Identity Unbiased Deception Detection by 2D-to-3D Face Reconstruction

Several studies applying Machine Learning to deception detection have been published in the last decade. A rich and complex set of settings, approaches, theories, and results is now available. Therefore, one may find it difficult to identify trends, successful paths, gaps, and opportunities for contribution. The present literature review aims to provide the state of research regarding deception detection with Machine Learning. We followed the PRISMA protocol and retrieved 648 articles from ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science. 540 of them were screened (108 were duplicates). A final corpus of 81 documents has been summarized as mind maps. Metadata was extracted and has been encoded as Python dictionaries to support a statistical analysis scripted in Python programming language, and available as a collection of Jupyter Lab Notebooks in a GitHub repository. All are available as Jupyter Lab Notebooks. Neural Networks, Support Vector Machines, Random Forest, Decision Tree and K-nearest Neighbor are the five most explored techniques. The studies report a detection performance ranging from 51% to 100%, with 19 works reaching accuracy rate above 0.9. Monomodal, Bimodal, and Multimodal approaches were exploited and achieved various accuracy levels for detection. Bimodal and Multimodal approaches have become a trend over Monomodal ones, although there are high-performance examples of the latter. Studies that exploit language and linguistic features, 75% are dedicated to English. The findings include observations of the following: language and culture, emotional features, psychological traits, cognitive load, facial cues, complexity, performance, and Machine Learning topics. We also present a dataset benchmark. Main conclusions are that labeled datasets from real-life data are scarce. Also, there is still room for new approaches for deception detection with Machine Learning, especially if focused on languages and cultures other than English-based. Further research would greatly contribute by providing new labeled and multimodal datasets for deception detection, both for English and other languages.

show abstract

“…The CNN model was measured by accuracy in all three studies [46,47,90]. These range from 0.6800 to 0.9674 with a mean at 0.8705 ± 0.1650.…”

Section: Artificial Neuralmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deception detection with machine learning: A systematic review and statistical analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

FacialCueNet: unmasking deception - an interpretable model for criminal interrogation using facial expressions

Nam,

Kim,

Bark

et al. 2023

Appl Intell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polygraphs are used in criminal interrogations to detect deception. However, polygraphs can be difficult to administer under circumstances that prevent the use of biosensors. To address the shortcomings of the biosensors, deception-detection technology without biosensors is needed. We propose a deception-detection method, FacialCueNet, which is a multi-modal network that utilizes both facial images and facial cues based on deep-learning technology. FacialCueNet incorporates facial cues that indicate deception, such as action-unit frequency, symmetry, gaze pattern, and micro-expressions extracted from videos. Additionally, the spatial-temporal attention module, based on convolutional neural network and convolutional long short-term memory, is applied to FacialCueNet to provide interpretable information from interrogations. Because our goal was developing an algorithm applicable to criminal interrogations, we trained and evaluated FacialCueNet using the DDCIT dataset, which was collected using a data acquisition protocol similar to those used in actual investigations. To compare deception-detection performance with state-of-the-art works, a public dataset was also used. As a result, the mean deception-detection F1 score using the DDCIT dataset was 81.22%, with an accuracy of 70.79%, recall of 0.9476, and precision of 0.7107. When evaluating against the public database, our method demonstrated an evaluation accuracy of 88.45% and achieved an AUC of 0.9541, indicating a improvement of 1.25% compared to the previous results. We also present interpretive results of deception detection by analyzing the influence of spatial and temporal factors. These results show that FacialCueNet has the potential to detect deception using only facial videos. By providing interpretation of predictions, our system could be useful tool for criminal interrogation.

show abstract