Explainable Verbal Deception Detection using Transformers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03080v1
• Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 17:36:00 GMT
• Title: Explainable Verbal Deception Detection using Transformers
• Authors: Loukas Ilias, Felix Soldner, Bennett Kleinberg
• Abstract summary: This paper proposes and evaluates six deep-learning models, including combinations of BERT (and RoBERTa), MultiHead Attention, co-attentions, and transformers. The findings suggest that our transformer-based models can enhance automated deception detection performances (+2.11% in accuracy)
• Score: 1.5104201344012347
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: People are regularly confronted with potentially deceptive statements (e.g., fake news, misleading product reviews, or lies about activities). Only few works on automated text-based deception detection have exploited the potential of deep learning approaches. A critique of deep-learning methods is their lack of interpretability, preventing us from understanding the underlying (linguistic) mechanisms involved in deception. However, recent advancements have made it possible to explain some aspects of such models. This paper proposes and evaluates six deep-learning models, including combinations of BERT (and RoBERTa), MultiHead Attention, co-attentions, and transformers. To understand how the models reach their decisions, we then examine the model's predictions with LIME. We then zoom in on vocabulary uniqueness and the correlation of LIWC categories with the outcome class (truthful vs deceptive). The findings suggest that our transformer-based models can enhance automated deception detection performances (+2.11% in accuracy) and show significant differences pertinent to the usage of LIWC features in truthful and deceptive statements.

Related papers

• Explaining Text Similarity in Transformer Models [52.571158418102584]
  Recent advances in explainable AI have made it possible to mitigate limitations by leveraging improved explanations for Transformers. We use BiLRP, an extension developed for computing second-order explanations in bilinear similarity models, to investigate which feature interactions drive similarity in NLP models. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of different semantic similarity tasks and models, highlighting how novel explainable AI methods enable in-depth analyses and corpus-level insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:11:31Z)
• Explaining Hate Speech Classification with Model Agnostic Methods [0.9990687944474738]
  The research goal of this paper is to bridge the gap between hate speech prediction and the explanations generated by the system to support its decision. This has been achieved by first predicting the classification of a text and then providing a posthoc, model agnostic and surrogate interpretability approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T19:52:56Z)
• Verifying the Robustness of Automatic Credibility Assessment [79.08422736721764]
  Text classification methods have been widely investigated as a way to detect content of low credibility. In some cases insignificant changes in input text can mislead the models. We introduce BODEGA: a benchmark for testing both victim models and attack methods on misinformation detection tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-14T16:11:47Z)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)
• Feature Attributions and Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulated [32.579094387004346]
  We show how adversaries can design biased models that manipulate model agnostic feature attribution methods. These vulnerabilities allow an adversary to deploy a biased model, yet explanations will not reveal this bias, thereby deceiving stakeholders into trusting the model. We evaluate the manipulations on real world data sets, including COMPAS and Communities & Crime, and find explanations can be manipulated in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-23T17:43:31Z)
• Beyond Trivial Counterfactual Explanations with Diverse Valuable Explanations [64.85696493596821]
  In computer vision applications, generative counterfactual methods indicate how to perturb a model's input to change its prediction. We propose a counterfactual method that learns a perturbation in a disentangled latent space that is constrained using a diversity-enforcing loss. Our model improves the success rate of producing high-quality valuable explanations when compared to previous state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-18T12:57:34Z)
• My Teacher Thinks The World Is Flat! Interpreting Automatic Essay Scoring Mechanism [71.34160809068996]
  Recent work shows that automated scoring systems are prone to even common-sense adversarial samples. We utilize recent advances in interpretability to find the extent to which features such as coherence, content and relevance are important for automated scoring mechanisms. We also find that since the models are not semantically grounded with world-knowledge and common sense, adding false facts such as the world is flat'' actually increases the score instead of decreasing it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-27T06:19:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.