Md. Mizanur Rahman
ABSTRACT
Lying is a (practically) unavoidable component of our day to day interactions with other people, and it includes both oral and textual communications (e.g. text entered via smartphones). Detecting when a person is lying has important applications, especially with the ubiquity of messaging via smart-phones, coupled with rampant increases in (intentional) spread of mis-information today. In this paper, we design a technique to detect whether or not a person's textual inputs when typed via a smartphone indicate lying. To do so, first, we judiciously develop a smartphone based survey that guarantees any participant to provide a mix of true and false responses. While the participant is texting out responses to each question, the smartphone measures readings from its inbuilt inertial sensors, and then computes features like shaking, acceleration, tilt angle, typing speed etc. experienced by it. Subsequently, for each participant (47 in total), we glean the true and false responses using our own experiences with them, and also via informal discussions with each participant. By comparing the responses of each participant, along with the corresponding motion features computed by the smartphone, we implement several machine learning algorithms to detect when a participant is lying, and our accuracy is around 70% in the most stringent leave-one-out evaluation strategy. Later, utilizing findings of our analysis, we develop an architecture for real-time lie detection using smartphones. Yet another user evaluation of our lie detection system yields 84%-90% accuracy in detecting false responses.
- Gerald Bauer and Paul Lukowicz. 2012. Can Smartphones Detect Stress-Related Changes in the Behaviour of Individuals? Work in Progress session at PerCom (2012), 423 -- 426.Google Scholar
- Benussi. 1914. On the Effects of Lying on Changes in Respiration. Archiv fur die Gesamte Psychologie (1914).Google Scholar
- Daniel Corstange. 2008. Sensitive Questions, Truthful Answers? Modeling the List Experiment with LISTIT. Political Analysis 17, 1 (December 2008), 45 -- 63.Google Scholar
- P. Ekman and W. Friesen. 1978. Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement. Consulting Psychologists Press (1978).Google Scholar
- Zhihong Zeng; Maja Pantic; Glenn I. Roisman; Thomas S. Huang. 2009. A Survey of Affect Recognition Methods: Audio, Visual, and Spontaneous Expressions. In IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. IEEE, 39 -- 58.Google Scholar
- Preeti Khanna and M.Sasikuma. 2010. Recognising Emotions from Keyboard Stroke Pattern. International Journal of Computer Applications 11, 9 (December 2010), 1 -- 5.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Byoung Chul Ko. 2018. A Brief Review of Facial Emotion Recognition Based on Visual Information. In US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. IEEE, 401.Google Scholar
- John A. Larson. 1921. Modification of the Marston Deception Test. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1921).Google Scholar
- Zheng Lin, Xiaolong Jin, and Xueqi Cheng. 2014. Make It Possible: Multilingual Sentiment Analysis without Much Prior Knowledge. IEEE/ WIC/ ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT) (2014), 79 -- 86.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zheng Lin, Songbo Tan, and XueQi. 2011. Language-independent Sentiment Classification Using Three Common Words. CIKM (October 2011), 24 -- 28,.Google Scholar
- Chun-Chieh Liu, Ting-Hao Yang, Chang-Tai Hsieh, and Von-Wun Soo. 2009. Towards Text-based Emotion Detection: A Survey and Possible Improvements. International Conference on Information Management and Engineering (2009).Google Scholar
- Shenghua Liu, Fuxin Li, and Xueqi Cheng. 2013. Adaptive Co-Training SVM for Sentiment Classification on Tweets. CIKMâĂŹ13 (Oct 2013), 2079 -- 2088.Google Scholar
- Shenghua Liu, Wenjun Zhu, and Xue qi Cheng. 2013. Co-training and Visualizing Sentiment Evolvement for Tweet Events. WWW 2013 Companion (May 2013), 13 -- 17.Google Scholar
- C. Maaoui, A. Pruski, and F. Abdat. 2008. Emotion recognition for human machine communication. Proc. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 08) (Sep 2008), 1210 -- 1215. Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. H. Marstonr. 1920. Physiological Possibilities in the Deception Test. Journal of American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology (1920).Google Scholar
- B. M. DePaulo W. L. Morris. 2004. Discerning lies from truths: Behavioural cues to deception and the indirect pathway of intuition. The detection of deception in forensic contexts (2004).Google Scholar
- Weka. [n. d.]. Class Balancer. Retrieved Febuary 14, 2018 from http://weka.sourceforge.net/doc.dev/weka/filters/supervised/instance/ClassBalancer.html.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- How smart your smartphone is in lie detection?
Recommendations
Android Malware Detection Based on Multi-Features
ICCNS '18: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communication and Network SecurityWith the widespread use of the Android system, the number of malicious Android applications increases sharply. How to effectively identify malware and improve the successful detection of malicious code becomes increasingly important. Traditionally, the ...
Smart smartphone development: iOS versus android
SIGCSE '11: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science educationIn a remarkably short timeframe, developing apps for smartphones has gone from an arcane curiosity to an essential skill set. Employers are scrambling to find developers capable of transforming their ideas into apps. Educators interested in filling that ...
RepDroid: an automated tool for Android application repackaging detection
ICPC '17: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Program ComprehensionIn recent years, with the explosive growth of mobile smart phones, the number of Android applications (apps) increases rapidly. Attackers usually leverage the popularity of Android apps by inserting malwares, modifying the original apps, repackaging and ...
Comments