$, in which 0 denotes real news and 1 denotes fake news. Therefore, the few-shot smaller model aims to minimize the Cross-entropy loss $L$:

where $y^{\prime}_{i}$ is the model inference from the meta-linear classifier $MLP$ after Softmax.

Following the training of the smaller model with few-shot data, in-context examples are then reconstructed, aiding LVLMs in acquiring the FND-specific knowledge imparted by the smaller model. Specifically, the well-trained smaller model is initially deployed to generate predictions and their corresponding probabilities for in-context examples, which are comprised of instances randomly selected from the training set. Notably, the predictions and their probabilities, derived from the linear probing of the $f_{t}$ and $f_{m}$ features, are also utilized in formulating in-context examples. Table 1(c) showcases the final prompt example of IMFND, in comparison to the standard ICL prompt example presented in Table 1(a).

The constructed in-context examples serve to augment the LVLMs’ comprehension of the interplay between the inputs, ground-truth labels, and the expert knowledge of the smaller model, allowing the LVLMs to confidently produce the final predictions. Meanwhile, probabilities also act as an indicator of the smaller model’s uncertainty regarding its predictions. Integrating probabilities into the context enables the LVLMs to rely on predictions when the smaller model exhibits high confidence and to exercise caution in instances of uncertainty. Additionally, probabilities can direct the LVLM’s focus to more challenging in-context examples, facilitating learning from these complex examples and potentially enhancing FND performance overall.

Following the assembly of the in-context examples, the constructed test input which encompasses both the predicted label and its probability, is concatenated with the test input and forms a comprehensive input for the LVLMs, as shown in Table 1(d). Finally, the complete IMFND algorithm can be summarized in Algorithm 1.

To evaluate the FND capabilities of the LVLMs, three publicly accessible datasets have been selected, encompassing a broad spectrum of fake news content and specifically including two languages: English and Chinese.

PolitiFact [2] contains a collection of political news items, each classified as fake or real by specialized assessors, forming a component of the benchmarking initiative FakeNewsNet. By employing the provided data crawling scripts to exclude news items lacking images or possessing invalid image URLs, a total of 198 multimodal news articles are curated.

GossipCop [2] contains entertainment narratives evaluated on a 0 to 10 scale, where narratives with scores below five are designated as fake news according to the creator of FakeNewsNet. Applying the same retrieval techniques to those used for PolitiFact, a compilation of 6,805 news articles is collected.

Weibo [49] represents a dataset derived from Chinese social media platforms, encapsulating a multimodal assortment of fake news that includes both textual and visual elements. Real news articles were collected from a credible outlet (Xinhua News), while fake articles were sourced from Weibopiyao, Weibo’s sanctioned platform for countering rumors, which compiles information via either public contribution or formal discrediting endeavors. Adhering to the pre-processing techniques employed in previous research [36], this process yielded a total of 7,853 Chinese news articles.

Notably, a news article may contain several images. To identify the most relevant image, the cosine similarity between each image and the associated text is computed. The image-text pair exhibiting the greatest similarity is retained, as ascertained by the pre-trained CLIP model. The statistics of the pre-processed dataset are shown in Table 2.

For each dataset, we first randomly stratified split 20% of data as the test set. Next, the remaining 80% of data are further sampled within five random seeds, to evaluate the robustness of the few-shot performances. For each seed, we conduct $n$-shot classification, where $n\in\{1,3,5\}$ and $n$ is the number of samples per class. Consequently, the efficacy of LVLMs is assessed on the designated 20% test set.

Two publicly accessible LVLMs are utilized in the experiments:

CogVLM [21] is an open-source visual-language model that combines 10 billion visual parameters and 7 billion language parameters. It is designed for image understanding and multi-turn dialogue. We utilize the CogVLM-17B version (i.e., cogvlm-chat-hf)²²2https://huggingface.co/THUDM/cogvlm-chat-hf to conduct the experiments. To facilitate local execution of the experiments within the bounds of hardware limitations, 4-bit quantization was implemented at the time of loading CogVLM, aimed at reducing the memory demands during inference.

GPT-4V [20] enables the GPT to process images and respond to inquiries pertaining to them. The experiments use the GPT-4V model through the official OpenAI API³³3https://platform.openai.com/docs/api-reference.

In preliminary experiments, it is noted that employing higher temperature settings (e.g., 0.8 for LVLMs) led to inadequate classification performance due to the infusion of increased randomness into the LVLM’s responses. Following the hyperparameter settings described by [19], a reduced temperature setting (i.e., 0.2) is utilized for the LVLMs to enhance response stability, thereby augmenting reproducibility.

The few-shot FND performances of IMFND with the above two LVLMs are compared against an unimodal BERT and a multimodal CLIP with linear probing as discussed in Section 3.1:

CLIP-LP is the variant of the CLIP model, which employs pre-trained models from OpenAI CLIP (ViT-B-32) [22] and Chinese CLIP (ViT-B-16) [50] for the extraction of text and image features respectively, and then passing to a linear probing (LP) layer for classification. The dimensionality of the linear probing is set to 512, aligning with the output dimension of the CLIP encoders.

BERT is fine-tuned directly on few-shot examples using bert-base-uncased ⁴⁴4https://huggingface.co/google-bert/bert-base-uncased and bert-base-chinese ⁵⁵5https://huggingface.co/google-bert/bert-base-chinese. The Huggingface Trainer⁶⁶6https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/main_classes/trainer is utilized to fine-tune the BERT models.

For all baselines, the AdamW optimization is utilized, configured with a learning rate of $1\mathrm{e}{-3}$ and a decay rate of $1\mathrm{e}{-2}$. Training spans 20 epochs, with the selection of the checkpoint being based on the best test accuracy. An early stopping is applied, utilizing a patience of three epochs. The performance results represent the mean across five seeds, disclosed through both accuracy and macro-f1 metrics.

Table 3 presents the accuracy and macro-f1 scores achieved by integrating IMFND with both CogVLM and GPT-4V, compared with the performance of unimodal BERT and multimodal CLIP-LP in few-shot learning settings.

Comparing with the smaller models. The IMFND significantly enhances the FND efficacy of LVLMs over smaller models across various few-shot settings, with notable improvements (i.e., with 15% increase in average accuracy and 16.5% in average macro-f1) observed in GPT4V. Furthermore, it is observed that augmenting the number of in-context examples further amplifies this enhancement, indicating the FND abilities of LVLMs can be stimulated by integrating the additional information into the context.

We also investigate the performances between the smaller models (i.e., BERT vs. CLIP-LP) in the few-shot settings. Interestingly, although CLIP-LP demonstrates superior overall accuracy compared to BERT, BERT surpasses CLIP-LP in all 1-shot settings, particularly evident in the Weibo dataset. This observation suggests a potential detriment to the FND performance induced by the quality of image modality.

Comparing with the LVLMs. To investigate if the IMFND can be adapted to different LVLMs, the performances of the IMFND are also compared among two LVLMs. Generally, the GPT4V-IMFND outperforms the CogVLM-IMFND in all few-shot settings. This might be attributed to 1) the utilization of 4-bit quantization in CogVLM-IMFND for local deployment, which could potentially result in lower precision during prediction; 2) the size of CogVLM (i.e., 10B of vision model plus 7B of language model) is relatively much smaller than that of the GPT4V. Overall, the empirical evidence suggests that the IMFND framework can be effortlessly integrated with various LVLMs, consistently enhancing performance on the FND task.

Ablation study. We conduct several ablation experiments aimed at investigating the impact of key components in IMFND. This assessment involves evaluating the framework’s performance across various complete and partial configurations. In each experiment, IMFND is selectively utilized by systematically removing different components. The results illustrate the performance decay of IMFND in the absence of each component across most configurations, highlighting the significance of each key module within IMFND.

Initially, a minor reduction in both accuracy and macro-F1 score is observed when the prediction probabilities from the smaller model’s in-context examples are eliminated (i.e., w/o proba). This suggests that the prediction probabilities from the smaller model enhance the confidence of LVLMs for decision-making. Further elimination of the smaller model’s predictions from the context (i.e., w/o proba & pred) converts the framework into a standard ICL scenario. This results in a marked performance decline, with accuracy falling by 7.9% and 8.7% in CogVLM and GPT4V respectively, underscoring that the smaller model’s predictions and their probabilities serve as vital supplementary information for enhancing in-context examples.

Additionally, contrary to the findings from [19, 14], the standard ICL setup (i.e., w/o proba & pred) demonstrates commendable effectiveness in the FND task, notably for GPT4V, showcasing improvements of 6.3% and 6.9% in accuracy and macro-F1 score respectively over the highest-performing smaller models. This highlights that LVLMs, equipped with precisely crafted in-context information, can still excel as effective detectors of fake news.

Table 4 demonstrates the zero-shot performances in the LVLMs and the CLIP-LP. Notably, the zero-shot application of CLIP-LP involves immobilizing the pre-trained CLIP model and appending a linear projection layer atop the merged text and image features derived from their respective encoders. The zero-shot configuration for LVLMs directly prompts the model with the inquiry: “Read this news and its image, do you think this is real or fake news? Just answer if it’s real or fake. ¡image¿ News: ¡text¿”.

Observations indicate that the LVLMs can achieve comparable performances to those of the zero-shot CLIP-LP. Specifically, the LVLMs exhibit superior performance on Politifact compared to GossipCop and Weibo. This disparity may be partly due to the sequence length constraints of LVLMs (e.g., 2096 tokens for CogVLM) which are typically longer than those of the CLIP model (defaulting to 77 tokens). The average of 2,148 tokens per Politifact article, as shown in Table 2, significantly exceeding that of GossipCop and Weibo, permits LVLMs to analyze more textual data compared to the latter datasets.

Furthermore, we also observe that LVLMs encounter difficulties in tasks such as the verification of news article authenticity in zero-shot settings, where the LVLMs frequently respond with: “I’m sorry, I can’t assist with verifying the authenticity of news articles”. This could be attributed to the alignment of LLMs with human preferences, whereby the models are designed to abstain from answering queries typically associated with authentic verification.

Given that the selection of in-context examples can significantly influence model performance in the few-shot settings, all experiments presented in Table 3 are executed using five randomly selected seeds. The stability of each model is evaluated by calculating the standard deviation of accuracies across diverse few-shot configurations, as shown in Figure 2.

In general, observations indicate a decrease in the standard deviation for each model concurrent with an increase in the number of in-context examples, suggesting enhanced stability with the increment of training samples. Additionally, the overall standard deviations for the IMFND consistently fall below those of the smaller models across all datasets, illustrating that the IMFND facilitates more stable performance outcomes compared to the smaller models in few-shot settings.

We argue that the superior stability observed in the IMFND model derives from incorporating reference predictions of the CLIP-LP model. Such a strategy enables LVLMs to focus on enhancing and, as required, consulting CLIP’s predictions, thus diminishing the variances induced by diverse in-context examples.

Figure 3 showcases responses generated from CogVLM and GPT4V, employing either IMFND or standard ICL prompting methods.

Observations indicate that the predictions and their probabilities from the smaller model guide the LVLM to concentrate on specific segments of the news content, thereby aiding in the accuracy of predictions. For example, a 98% confidence level by the image classifier in affirming the news image as fake prompts the LVLM to intensify its focus on evaluating the news images, as shown in the first example of Figure 3(a).

Furthermore, IMFND prompting not only augments the responses generated from the LVLM, leading to a more comprehensive analysis of the text and image from news article, but also can override inaccurately classified predictions arising from standard ICL prompting, as demonstrated in the second example in Figure 3(a).

To enhance our comprehension of the limitations inherent to the LVLM, we also conduct an error analysis focusing on prevalent errors within both IMFND and ICL prompting. Manual examination of these inaccuracies revealed that error classifications by the smaller model could also lead the LVLM to generate incorrect predictions. For example, an image classifier’s prediction that news is fake with a 71% confidence level prompted CogVLM to deem it fake news, in contrast, the standard ICL arrived at the correct prediction uninfluenced by the smaller model’s misleading information, as illustrated in the first example of Figure 3(b).

Additionally, it is observed that the presence of credible sources, (e.g., the ‘Demoncratic Underground’, ‘Politico’, ‘CNN’) within the image or text cues LVLMs to classify the content as genuine news articles, as demonstrated in the second example of Figure 3(a) as well as in that of Figure 3(b).