Bibliographic record
Abstract
During a forensic interview, high-stakes deception is very prevalent notwithstanding the heavy consequences that might result. This paper proposes an automated computer vision solution for detecting high-stakes deception based on facial clues. Four deceptive cues (eye-blink, eyebrow motion, wrinkle occurrence and mouth motion) were identified and integrated into a single facial behavior pattern vector for discerning deception and honesty. A Random Forest classifier was trained using an unconstrained video database and applied to classify facial patterns into either deceptive or truthful categories. The labeled database we created was based on open sources such as YouTube. The interview videos used for training and testing the classifier were selected on the basis of high-stakes criminal situations, such as murder or kidnapping, which were later verified by criminal trials. Despite the many uncontrolled factors (illumination, head pose and facial occlusion) in the videos, we have achieved an accuracy of 76.92% when discriminating liars from truth-tellers. This compares well with 80.9% [1], the best extant accurary obtained by experienced interrogators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".