arXiv preprint ·
A persistent accuracy ceiling in automated verbal deception detection
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Automated methods have been proposed to overcome the limitations of human verbal deception detection, but evidence remains fragmented across disciplines. We systematically reviewed 25 years of research (289 reports, 6,136 classification models) and meta-analyzed 3,653 models nested within 97 datasets. Pooled accuracy was 74.4% (95% CI: 71.2%-77.4%) with substantial heterogeneity. Accuracy was driven by methodological quality (ground truth, data source, class balance, evaluation procedure) more than by model complexity: the adoption of embeddings and large language models has not translated into improved predictive performance. Only 12.46% of reports used data with verifiable ground-truth, and only 23.96% of models were evaluated on independent data. The pooled accuracy aligns with meta-analyses of manual approaches, suggesting a ceiling of 70-75%, unlikely to be lifted by current research conventions.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
FedAlphaEdit: Null-Space-Aligned Merging for Collaborative Knowledge Editing
When Charts Deceive Web Agents: A Paired Benchmark for Misleading Visualization-Grounded Tasks
Measuring and Mitigating Solution Mode Collapse in RLVR
COFFEQA: Counterfactual-Guided Few-Shot Distillation for LLM Question Answering
Clinician use of language models diverges from how the models are evaluated
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.