Detecting deception in an increasingly digital world is both a critical and challenging task. In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of the automated deception detection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) across diverse domains. We assess the performance of both open-source and proprietary LLMs on three distinct datasets—real-life trial interviews (RLTD), instructed deception in interpersonal scenarios (MU3D), and deceptive reviews (OpSpam). We systematically analyze the effectiveness of different experimental setups for deception detection, including zero-shot and few-shot approaches with random or similarity-based in-context example selection. Our findings indicate that fine-tuned LLMs achieve state-of-the-art performance on textual deception detection, whereas LMMs struggle to fully leverage multimodal cues, particularly in real-world settings. Additionally, we analyze the impact of auxiliary features, such as non-verbal gestures, video summaries, and evaluate the effectiveness of different promptingstrategies, such as direct label generation and post-hoc reasoning generation. Experiments unfold that reasoning-based predictions do not consistently improve performance over direct classification, contrary to the expectations.

Reasoning over procedural sequences, where the order of steps directly impacts outcomes, is a critical capability for large language models (LLMs). In this work, we study the task of reconstructing globally ordered sequences from shuffled procedural steps, using a curated dataset of food recipes, a domain where correct sequencing is essential for task success. We evaluate several LLMs under zero-shot and few-shot settings and present a comprehensive evaluation framework that adapts established metrics from ranking and sequence alignment. These include Kendall’s Tau, Normalized Longest Common Subsequence (NLCS), and Normalized Edit Distance (NED), which capture complementary aspects of ordering quality. Our analysis shows that model performance declines with increasing sequence length, reflecting the added complexity of longer procedures. We also find that greater step displacement in the input, corresponding to more severe shuffling, leads to further degradation. These findings highlight the limitations of current LLMs in procedural reasoning, especially with longer and more disordered inputs.