Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday December 13 2015, @09:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-check-if-they-are-horizontal dept.

PsychCentral has a decent summary of a recent software-based effort from University of Michigan to discover who's lying and who's not.

By carefully observing people telling lies during high-stakes court cases, researchers at the University of Michigan are developing unique lie-detecting software based on real-world data.

Their lie-detecting model considers both the person's words and gestures, and unlike a polygraph, it doesn't need to touch the speaker in order to work.

In experiments, the prototype was up to 75 percent accurate in identifying who was telling a lie (as defined by trial outcomes), compared with humans' scores of just above 50 percent. The tool might be helpful one day for security agents, juries, and even mental health professionals.

To develop the software, the researchers used machine-learning techniques to train it on a set of 120 video clips from media coverage of actual trials. Some of the clips they used were from the website of The Innocence Project, a national organization that works to exonerate the wrongfully convicted.

[More after the break.]

Researchers found that the people who were lying had a number of distinctive tells. They moved their hands more, scowled or grimaced, said "um" more frequently, and attempted to create a sense of distance between themselves and their alleged crime or civil misbehavior by using words like "he" or "she" rather than "I" or "we." Even more interesting, liars tended to make a greater effort at sounding sure of themselves — not only would they feign confidence, but they would also look the questioner in the eye, perhaps attempting to establish believability.

"In laboratory experiments, it's difficult to create a setting that motivates people to truly lie. The stakes are not high enough,...We can offer a reward if people can lie well — pay them to convince another person that something false is true. But in the real world there is true motivation to deceive. People are poor lie detectors. This isn't the kind of task we're naturally good at. There are clues that humans give naturally when they are being deceptive, but we're not paying close enough attention to pick them up."

"It was 75 percent accurate in identifying who was lying. That's much better than humans, who did just better than a coin-flip."

"The system might one day be a helpful tool for security agents, juries and even mental health professionals."

I have to imagine this is a child's game compared to what Three Letter Agencies have developed.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 13 2015, @10:05PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 13 2015, @10:05PM (#275871) Journal

    I'm quite sure that many decades ago, the lie detector looked really great. A few people noted a few physiological phenomenon, thought they had them all figured out, and started applying those observations to the general public. Especially to suspects and defendants. Alas - that turned out to be bogus science. A scam.

    Who here doubts that software and computers can't be used to scam the courts today?

    Expert witness, "Your honor, my team and I are 100% certain that the defendant is lying!"
    Defense lawyer, "But, your honor, we've produced overwhelming digital evidence that my client wasn't even in this country when the crime took place."
    Judge Judy, "Guilty as charged - and counsel, don't you ever call my expert witness a liar again, or you'll be facing contempt charges. Sheriff, take the defendant into custody immediately!"

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @12:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @12:47AM (#275925)

    > Who here doubts that software and computers can't be used to scam the courts today?

    Lie detector results are not admissible in court.

    But don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 14 2015, @12:59AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 14 2015, @12:59AM (#275930) Journal

      In times past, lie detector results were admissable in court. I'm not sure that they aren't admissable in some courts still today. The US isn't the whole world, after all.

      Aside from court, government relies on lie detectors. We had a recent discussion about FBI, CIA, and other agents who have to routinely submit to lie detector tests to kep their jobs. It's all part of keeping government employees under some director's thumb. Us lesser beings are sometimes asked to submit to lie detector tests as well. I took one once, then decided that I wasn't taking any more. If it's a condition of my work, well, I'll just find some other work.

      Seems that you have some catching up on facts to do, yourself.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @01:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @01:09AM (#275934)

        > In times past, lie detector results were admissable in court.

        Yeah, 80 years ago for a handful of cases. If only our courts had a way of maintaining institutional knowledge of precedent!

        > Aside from court, government relies on lie detectors.

        I get it, you are called runaway because you lurve to runaway with the goal posts!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @01:21AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @01:21AM (#275938)

          I get it, you are called runaway because you lurve to runaway with the goal posts!

          Really? So he can't add anything more to the discussion because you say so?

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday December 14 2015, @04:54AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Monday December 14 2015, @04:54AM (#275983) Journal

            No, really you cannot. The "saying so" is not the cause, it is only the recognition of an obvious truth. Runaway usually runs away from almost everything, but mostly from the truth. Now he, or you if you are not he in AC garb, could attempt to contribute something to the discussion, but you see it up to the discussion to decide if you actually are contributing, or are not in fact just trolling. If you actually have something to say, I imagine others will recognize that. But here's the point: if not, that does not mean that you are a Hairyfeet and nobody likes you and nobody listens to what you say, it just means that you really have nothing to say! Yes, we have heard it all before, the President is a Muslim (AKA: Black), and abortion is Murder!!!, and SJWs are infiltrating your pants as we speak. Please, spare us. Not contributing, and we do not have to hear much more to make the determination. At least I make more sense than this when I go all Ranty on the Soylentis!!

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 14 2015, @01:29AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 14 2015, @01:29AM (#275944) Journal

          Perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with the law. As I have already stated, government relies on polygraphs for it's own purposes. Government can and will admit a polygraph test if it suits government's purpose to do so. And, government will bar a polygraph result from evidence if and when it suits government to do so.

          The common government saying is, " are not "generally accepted" by the scientific evidence. " That statement is not precisely the same as "inadmissable".

          Read the link below, and you will find that there is no federal law, applicable at federal, state, and local level barring a polygraph exam. Polygraphs are still very much in play in our government and court system today. I find it interesting that it was a military court that first challenged the admissibility of polygraphs.

          http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-262-polygraphs-introduction-trial [justice.gov]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @08:58AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @08:58AM (#276030)

            > As I have already stated, government relies on polygraphs for it's own purposes.

            Repeating yourself doesn't make the new location of the goalposts any less new.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 14 2015, @09:38AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 14 2015, @09:38AM (#276038) Journal

              Your statement, taken at face value, is true enough. But, repeating your own claims without reading the article doesn't leave you any better informed.