Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

AFFAKT: A Hierarchical Optimal Transport based Method for Affective Facial Knowledge Transfer in Video Deception Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AFFAKT transfers facial-expression knowledge to improve video deception detection under scarce labels.

desk verdict AFFAKT is a genuine OT-transfer recipe for deception detection with strong RTL gains, but the audio/fused improvements and the 'affective knowledge' mechanism need an ablation that removes or shuffles source semantics before the claim is fully trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08965 v1 pith:WGQVRJBA submitted 2024-12-12 cs.CV cs.AI

Zihan Ji , Xuetao Tian , Ye Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords videodeceptiondetectionoptimaltransportknowledgetransferfacialexpressionrecognitionaffectivecomputinghierarchicalmultimodallow-resourcelearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Video deception detection suffers from a shortage of large labeled datasets. To overcome this, AFFAKT borrows knowledge from large facial expression recognition datasets, reasoning that expressions carry cues to deception. The paper's central claim is that a hierarchical optimal transport plan between facial expression classes and deception samples can decide how much knowledge each expression category should contribute to each target sample, and that a momentum-updated correlation prototype can stabilize this mapping at test time. On the RTL and DOLOS deception benchmarks, the method reports the best F1, accuracy, and AUC among the compared methods across visual, audio, and fused modalities. A learned prototype shows that deceptive samples align more strongly with sadness and fear, while truthful samples align with happiness, matching psychological findings.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-level, entropy-regularized optimal transport scheme. Low-level OT solves, for each source expression class, a transport plan between target samples and individual source samples using a cosine cost; these per-class OT distances form the cost matrix for high-level OT, whose solution T is the correlation mapping between expression classes and deception samples. Equation (6) turns T into transferred features by weighting class-mean source features, and equation (7) fuses them with target features under a curriculum-controlled weight. The SRKB module adds a momentum-updated prototype B, one row per target class, and a sample-specific reweighting rule that replaces or blends a noisy transport plan with the prototype during testing. Together these components carry the argument that the amount and the use of transferred affective knowledge can both be learned rather than hand-set.

What would settle it

Retrain AFFAKT after randomly permuting the facial-expression class labels attached to the source features, or after replacing source features with noise of the same dimension; if accuracy on RTL or DOLOS stays close to the reported values, the performance gain comes from the optimal transport machinery rather than from expression semantics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that facial expression data, despite having a different label space and feature distribution, can be a useful auxiliary source for deception detection when the amount of labeled deception data is small. The core procedure is H-OTKT: low-level optimal transport computes a per-class cost between each target sample and individual source samples, and high-level optimal transport uses these costs to solve for a transport plan T that assigns each deception sample a weight over expression classes. Those weights produce transferred features as weighted class centroids, which are fused with the target features through a curriculum-weighted sum. A second module, SRKB, maintains a momentum-updated correlation prototype B for truthful and deceptive classes and, at inference, re-weights the estimated transport plan toward this prototype when the plan's standard deviation is too small to be trusted. On the visual RTL benchmark with DFEW, a large in-the-wild facial expression dataset, as source, AFFAKT reports F1 0.8760, accuracy 0.8670, and AUC 0.8789, and it reports the best average results among the compared methods on both datasets and modalities.

Load-bearing premise

The whole transfer rests on the assumption that one learned linear projection makes facial-expression and deception-video features similar enough that cosine-based optimal transport between them reflects real affective correspondence, including when the source is visual and the target is audio.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If AFFAKT's central claim is correct, a large facial expression corpus can serve as a practical knowledge source for deception detection even when target labels are scarce.
  • The transfer works not only within the visual modality but also from visual expression features to audio deception features, suggesting cross-modal affective knowledge transfer is feasible.
  • The learned correlation prototype gives an interpretable decomposition of deceptive and truthful behavior into expression associations, offering cues for psychology-informed model design.
  • Because the method outperforms its strongest comparisons most clearly on the smaller RTL dataset, the approach is likely most valuable precisely when labeled deception data are hardest to obtain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An untested extension is whether the same hierarchical transport recipe transfers other affective source domains, such as speech emotion, to other low-resource tasks like depression or pain detection; the paper does not report such experiments.
  • The paper does not isolate how much of the gain comes from the expression semantics in the source labels versus from the optimal transport geometry; a reader should treat the semantic explanation as a hypothesis until an ablation with shuffled source labels is run.
  • Since the authors show that the choice of source encoder affects results, a practical consequence we draw is that improving source feature compactness may matter more than increasing source dataset size for this transfer scheme.
  • The cross-modal audio result uses visual source features mapped by a single linear MLP; in our reading, this is the least protected claim and the most natural stress test for the method's core assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses video deception detection under limited labeled data by transferring knowledge from large video facial expression recognition datasets. It proposes AFFAKT with two modules: H-OTKT, which computes a hierarchical optimal transport plan between target deception samples and source expression classes and uses the plan to weight class-average source features added to target features; and SRKB, which maintains a momentum-updated class-level correlation prototype and re-weights test-time transport plans using a standard-deviation threshold. The method is evaluated on RTL and DOLOS for visual, audio, and fused modalities, using DFEW, FERV39K, and MAFW as source domains, with ablation, sensitivity, and interpretability analyses. The central claim is that transferring facial-expression knowledge through this scheme improves deception detection across all reported settings and outperforms the comparison methods, including PECL, FreeLunch, ADC, and Cr-KD-NCD.

Significance. If the empirical claim holds, the paper offers a useful and reasonably interpretable way to exploit large affective datasets for a small-sample task, and the reported fold-level standard deviations and ablations are commendable. The modular description is clear, the code is promised, and the learned correlation prototypes broadly align with prior psychological findings, which adds credibility to the visual-modality results. The main unresolved issue is whether the audio and fused improvements are due to semantic expression knowledge or to learned re-mapping and added capacity; this needs a source-content ablation before the central transfer claim can be fully accepted. The missing value of the entropic regularization parameter and the absence of a stated model-selection protocol also weaken reproducibility and the strength of the empirical comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (2), (3), (5) and Experimental Settings] The entropic regularization coefficient ε appears in the Sinkhorn problems in Eqs. (2), (3), and (5) and directly determines the low-level and high-level transport plans T_low,k and T, which in turn determine Xtrans and the correlation prototype B in Eq. (12). However, ε is never reported in the main text or the appendix. Without this value, including any schedule or per-source/per-modality settings, the results in Tables 1 and 5 are not reproducible, and the sensitivity of the method to this central parameter is unknown. Please report ε for all source–target–modality combinations and add a sensitivity analysis for it.
  2. [Eqs. (3)–(7), Table 5(b,c), and appendix Interpretability Studies] The load-bearing claim that transferred features carry facial-expression semantics is not established for the audio and fused modalities. In Eqs. (3)–(6), Xs are visual MAE-DFER embeddings, while for the audio experiments Xt are W2V2 audio embeddings; a single linear layer F1 is expected to align these heterogeneous spaces before cosine-based OT costs are computed, and Xtrans in Eq. (6) can act as a learned sample-dependent bias if F2 absorbs the mismatch. The appendix itself states that the visual/audio modality discrepancy 'hinders the establishment of the relationship,' and the ablation in Table 2 shows that H-OTKT alone decreases accuracy on several audio and fused conditions. No experiment replaces or shuffles the source features to verify that the semantic content of the expression classes, rather than the added capacity of F2 or the OT reweighting mechanism, is responsible for the gains in Table 5(b,c). Please add a source-semantics ablation, for example random source features, permuted expression labels, or a matched audio emotion source, and report whether the audio and fused improvements persist.
  3. [Experimental Settings and Sensitive Analyses] The hyperparameters ξ, ν, η, and α are set differently across datasets and modalities (for example, ξ=0.5 for RLT audio but 0.2 for visual and fused, and ν=0.05 versus 0.1 in different conditions), but the paper does not describe the model-selection protocol, and the sensitivity analysis in Fig. 5 is run only for RLT under the visual modality. Consequently, the reader cannot determine whether the reported improvements come from the method itself or from per-dataset/per-modality tuning on the test folds. Please specify how each hyperparameter was chosen, ideally through a validation split within each cross-validation fold, and provide sensitivity results for the audio and fused settings and for DOLOS, or demonstrate that the fixed settings transfer across conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The dataset name is written inconsistently as RLT in some tables and RTL in the text; please standardize the abbreviation.
  2. [After Eq. (7)] The curriculum-learning schedule for ξ′ is ambiguous as printed: it appears as ξ′ = ξ 2 × (1 − cos(e−1 Ne × π)) with unclear fraction and exponent. Please rewrite the formula with explicit parentheses and define e.
  3. [Experiments, Ablation Studies] There are typographical errors such as 'resutls', 'donated' for 'denoted', and 'Tranfer' in Figure 3; these should be corrected.
  4. [Table 5] The standard deviations are reported across folds only, with no random seeds or repeated runs; a sentence clarifying that the reported variance is fold-to-fold and not run-to-run would prevent over-interpretation of the ± values.
  5. [Appendix, Eq. (5)] The logistic-regression importance weights p_j^k in the low-level OT are mentioned but never described; please state what features and labels are used and whether the logistic regressors are trained on the source domain or reused from prior work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained and the reported gains are empirical comparisons against external baselines.

full rationale

AFFAKT's core pipeline is not circular. The transport plan T in Eqs. (3)-(6) is computed from cosine-similarity costs between target features and source expression class features, and the transferred feature Xtrans is a weighted combination of source class centroids; neither quantity is defined in terms of the target deception label or the model's own prediction. The correlation prototype B in Eq. (12) is updated with ground-truth target labels during training, which is standard supervised learning rather than a label-derived prediction being resold as an independent output. The Sinkhorn divergence loss in Eq. (10) aligns mapped target features to source features, but this is an optimization objective, not an input-output tautology. The paper also compares against external methods (FreeLunch, ADC, PECL, Cr-KD-NCD) and reports ablations (Case A-D) that show incremental contributions of H-OTKT and SRKB; these are empirical claims, not circular ones. The interpretability analysis is post hoc and therefore not independent confirmation, and the cross-modal audio case rests on an unverified assumption that a linear map makes visual source embeddings semantically comparable to audio target embeddings. Those are correctness or evidence-threat concerns, not circularity: no equation in the derivation reduces to its own output, and no load-bearing premise is justified solely by a self-citation chain. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the correlation prototype B is a learned parameter of the method. The central claim rests on several domain assumptions about the deception-expression link and feature-space alignment, plus five tuned hyperparameters, one of which is unreported.

free parameters (5)
  • xi (transfer weight) = 0.5 (RLT audio), 0.2 (RLT visual/fused, DOLOS all)
    Controls fusion of transferred features in Eq. (7); tuned via sensitivity analysis per dataset and modality.
  • nu (SRKB threshold) = 0.05 (RLT visual/fused), 0.1 (RLT audio, DOLOS all)
    Determines when T_i is treated as invalid in Eq. (13); tuned per dataset and modality.
  • eta (Sinkhorn divergence loss weight) = 0.01
    Regularization weight in Eq. (11); chosen from sensitivity analysis.
  • alpha (momentum factor) = 0.95
    Momentum factor in Eq. (12); set after sensitivity analysis, with 0.9 and 0.95 performing best.
  • epsilon (entropic regularization) = not reported
    Appears in Eqs. (2), (3), and (5); no value or sensitivity analysis is given, yet it directly shapes the transport plans.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Deception is systematically related to facial expressions
    Motivates the entire transfer approach; cited from psychology literature in the Introduction.
  • domain assumption A pre-trained facial expression encoder provides features whose class centroids are informative for deception
    Used to build source distributions Q_k in H-OTKT; the paper probes this with a Former-DFER ablation but does not prove transferability.
  • ad hoc to paper Cosine similarity in the MLP-mapped feature space is a valid cost for OT between source and target distributions
    All cost matrices M and M_low,k use 1 - cosine(...); if the spaces are not aligned, the OT plan is meaningless, especially for the audio modality.
  • ad hoc to paper The standard deviation of T_i indicates whether the transport plan is valid
    SRKB's reweighting in Eq. (13) relies on this heuristic; no theoretical or empirical justification is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AFFAKT: A Hierarchical Optimal Transport based Method for Affective Facial Knowledge Transfer in Video Deception Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WGQVRJBA

@misc{pith2026241208965,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AFFAKT: A Hierarchical Optimal Transport based Method for Affective Facial Knowledge Transfer in Video Deception Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WGQVRJBA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08965}
}
read the original abstract

The scarcity of high-quality large-scale labeled datasets poses a huge challenge for employing deep learning models in video deception detection. To address this issue, inspired by the psychological theory on the relation between deception and expressions, we propose a novel method called AFFAKT in this paper, which enhances the classification performance by transferring useful and correlated knowledge from a large facial expression dataset. Two key challenges in knowledge transfer arise: 1) \textit{how much} knowledge of facial expression data should be transferred and 2) \textit{how to} effectively leverage transferred knowledge for the deception classification model during inference. Specifically, the optimal relation mapping between facial expression classes and deception samples is firstly quantified using proposed H-OTKT module and then transfers knowledge from the facial expression dataset to deception samples. Moreover, a correlation prototype within another proposed module SRKB is well designed to retain the invariant correlations between facial expression classes and deception classes through momentum updating. During inference, the transferred knowledge is fine-tuned with the correlation prototype using a sample-specific re-weighting strategy. Experimental results on two deception detection datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed method. The interpretability study reveals high associations between deception and negative affections, which coincides with the theory in psychology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08965 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ACC and loss remain unchanged after 30 epochs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Source features are extracted by a pre-trained encoder in advance. (b) The pipeline of our proposed AFFAKT. Four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. H-OTKT module. It formulates the relation map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SRKB module. (a) Training phase: B is momentum updated to maintain the invariant knowledge of each target class relation with source classes; (b) Testing phase, SRKB module uses the learned B and sample-specific re-weighting strategy to enhance the detection performanc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sensitive analysis results on RLT dataset under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    K.; and Al-Talabani, A

    Abdul, Z. K.; and Al-Talabani, A. K. 2022. Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficient and its Applications: A Review. IEEE Access, 10: 122136--122158

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    L.; and Pannone, D

    Avola, D.; Cinque, L.; Foresti, G. L.; and Pannone, D. 2019. Automatic deception detection in rgb videos using facial action units. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Distributed Smart Cameras, 1--6

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Baevski, A.; Zhou, Y.; Mohamed, A.; and Auli, M. 2020. wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 12449--12460

    2020

  6. [6]

    C.; and Morency, L.-P

    Baltrusaitis, T.; Zadeh, A.; Lim, Y. C.; and Morency, L.-P. 2018. Openface 2.0: Facial behavior analysis toolkit. In 2018 13th IEEE international conference on automatic face & gesture recognition (FG 2018), 59--66. IEEE

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Borza, D.; Itu, R.; and Danescu, R. 2018. In the Eye of the Deceiver: Analyzing Eye Movements as a Cue to Deception. Journal of Imaging, 4(10)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Chebbi, S.; and Jebara, S. B. 2023. Deception detection using multimodal fusion approaches. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(9): 13073--13102

    work page 2023

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    F.; and Huang, J.-B

    Chen, W.-Y.; Liu, Y.-C.; Kira, Z.; Wang, Y.-C. F.; and Huang, J.-B. 2019. A closer look at few-shot classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.04232

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cuturi, M. 2013. Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed computation of optimal transport. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26

    2013

  3. [11]

    M.; Lindsay, J

    DePaulo, B. M.; Lindsay, J. J.; Malone, B. E.; Muhlenbruck, L.; Charlton, K.; and Cooper, H. 2003. Cues to deception. Psychological bulletin, 129(1): 74

    2003

  4. [12]

    Ding, M.; Zhao, A.; Lu, Z.; Xiang, T.; and Wen, J.-R. 2019. Face-Focused Cross-Stream Network for Deception Detection in Videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Eyben, F.; W \"o llmer, M.; and Schuller, B. 2010. Opensmile: the munich versatile and fast open-source audio feature extractor. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on Multimedia, 1459--1462

    2010

  7. [15]

    Feydy, J.; S \'e journ \'e , T.; Vialard, F.-X.; Amari, S.-i.; Trouv \'e , A.; and Peyr \'e , G. 2019. Interpolating between optimal transport and mmd using sinkhorn divergences. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2681--2690. PMLR

    2019

  8. [16]

    Gogate, M.; Adeel, A.; and Hussain, A. 2017. Deep learning driven multimodal fusion for automated deception detection. In 2017 IEEE symposium series on computational intelligence (SSCI), 1--6. IEEE

    2017

  9. [17]

    Graves, A.; and Graves, A. 2012. Long short-term memory. Supervised sequence labelling with recurrent neural networks, 37--45

    2012

  10. [18]

    Gu, P.; Zhang, C.; Xu, R.; and He, X. 2023. Class-relation knowledge distillation for novel class discovery. lamp, 12(15.0): 17--5

    2023

  11. [19]

    Guo, D.; Tian, L.; Zhao, H.; Zhou, M.; and Zha, H. 2022. Adaptive distribution calibration for few-shot learning with hierarchical optimal transport. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 6996--7010

    2022

  12. [20]

    M.; Yu, Z.; Kong, A

    Guo, X.; Selvaraj, N. M.; Yu, Z.; Kong, A. W.-K.; Shen, B.; and Kot, A. 2023. Audio-Visual Deception Detection: DOLOS Dataset and Parameter-Efficient Crossmodal Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 22135--22145

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hauch, V.; Bland \'o n-Gitlin, I.; Masip, J.; and Sporer, S. L. 2015. Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and social psychology Review, 19(4): 307--342

    2015

  14. [22]

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770--778

    2016

  15. [23]

    Houlsby, N.; Giurgiu, A.; Jastrzebski, S.; Morrone, B.; De Laroussilhe, Q.; Gesmundo, A.; Attariyan, M.; and Gelly, S. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2790--2799. PMLR

    2019

  16. [24]

    Hsiao, S.-W.; and Sun, C.-Y. 2022. Attention-Aware Multi-modal RNN for Deception Detection. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 3593--3596. IEEE

    2022

  17. [25]

    J.; Shen, Y.; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; and Chen, W

    Hu, E. J.; Shen, Y.; Wallis, P.; Allen-Zhu, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; and Chen, W. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jaiswal, M.; Tabibu, S.; and Bajpai, R. 2016. The truth and nothing but the truth: Multimodal analysis for deception detection. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), 938--943. IEEE

    2016

  19. [27]

    Jiang, X.; Zong, Y.; Zheng, W.; Tang, C.; Xia, W.; Lu, C.; and Liu, J. 2020. Dfew: A large-scale database for recognizing dynamic facial expressions in the wild. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on multimedia, 2881--2889

    2020

  20. [28]

    Karnati, M.; Seal, A.; Yazidi, A.; and Krejcar, O. 2022. LieNet: A Deep Convolution Neural Network Framework for Detecting Deception. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 14(3): 971--984

    2022

  21. [29]

    Krishnamurthy, G.; Majumder, N.; Poria, S.; and Cambria, E. 2018. A Deep Learning Approach for Multimodal Deception Detection. In Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics

    2018

  22. [30]

    Kumar, M.; Packer, B.; and Koller, D. 2010. Self-paced learning for latent variable models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 23

    2010

  23. [31]

    Laine, S.; and Aila, T. 2016. Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02242

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Le, M. T. 2016. Language of low-stakes and high-stakes deception : differences within individuals. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia

    2016

  25. [33]

    Lee, J.; Dabagia, M.; Dyer, E.; and Rozell, C. 2019. Hierarchical optimal transport for multimodal distribution alignment. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  26. [34]

    Liu, Y.; Dai, W.; Feng, C.; Wang, W.; Yin, G.; Zeng, J.; and Shan, S. 2022. MAFW: A Large-scale, Multi-modal, Compound Affective Database for Dynamic Facial Expression Recognition in the Wild. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 24--32

    2022

  27. [35]

    Mathur, L.; and Matari \'c , M. J. 2020. Introducing representations of facial affect in automated multimodal deception detection. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, 305--314

    2020

  28. [36]

    R.; Scherer, S.; and Levitan, R

    Morales, M. R.; Scherer, S.; and Levitan, R. 2017. OpenMM: An Open-Source Multimodal Feature Extraction Tool. In INTERSPEECH, 3354--3358

    2017

  29. [37]

    T.; and Luu, A

    Nguyen, T. T.; and Luu, A. T. 2022. Improving neural cross-lingual abstractive summarization via employing optimal transport distance for knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 11103--11111

    2022

  30. [38]

    Paszke, A.; Gross, S.; Chintala, S.; Chanan, G.; Yang, E.; DeVito, Z.; Lin, Z.; Desmaison, A.; Antiga, L.; and Lerer, A. 2017. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch

    2017

  31. [39]

    P \'e rez-Rosas, V.; Abouelenien, M.; Mihalcea, R.; and Burzo, M. 2015. Deception detection using real-life trial data. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on international conference on multimodal interaction, 59--66

    2015

  32. [40]

    Peyr \'e , G.; and Cuturi, M. 2019. Computational Optimal Transport. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 11(5-6): 355--607

    2019

  33. [41]

    Rill-Garc \' a, R.; Jair Escalante, H.; Villasenor-Pineda, L.; and Reyes-Meza, V. 2019. High-level features for multimodal deception detection in videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 0--0

    2019

  34. [42]

    U.; Perez-Rosas, V.; Yanikoglu, B.; Abouelenien, M.; Burzo, M.; and Mihalcea, R

    S en, M. U.; Perez-Rosas, V.; Yanikoglu, B.; Abouelenien, M.; Burzo, M.; and Mihalcea, R. 2020. Multimodal deception detection using real-life trial data. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 13(1): 306--319

    2020

  35. [43]

    Sun, L.; Lian, Z.; Liu, B.; and Tao, J. 2023. Mae-dfer: Efficient masked autoencoder for self-supervised dynamic facial expression recognition. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 6110--6121

    2023

  36. [44]

    M.; Rosso, P.; and Stamatatos, E

    Sánchez-Junquera, J.; Villaseñor-Pineda, L.; y Gómez, M. M.; Rosso, P.; and Stamatatos, E. 2020. Masking domain-specific information for cross-domain deception detection. Pattern Recognition Letters, 135: 122--130

    2020

  37. [45]

    Tong, Z.; Song, Y.; Wang, J.; and Wang, L. 2022. Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre-training. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 10078--10093

    2022

  38. [46]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  39. [47]

    Wang, H.; Xu, M.; Ni, B.; and Zhang, W. 2020. Learning to combine: Knowledge aggregation for multi-source domain adaptation. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VIII 16, 727--744. Springer

    2020

  40. [48]

    Wang, X.; Chen, Y.; and Zhu, W. 2021. A survey on curriculum learning. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(9): 4555--4576

    2021

  41. [49]

    Wang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Huang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Gao, S.; Zhang, W.; Ge, W.; and Zhang, W. 2022. Ferv39k: A large-scale multi-scene dataset for facial expression recognition in videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 20922--20931

    2022

  42. [50]

    Yang, J.-T.; Liu, G.-M.; and C-H Huang, S. 2021. Multimodal Deception Detection in Videos via Analyzing Emotional State-based Feature. arXiv e-prints, arXiv--2104

    2021

  43. [51]

    Yang, S.; Liu, L.; and Xu, M. 2021. Free Lunch for Few-shot Learning: Distribution Calibration. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  44. [52]

    Zhang, H.; Ding, Y.; Cao, L.; Wang, X.; and Feng, L. 2022. Fine-Grained Question-Level Deception Detection via Graph-Based Learning and Cross-Modal Fusion. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 17: 2452--2467

    2022

  45. [53]

    Zhao, Z.; and Liu, Q. 2021. Former-dfer: Dynamic facial expression recognition transformer. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 1553--1561

    2021

  46. [54]

    Zloteanu, M. 2020. Reconsidering facial expressions and deception detection. Handbook of facial expression of emotion, 3: 238--284

    2020

  47. [55]

    M.; and Rosenthal, R

    Zuckerman, M.; DePaulo, B. M.; and Rosenthal, R. 1981. Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Deception. volume 14 of Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1--59. Academic Press

    1981

  48. [56]

    Zuckerman, M.; and Driver, R. E. 2014. Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior, 129--147. Psychology Press

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.