Deeper Understanding(Literature Review)

There are three well-known methods for identifying untruthfulness

• Omission, involves leaving out pertinent information whereas the other method, referred to as commission, involves generating false information (Hample, 1982 )

• The vast majority of studies on the behavioral correlates of lying have used paradigms requiring participants to generate lies of commission (example, Vrij, Edwards, Roberts, & Bull, 2000) 

• Using a novel laboratory paradigm, Ratliff, Berman, and Barry (2006, unpublished manuscript) found that, when presented with a social interaction in which deception was required, participants were much more likely to commit lies of omission than lies of commission. 

Proposed Solution

• Applying ML models on the deceptive dataset to predict the different form of deception

Implementation

• Understanding forms of deception using the definitions from psychology, focussing on a deeper understanding of omission

• Data Collection: Data is collected from a well-known Twitter handle of a media house in India called "Times of India" and a mixture  already existing fake news dataset

• Data Annotation: 40+ annotators worked on classifying different forms of deception and lies as proposed in the flowchart

• An analysis of links between 5W(what, who, when, where, why) and form of deception was observed

• Building a scalable multitask learning model to detect different form of deception

Result

• Preprint available on Arxiv and continuing experimenting with multimodal data to go deeper in the next iteration [Paper Link]