Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 585–595 | Cite as

Cross-domain deception detection using support vector networks

  • Ángel Hernández-Castañeda
  • Hiram CalvoEmail author
  • Alexander Gelbukh
  • Jorge J. García Flores


Our motivation is to assess the effectiveness of support vector networks (SVN) on the task of detecting deception in texts, as well as to investigate to which degree it is possible to build a domain-independent detector of deception in text using SVN. We experimented with different feature sets for training the SVN: a continuous semantic space model source represented by the latent Dirichlet allocation topics, a word-space model, and dictionary-based features. In this way, a comparison of performance between semantic information and behavioral information is made. We tested several combinations of these features on different datasets designed to identify deception. The datasets used include the DeRev dataset (a corpus of deceptive and truthful opinions about books obtained from Amazon), OpSpam (a corpus of fake and truthful opinions about hotels), and three corpora on controversial topics (abortion, death penalty, and a best friend) on which the subjects were asked to write an idea contrary to what they really believed. We experimented with one-domain setting by training and testing our models separately on each dataset (with fivefold cross-validation), with mixed-domain setting by merging all datasets into one large corpus (again, with fivefold cross-validation), and with cross-domain setting: using one dataset for testing and a concatenation of all other datasets for training. We obtained an average accuracy of 86% in one-domain setting, 75% in mixed-domain setting, and 52 to 64% in cross-domain setting.


Deception detection Continuous semantic space model Word-space model Linguistic inquiry and word count Support vector networks 



We thank Instituto Politécnico Nacional (SIP, COFAA and BEIFI), and SNI. Partially funded by CONACyT (Language Technologies Thematic Network Projects 260178, 271622) and SIP Project Number 20162058

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.


  1. Almela A, Valencia-García R, Cantos P (2012) Seeing through deception: a computational approach to deceit detection in written communication. In: Proceedings of the EACL 2012 workshop on computational approaches to deception detection. Avignon, France, pp 15–22Google Scholar
  2. Al-Shammari ET, Keivani A, Shamshirband S, Mostafaeipour A, Yee L, Petković D, Ch S (2016) Prediction of heat load in district heating systems by support vector machine with firefly searching algorithm. Energy 95:266–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Shammari ET, Mohammadi K, Keivani A, Ab Hamid SH, Akib S, Shamshirband S, Petković D (2016b) Prediction of daily dewpoint temperature using a model combining the support vector machine with firefly algorithm. J Irrig Drain Eng 142(5):04016013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altameem TA, Nikolić V, Shamshirband S, Petković D, Javidnia H, Kiah MLM, Gani A (2015) Potential of support vector regression for optimization of lens system. Comput Aided Des 62:57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charton K, Cooper H (2003) Cues to deception. Psychol Bull 129:74–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ekman P (1989) Why lies fail and what behaviors betray a lie. In: Yuille JC (ed) Credibility assessment. Kluwer, New York, pp 71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feng S, Banerjee R, Choi Y (2012) Syntactic stylometry for deception detection. In: Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, Republic of Korea, Jeju, pp 171–175Google Scholar
  9. Fornaciari T, Poesio M (2014) Identifying fake amazon reviews as learning from crowds. In: Proceedings of the 14th conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics, Gothenburg, Sweden, pp 279–287Google Scholar
  10. Gani A, Mohammadi K, Shamshirband S, Altameem TA, Petković D, Ch S (2016) A combined method to estimate wind speed distribution based on integrating the support vector machine with firefly algorithm. Environ Prog Sustain Energ 35: 867–875. doi: 10.1002/ep.12262
  11. Gocic M, Shamshirband S, Razak Z, Petković D, Ch S, Trajkovic S (2016) Long-term precipitation analysis and estimation of precipitation concentration index using three support vector machine methods. Adv Meteorol 2016:7912357. doi: 10.1155/2016/7912357
  12. Gokhman S, Hancock J, Prabhu P, Ott M, Cardie C (2012) In search of a gold standard in studies of deception. In: Proceedings of the EACL 2012 workshop on computational approaches to deception detection, Avignon, France, pp 23–30Google Scholar
  13. Guyon I, Elisseeff A (2003) An introduction to variable and feature selection. J Mach Learn Res 3:1157–1182zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall MA (1999) Correlation-based feature selection for machine learning. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Computer Science, University of WaikatoGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall MA, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor Newsl 11(1):10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hauch V, Blandón-Gitlin I, Masip J, Sporer SL (2012) Linguistic cues to deception assessed by computer programs: a meta-analysis. In: Proceedings of the EACL 2012 workshop on computational approaches to deception detection, Avignon, France. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  17. Hernández Fusilier D, Montes-y-Gómez M, Rosso P, Guzmán Cabrera R (2015) Detection of opinion spam with character n-grams. In: Proceedings of 16th international conference on intelligent text processing and computational linguistics, Cairo, Egypt, pp 285–294Google Scholar
  18. Jović S, Danesh AS, Younesi E, Aničić O, Petković D, Shamshirband S (2016a) Forecasting of underactuated robotic finger contact forces by support vector regression methodology. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 30(7). doi: 10.1142/S0218001416590199
  19. Jović S, Radović A, Šarkoćević Ž, Petković D, Alizamir M (2016b) Estimation of the laser cutting operating cost by support vector regression methodology. Appl Phys A 122(9):798Google Scholar
  20. Keila PS, Skillicorn DB (2005) Detecting unusual email communication. In: CASCON 2005, pp 117–125Google Scholar
  21. Kisi O, Shiri J, Karimi S, Shamshirband S, Motamedi S, Petković D, Hashim R (2015) A survey of water level fluctuation predicting in Urmia Lake using support vector machine with firefly algorithm. Appl Math Comput 270:731–743Google Scholar
  22. Mihalcea R, Strapparava C (2009) The lie detector: explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. In: Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP, ACL-IJCNLP. Suntec, Singapore, pp 309–312Google Scholar
  23. Mohammadi K, Shamshirband S, Anisi MH, Alam KA, Petković D (2015) Support vector regression based prediction of global solar radiation on a horizontal surface. Energy Convers Manag 91:433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mohammadi K, Shamshirband S, Tong CW, Arif M, Petković D, Ch S (2015) A new hybrid support vector machine–wavelet transform approach for estimation of horizontal global solar radiation. Energy Convers Manag 92:162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newman ML, Pennebaker JW, Berry DS, Richards JM (2003) Lying words: predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 29(5):665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olatomiwa L, Mekhilef S, Shamshirband S, Petkovic D (2015) Potential of support vector regression for solar radiation prediction in Nigeria. Nat Hazards 77(2):1055–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olatomiwa L, Mekhilef S, Shamshirband S, Mohammadi K, Petković D, Sudheer C (2015) A support vector machine–firefly algorithm-based model for global solar radiation prediction. Solar Energy 115:632–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ott M, Choi Y, Cardie C, Hancock JT (2011) Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In: Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, Portland, Oregon, pp 309–319Google Scholar
  29. Pennebaker JW, Chung CK, Ireland M, Gonzales A, Booth RJ (2007) The development and psychometric properties of liwc2007. LIWC.Net, AustinGoogle Scholar
  30. Pérez-Rosas V, Mihalcea R (2014a) Cross-cultural deception detection. In: Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pp 440–445Google Scholar
  31. Pérez-Rosas V, Mihalcea R (2014b) Gender differences in deceivers writing style. 2014. In: 13th Mexican international conference on artificial intelligence. Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, México, pp 163–174Google Scholar
  32. Petković D, Shamshirband S, Saboohi H, Ang TF, Anuar NB, Pavlović ND (2014) Support vector regression methodology for prediction of input displacement of adaptive compliant robotic gripper. Appl Intell 41(3):887–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petković D, Shamshirband S, Saboohi H, Ang TF, Anuar NB, Rahman ZA, Pavlović NT (2014b) Evaluation of modulation transfer function of optical lens system by support vector regression methodologies–a comparative study. Infrared Phys Technol 65:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piri J, Shamshirband S, Petković D, Tong CW, ur Rehman MH (2015) Prediction of the solar radiation on the Earth using support vector regression technique. Infrared Phys Technol 68:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Protić M, Shamshirband S, Petković D et al (2015) Forecasting of consumers heat load in district heating systems using the support vector machine with a discrete wavelet transform algorithm. Energy 87:343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schelleman-Offermans K, Merckelbach H (2010) Fantasy proneness as a confounder of verbal lie detection tools. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 7:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shamshirband S, Mohammadi K, Khorasanizadeh H, Yee L, Lee M, Petković D, Zalnezhad E (2016) Estimating the diffuse solar radiation using a coupled support vector machine–wavelet transform model. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 56:428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shamshirband S, Petković D, Amini A et al (2014) Support vector regression methodology for wind turbine reaction torque prediction with power-split hydrostatic continuous variable transmission. Energy 67:623–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shamshirband S, Petković D, Javidnia H, Gani A (2015) Sensor data fusion by support vector regression methodology—a comparative study. IEEE Sens J 15(2):850–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shamshirband S, Petković D, Pavlović NT, Ch S, Altameem TA, Gani A (2015) Support vector machine firefly algorithm based optimization of lens system. Appl Opt 54(1):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shamshirband S, Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Yee L, Petković D (2016b) Support vector machine-based exergetic modelling of a DI diesel engine running on biodiesel-diesel blends containing expanded polystyrene. Appl Therm Eng 94:727–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shenify M, Danesh AS, Gocić M, Taher RS et al (2016) Precipitation estimation using support vector machine with discrete wavelet transform. Water Resour Manag 30(2):641–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Toma CL, Hancock JT (2012) What lies beneath: the linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. J Commun 62:78–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Twitchell DP, Nunamaker JF Jr, Burgoon JK (2004) Using speech act profiling for deception detection. In: Intelligence and security informatics: second symposium on intelligence and security informatics, ISI 2004, pp 403–410Google Scholar
  45. Williams SM, Talwar V, Lindsay RCL, Bala N, Lee K (2014) Is the truth in your words? Distinguishing children’s deceptive and truthful statements. J Criminol 2014:547519. doi: 10.1155/2014/547519
  46. Xu Q, Zhao H (2012) Using deep linguistic features for finding deceptive opinion spam. In: Proceedings of COOLING, pp 1341–1350Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Center for Computing Research CIC-IPNMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Informatique de Paris Nord, CNRS (UMR 7030)Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris CitéVilletaneuseFrance

Personalised recommendations