Dr.S.P.Victor et.al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 2(6), 2010, 1826-1829
Synthetic Analysis using Mathematical
approach for handling Automation in
Deception Detection System
Dr.S.P.Victor Mr.S.Rajkumar Mrs.V.Narayani
Associate Professor & Head Assitant Professor Research Scholar
Department of Computer Science Department of CSE Department of Computer Science St.Xavier’s College FX Engg. College St.Xavier’s College
Tirunelveli Tirunelveli Tirunelveli
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Abstract:
Introspection is a conventional theory in assessing deceptions whereas psychological face to face conversations require external deception detection system. This paper provides methodologies for theoretical and oral conversation analysis techniques. The main purpose of these methodologies focuses on identifying the theme of conversations using mathematical analysis tools. It can be implemented in any machine learning system.
Keywords: Deception, Detection, Perception, Persistence, Evaluation, Logic
I Introduction
Deception:
Deception is a major relational transgression that often leads to feelings of betrayal and distrust between relational partners. Deception violates relational rules and is considered to be a negative violation of expectations. Most people expect friends, relational partners, and even strangers to be truthful most of the time. If people expected most conversations to be untruthful, talking and communicating with others would simply be unproductive and too difficult. On a given day, it is likely that most human beings will either deceive or be deceived by another person.
II Methods
Let us consider the following structure as the assessment procedure for identifying deception in any communication system.
Fig1. Basic model for assessing Deception
Conversation Model:
Initial stage:
Collect informations about (1) Family and Education (2) Goals
(3) Expectations
External Component Assessment
Internal Component Assessment
Verfication Logic
Database
Detectors, Scanners, Identifiers
Dr.S.P.Victor et.al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 2(6), 2010, 1826-1829
(4) Current state
together with (a) Life style (b) Skills (c) Ability Active stage:
Performing the following tasks, (i) Perceptionary questions – L1 (ii) Suspicious markings – L2 (iii) Behavioural Results – L3
(iv) Usage of subjects History Information – L4 (v) Imaginable and Banded attack – L5 Delivery stage:
Identifying the result with the following, (a) Deception success (b) Deception Accuracy
Deception Detection: Ban for Narco analysis:
Nowadays Narco analysis is illegal. The person on whom the test is conducted is drugged. He is then asked questions in an unconscious state. This is against the Constitution as it infringes on the right to privacy. Those who advocated the use of Narco tests did a lot of injury to the judicial system. Narco analysis can be manipulated to extract a favourable reply.
Deception and its detection is a complex, fluid, and cognitive process that is based on the context of the message exchange. The Interpersonal Deception Theory posits that interpersonal deception is a dynamic, iterative process of mutual influence between a sender, who manipulates information to depart from the truth, and a receiver, who attempts to establish the validity of the message. A deceiver's actions are interrelated to the message receiver's actions. It is during this exchange that the deceiver will reveal verbal and nonverbal information about deceit. Some research has found that there are some cues that may be correlated with deceptive communication, but scholars frequently disagree about the effectiveness of many of these cues to serve as reliable indicators. Noted deception scholar Aldert Vrij even states that there is no nonverbal behaviour that is uniquely associated with deception. As previously stated, a specific behavioural indicator of deception does not exist. There is, however, some nonverbal behaviour that has been found to be correlated with deception.
Deception Detection as a System: Input-Subject
Initial stage- if validation < 60% then CLEAR Else
goto Activestage End if
Active stage- Switch Case(Level) Case Level-1: Case Level-2: Case Level-3: End Case
Delivery Stage -
Print Deception Success and its Rate
III Experiment and Results
In xyz college we handled an incident for lifting down the LCD Projector fit in a class room. So we conduct the enquiry for identifying the student who actually broke the projector. [25x20x20 classroom with people roaming ...]. The projector was fit at a height of 15 feet. The class contain totally 66 students out of which 48 are girls remaining 18 students are boys. We conduct the initial stage of accessing, based on Past History, educational status, physical ability and social awareness; we eliminate 40 girls and 10 boys. Besides this initial stage 8 girls and 8 boys are included ex. though with few exceptional status because of one or two students are in suspicious mode for their adult age play fair manner.
Dr.S.P.Victor et.al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 2(6), 2010, 1826-1829 Factors Points
Family Education 10
Family Status 10
Subject’s Educational Record 10
Past History (Behaviour) 10
Physical ability 10
Conduct and Approach 10
Internal fear and Societal status 10
Awareness in maturity 10
Dept. Faculty Report 10
Demotivation to act 10
Total 100 Table 1: Evaluation table for subject’s Deception Detection
Deception factor (Df) =∑F(pi)
Where F(pi) represents the point weightage for the ith factor.
Those who got below 60% will be let free and all remaining students are informed to participate in active stage. In the active stage the suspicious level can be classified into 3 types.
SL1: Soft - 25% Focus
SL2: Cautious - 50% Focus
SL3: Rigid - 25% Focus
Focuses on subjects with the following approach:
SL1 = starts with Threatening/Attacking questions and ends with attracting/safe guarding sessions. SL2 = starts with Emotional and tempting questions and ends with psychological sensational questions.
SL3 = mixture of SL1 and SL3 questions and recording the various level of expressions (physical/mental/cultural/psychological/spiritual/social/moral-assessment questions)
Ultimate aim is to make sudden raise and sudden fall of emotional /sensational/psychological/threatening/attacking questions with mathematical analysis of variations in their response including time delay, usage of words, tone, modulation and gestures.
SL1: 7 girls and 4 boys identified SL2: 3 boys identified
SL3: 1 girl and 3 boys identified
IV Discussion
In SL2 3 boys selected, using the conversation session recording and analysis. 2 boys accepted the truth that 1 boy helped other one to lift down the projector. Deception factor(Df)=∑F(pi)
Where F(pi) represents the point weightage for the ith factor. We attained the result as follows,
Boy1 - 95 - witness
Boy2 - 90 - Helper
Boy3 - 75 - Actor
Sample Questionnaire: Emotional:
Why do you involve in this incident? Sensational
Whether these --- reason make you to involve in this incident? Psychological:
We don’t believe that you involve in this incident. Isn’t it? Threatening:
Do you know the subsequent actions for this incident? Attacking:
We got evidence for your involvement in this incident aren’t you?
V Conclusion
Identification of Deception is a vast process. Recent trends and techniques postulates to minimize the significance level in accuracy of deception detection but it never acts as a binary state model. We can implement the machine learning system by classifying the modules and training the nodes with stored patterns. In future we
Dr.S.P.Victor et.al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 2(6), 2010, 1826-1829 focus on optimizing the deception detection techniques which consumes Neurofuzzy approach to combine several approaches as a single entity.
VI References
[1] Bassett, Rodney L.. & Basinger, David, & Livermore, Paul. (1992, December). Lying in the Laboratory: Deception in Human Research from a Psychological, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives. ASA3.org
[2] Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's “Behavioral Study of Obedience.” American Psychologist, 19(6), 421-423. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from the PsycINFO database.
[3] Alan Ryan -Professional liars - Truth-Telling, Lying and Self-Deception Social Research, Fall, 1996.
[4] Hotchkiss, Sandy & Masterson, James F. Why Is It Always About You? : The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism (2003) .
[5] Masterson, James F. The Emerging Self: A Developmental Self & Object Relations Approach to the Treatment of the Closet Narcissistic Disorder of the Self, 1993.
[6] Gupta, Bina (1995). Perceiving in Advaita Vedanta: Epistemological Analysis and Interpretation. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 197. ISBN 81-208-1296-4.
[7] Wolpe, J. (1958) Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition, (California: Stanford University Press, 1958), 53-62
Biography of Authors
Dr. S. P. Victor earned his M.C.A. degree from Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli. The M. S. University, Tirunelveli, awarded him Ph.D. degree in Computer Science for his research in Parallel Algorithms. He is the Head of the Department of Computer Science, and the Director of the Computer Science Research centre, St. Xavier’s college (Autonomous), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. The M.S. University, Tirunelveli and Bharathiar University, Coimbatore have recognized him as a research guide. He has published research papers in international, national journals and conference proceedings. He has organized Conferences and Seminars at national and state level.
Mr.S.Rajkumar completed his M.E–CSE at Sathyabama University, Chennai and currently doing his Ph.D in the area of Computational Science.
Ms.V.Narayani completed her M.C.A in M.S University, Tirunelveli and M.Phil in Mother Teresa University, Kodaikanal. She is currently doing her Research programme in the area of Data Mining.
