DeceptionX: Explainable Deception Detection with Multimodal Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11385v1
• Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 19:08:00 GMT
• Title: DeceptionX: Explainable Deception Detection with Multimodal Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Deception detection is a critical and highly challenging task within affective computing and behavioral analysis.<n>We propose DeceptionX, a novel MLLM framework that shifts the paradigm of deception detection from black-box classification to an interpretable Observe-Think-Summarize reasoning process.
• Score: 35.700154303400176
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Deception detection is a critical and highly challenging task within affective computing and behavioral analysis. Existing deep learning methods typically treat this task as a straightforward classification problem; however, this black-box approach lacks interpretability and fails to capture the complex logical deduction processes utilized by human experts when identifying lies. While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown potential, applying them effectively requires a bridge between low-level audiovisual cues and high-level logical reasoning. In this paper, we propose DeceptionX, a novel MLLM framework that shifts the paradigm of deception detection from black-box classification to an interpretable Observe-Think-Summarize reasoning process. To address the scarcity of high-quality reasoning data, we first constructed DeceptChain, a high-quality dataset developed through a human-in-the-loop process. This dataset synthesizes fine-grained visual and auditory evidence (such as micro-expressions and vocal tremors) into structured chain-of-thought reasoning data. Furthermore, we propose a three-stage training pipeline and a Discrepancy-Aware Redundancy Elimination~(DARE) strategy for DeceptionX to further enhance the model's generalization capabilities. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DeceptionX not only outperforms existing MLLM baselines and state-of-the-art methods on standard real-world benchmarks but also provides transparent, expert-level reasoning paths, bridging the critical gap between accuracy and interpretability in multimodal deception detection.

Related papers

• ReasoningLens: Hierarchical Visualization and Diagnostic Auditing for Large Reasoning Models [73.59878306788815]
  ReasoningLens is an open-source framework designed for the hierarchical visualization and diagnostic auditing of complex reasoning chains.<n> ReasoningLens addresses information necropsy by: (1) structuring traces into interactive hierarchies that separate high-level strategy from low-level execution; and (2) leveraging an agentic auditor for automated error detection and tool-augmented verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T14:28:35Z)
• ThinkDeception: A Progressive Reinforcement Learning Framework for Interpretable Multimodal Deception Detection [4.1722537413195395]
  ThinkDeception is a novel and interpretable multimodal deception detection framework.<n>It transforms deception detection from a traditional binary classification task into an explicit cognitive reasoning process.<n>This work successfully drives the field of deception detection toward interpretable, multimodal cognitive reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T12:08:20Z)
• The Expense of Seeing: Attaining Trustworthy Multimodal Reasoning Within the Monolithic Paradigm [1.0742675209112622]
  We argue that current Vision-Language Models do not faithfully synthesise multimodal data.<n>We propose a radical, information-theoretic departure: the Modality Translation Protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T15:15:32Z)
• MSA-Thinker: Discrimination-Calibration Reasoning with Hint-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Multimodal Sentiment Analysis [5.1150258716324055]
  Multimodal sentiment analysis aims to understand human emotions by integrating textual, auditory, and visual modalities.<n>Existing methods incorporating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning are hindered by high annotation costs.<n>We propose a novel training framework that integrates structured Discrimination-Calibration (DC) reasoning with Hint-based Reinforcement Learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T12:48:41Z)
• LTD-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models by Letting Them Draw [57.237152905238084]
  LTD-Bench is a breakthrough benchmark for large language models (LLMs)<n>It transforms LLM evaluation from abstract scores to directly observable visual outputs by requiring models to generate drawings through dot matrices or executable code.<n> LTD-Bench's visual outputs enable powerful diagnostic analysis, offering a potential approach to investigate model similarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T08:11:23Z)
• ThinkFake: Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models for AI-Generated Image Detection [51.93101033997245]
  Increasing realism of AI-generated images has raised serious concerns about misinformation and privacy violations.<n>We propose ThinkFake, a novel reasoning-based and generalizable framework for AI-generated image detection.<n>We show that ThinkFake outperforms state-of-the-art methods on the GenImage benchmark and demonstrates strong zero-shot generalization on the challenging LOKI benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T07:34:09Z)
• From Prediction to Explanation: Multimodal, Explainable, and Interactive Deepfake Detection Framework for Non-Expert Users [21.627851460651968]
  We present DF-P2E (Deepfake: Prediction to Explanation), a novel framework that integrates visual, semantic, and narrative layers of explanation to make deepfake detection interpretable and accessible.<n>We instantiate and evaluate the framework on the DF40 benchmark, the most diverse deepfake dataset to date.<n> Experiments demonstrate that our system achieves competitive detection performance while providing high-quality explanations aligned with Grad-CAM activations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T03:55:47Z)
• Truth in the Few: High-Value Data Selection for Efficient Multi-Modal Reasoning [71.3533541927459]
  We propose a novel data selection paradigm termed Activation Reasoning Potential (RAP)<n>RAP identifies cognitive samples by estimating each sample's potential to stimulate genuine multi-modal reasoning.<n>Our RAP method consistently achieves superior performance using only 9.3% of the training data, while reducing computational costs by over 43%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T08:40:24Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Cantor: Inspiring Multimodal Chain-of-Thought of MLLM [83.6663322930814]
  We argue that converging visual context acquisition and logical reasoning is pivotal for tackling visual reasoning tasks. We propose an innovative multimodal CoT framework, termed Cantor, characterized by a perception-decision architecture. Our experiments demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed framework, showing significant improvements in multimodal CoT performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T17:59:48Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.