Detecting lies is a child (robot)'s play: gaze-based lie detection in HRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robots destined for tasks like teaching or caregiving have to build a long-lasting social rapport with their human partners. This requires, from the robot side, to be capable of assessing whether the partner is trustworthy. To this aim, a robot should be able to assess whether someone is lying or not, while preserving the pleasantness of the social interaction. We present an approach to promptly detect lies based on pupil dilation, as an intrinsic marker of the lie-associated cognitive load that can be applied in an ecological human-robot interaction, autonomously led by a robot. We demonstrated the validity of the approach with an experiment, in which the iCub humanoid robot engages the human partner by playing the role of a magician in a card game and detects in real-time the partner deceptive behavior. On top of that, we show how the robot can leverage on the gained knowledge about the deceptive behavior of each human partner, to better detect subsequent lies of that individual. Also, we explore whether machine learning models could improve lie detection performances for both known individuals (within-participants) over multiple interactions with the same partner, and with novel partners (between-participant). The proposed setup, interaction and models enable iCub to understand when its partners are lying, which is a fundamental skill for evaluating their trustworthiness and hence improving social human-robot interaction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".