Revisiting SVMs in Detecting Lies: (In)Validating Two Models

The task in this paper is to re-evaluate Burgoon’s (2012) model and a proposed linguistic model to lie detecting (see El-Zawawy, 2017) and to test their validity with the aid of one well-documented machine learning method, namely Support Vector Machine (henceforth SVM). The two corpora chosen are false statements by Joseph Biden and Donald Trump, all delivered spontaneously, to see how the proposed model as aided by SVM can detect their falsehood. Results show that the Burgoon model demonstrates stable and reliable performance, achieving high accuracy, precision, and recall, particularly in holistic analysis, where it records 91.84% accuracy and an F1-score of 90.91%. In contrast, the Proposed Model shows extreme inconsistencies, with an overall accuracy of 0.00%, suggesting that its predictions are dubious

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Artificial Intelligence
Published
2025-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15407/jai2025.03.045
Primary Topic
Deception detection and forensic psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Revisiting SVMs in Detecting Lies: (In)Validating Two Models

El-Zawawy Amr M
Artificial Intelligence
Deception detection and forensic psychology
article

Revisiting SVMs in Detecting Lies: (In)Validating Two Models

El-Zawawy Amr M
article en

Abstract

The task in this paper is to re-evaluate Burgoon’s (2012) model and a proposed linguistic model to lie detecting (see El-Zawawy, 2017) and to test their validity with the aid of one well-documented machine learning method, namely Support Vector Machine (henceforth SVM). The two corpora chosen are false statements by Joseph Biden and Donald Trump, all delivered spontaneously, to see how the proposed model as aided by SVM can detect their falsehood. Results show that the Burgoon model demonstrates stable and reliable performance, achieving high accuracy, precision, and recall, particularly in holistic analysis, where it records 91.84% accuracy and an F1-score of 90.91%. In contrast, the Proposed Model shows extreme inconsistencies, with an overall accuracy of 0.00%, suggesting that its predictions are dubious

Artificial IntelligenceVol. 30(AI.2025.30(3))
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Deception detection and forensic psychology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.