journal article·2026-04-28Open access

Benchmarking Sparse and Dense Models for Deception Detection in Negotiation: A Context-Aware and Imbalance-Sensitive Approach

Jae-Uk Kim, Beom Jun Go, Hwan Soo Yu, Soo Young Cho

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 9

Abstract

Automatic detection of deceptive intent in negotiation dialogue remains difficult because deceptive utterances are rare, context-dependent, and pragmatically subtle. This study develops a deployment-oriented evaluation pipeline for negotiation analytics using the Diplomacy corpus and compares sparse, dense, and imbalance-aware neural models under a unified protocol. The pipeline integrates context-window benchmarking, validation-based threshold selection, 10-seed robustness analysis, model-agnostic explanation case studies, and controlled perturbation stress tests. Across binary speaker-intention and receiver-perception tasks, contextualized inputs consistently outperform isolated utterances, confirming that deception-related interpretation is inherently sequential. The sparse term frequency–inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) model remains the strongest and most efficient overall benchmark, whereas stronger imbalance-aware neural baselines can improve minority deceptive-instance sensitivity at substantially higher computational cost. Error analysis further shows that socially mediated deception-quadrant prediction is markedly harder than direct binary in-tent prediction, with many failures collapsing toward majority straightforward cases. Controlled perturbation tests show that sparse modeling is especially stable under light-weight surface corruption, while neural robustness remains architecture-dependent. The main contribution is therefore a practical decision framework for selecting among efficient sparse monitoring, dense baselines, and minority-sensitive neural detection under operational constraints.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Conflict Management and Negotiation · Deception detection and forensic psychology · Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Game Studies, Kwangwoon University, Seoul 01897, Republic of Korea

Game Department, Kwangwoon University, Seoul 01897, Republic of Korea

Defense Acquisition Program, Kwangwoon University, Seoul 01897, Republic of Korea

Funding

Kwangwoon University

References (60)

Show source-provided references
1. The presentation of self in everyday life
2. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Speech Acts, Brill.10.1163/9789004368811_003 ↗
3. Brown, P. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085 ↗
4. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313 ↗
5. Myerson, R.B. (2013). Game Theory, Harvard University Press.10.2307/j.ctvjsf522 ↗
6. Osborne, M.J., and Rubinstein, A. (1994). A Course in Game Theory, MIT Press.
7. Raiffa, H. (1985). The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press.
8. Progress in behavioral game theory10.1257/jep.11.4.167 ↗
9. Ekman, P. (2009). Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace Politics and Marriage, WW Norton & Company.
10. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, John Wiley & Sons.
11. Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles10.1177/0146167203029005010 ↗
12. Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communications10.1023/B:GRUP.0000011944.62889.6f ↗
13. On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication10.1080/01638530701739181 ↗
14. Mihalcea, R., and Strapparava, C. (2009). The lie detector: Explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/1667583.1667679 ↗
15. Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., and Hancock, J.T. (2011). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Association for Computational Linguistics.
16. Syntactic stylometry for deception detection
17. What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x ↗
18. Pérez-Rosas, V., Abouelenien, M., Mihalcea, R., Xiao, Y., Linton, C., and Burzo, M. (2015). Verbal and nonverbal clues for real-life deception detection. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/D15-1281 ↗
19. Vargas, F., Jonas, D.A., Rabinovich, Z., Benevenuto, F., and Pardo, T. (2022). Rhetorical structure approach for online deception detection: A survey. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.63317/3o29j39w7jcz ↗
20. Velutharambath, A., and Klinger, R. (2023). UNIDECOR: A unified deception corpus for cross-corpus deception detection. Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, & Social Media Analysis, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/2023.wassa-1.5 ↗
21. To tell the truth: Language of deception and language models
22. Lewis, M., Yarats, D., Dauphin, Y., Parikh, D., and Batra, D. (2017). Deal or no deal? End-to-end learning of negotiation dialogues. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/D17-1259 ↗
23. He, H., Chen, D., Balakrishnan, A., and Liang, P. (2018). Decoupling strategy and generation in negotiation dialogues. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/D18-1256 ↗
24. Chawla, K., Ramirez, J., Clever, R., Lucas, G., May, J., and Gratch, J. (2021). Casino: A corpus of campsite negotiation dialogues for automatic negotiation systems. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.254 ↗
25. Kwon, D., Hae, J., Clift, E., Shamsoddini, D., Gratch, J., and Lucas, G. (2025). ASTRA: A Negotiation Agent with Adaptive and Strategic Reasoning via Tool-integrated Action for Dynamic Offer Optimization. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.821 ↗
26. Park, J., Rahman, H.A., Suh, J., and Hussin, H. (2019). A study of integrative bargaining model with argumentation-based negotiation. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11236832 ↗
27. Linguistic harbingers of betrayal: A case study on an online strategy game
28. Peskov, D., Cheng, B., Elgohary, A., Barrow, J., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., and Boyd-Graber, J. (2020). It takes two to lie: One to lie, and one to listen. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.353 ↗
29. Meta Fundamental AI Research Diplomacy Team (FAIR), Bakhtin, A., Brown, N., Dinan, E., Farina, G., Flaherty, C., Fried, D., Goff, A., Gray, J., and Hu, H. (2022). Human-level play in the game of diplomacy by combining language models with strategic reasoning. Science, 378, 1067–1074.10.1126/science.ade9097 ↗
30. More victories, less cooperation: Assessing cicero’s diplomacy play10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.672 ↗
31. Wongkamjan, W., Wang, Y., Gu, F., Peskoff, D., Kummerfeld, J.K., May, J., and Boyd-Graber, J.L. (2025). Should I Trust You? Detecting Deception in Negotiations using Counterfactual RL. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1287 ↗
32. Chang, J.P., Chiam, C., Fu, L., Wang, A., Zhang, J., and Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C. (2020). Convokit: A toolkit for the analysis of conversations. Proceedings of the 21th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/2020.sigdial-1.8 ↗
33. Attention is all you need
34. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding
35. Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., and Stoyanov, V. (2019). Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv.
36. Reimers, N., and Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/D19-1410 ↗
37. Language models are few-shot learners
38. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., and Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv.
39. Pennington, J., Socher, R., and Manning, C.D. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/v1/D14-1162 ↗
40. Thorstan, J. (1998). Text categorization with support vector machines: Learning with many relevant features. Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
41. Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval10.1016/0306-4573(88)90021-0 ↗
42. Baselines and bigrams: Simple, good sentiment and topic classification
43. An extensive empirical study of feature selection metrics for text classification
44. Aggarwal, C.C. (2015). Mining text data. Data Mining: The Textbook, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-14142-8 ↗
45. Davis, J., and Goadrich, M. (2006, January 25–29). The relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC curves. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.10.1145/1143844.1143874 ↗
46. Saito, T., and Rehmsmeier, M. (2015). The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets. PLoS ONE, 10.10.1371/journal.pone.0118432 ↗
47. Elkan, C. (2001). The foundations of cost-sensitive learning. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
48. Lipton, Z.C., Elkan, C., and Narayanaswamy, B. (2014). Thresholding classifiers to maximize F1 score. arXiv.10.1007/978-3-662-44851-9_15 ↗
49. Chicco, D., and Jurman, G. (2020). The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary classification evaluation. BMC Genom., 21.10.1186/s12864-019-6413-7 ↗
50. Powers, D.M.W. (2020). Evaluation: From precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. arXiv.
51. Lin, T.-Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., and Dollár, P. (2017). Focal loss for dense object detection. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, IEEE.10.1109/ICCV.2017.324 ↗
52. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). “Why should I trust you?” Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
53. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions
54. Molnar, C. (2020). Interpretable Machine Learning, Lulu. com.
55. A computational approach to politeness with application to social factors
56. Rashkin, H., Choi, E., Jang, J.Y., Volkova, S., and Choi, Y. (2017). Truth of varying shades: Analyzing language in fake news and political fact-checking. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/D17-1317 ↗
57. Austin, J.L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words, Harvard University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 ↗
58. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University.10.1017/CBO9781139173438 ↗
59. Thompson, L.L. (2020). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, Pearson Education.
60. Jurafsky, D., and Martin, J.H. (2000). Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition, Prentice Hall PTR.