This isn't a polygraph. The article calls it a lie detector and we call polygraph tests lie detectors but the claimed mechanism here is a bit different.
I'm not for it, but it's not a polygraph as described.
AFAIK we don't have a single reliable mechanism of action to reliably detect lying. ML won't change that - without a known mechanism of action, how can you define reliable features to train on?
Heck, the concept of lying itself is a philosophical minefield. No way they solved that. This thing, as stated in the article, just relies on physiological indicators and muscular activity. So it is a polygraph with a shiny layer of buzzwords sprayed on.
All in all, just another worrying piece of news from Hungary.
They don't really need to detect lying, they need to detect deception. Which is different, and, I'm pretty sure, possible to detect in most cases with advanced enough technology.
No offense, but you have no background in science/logic, do you? Of course I didn't say that. One cannot prove that something doesn't exist. That's why I didn't write it.
Please take a step back and look at all the replies to you. They all essentially say the same: We don't know of any reliably objective measurement for measuring lying. Humans can sometimes do that intuitively, yes, but to my knowledge there hasn't been a single successful attempt of a generalization of detection. That's why state of the art means using trained humans, like the airport security in Israel.
Without a mechanism to detect lying without using humans, no amount of statistics (which ML boils down to) can help you. ML can't change the fact that you don't know if the data point is a signal or just noise. Without knowing what the signals look like, ML can't calculate the noise away.
Even simpler: For ML you need a dataset with people lying and people saying the thruth. That's what you train the model on. But we have no way of building that dataset, because, to my knowledge, we don't have a way to reliably build up this dataset: We can't reliably detect if someone is lying.
This is an interesting article[1], the opinion of the author is that no reliable studies have been conducted as to if humans can detect deceit at all. He is skeptical that machines can deduce deceit using micro expressions.
Quote: "Looking for cues to deception merely from ephemeral facial micro-expressions is questionable and likely fruitless. Micro gestures may be indicative of internal emotional turmoil that is being suppressed, but that is it. The distinguished Paul Ekman, who in fact coined the term micro - expression has stated in his book Telling Lies that micro expressions are rare and they "don't occur that often" (Ekman 1985, 131, 165). Plus as others have said, there is no single behavior indicative of deception (Matsumoto et. al., 2011, 1-4). I am concerned that machines that focus solely on the face will no doubt miss other information from the body (sweating, jittery hand, etc.) or generate lots of false positives because negative emotions abound especially where such machines are intended such as airports (stress of travel, stress of being subjected to searches, or inconvenient interviews, etc) or in a police setting."
After this poor person getting downvoted six levels deep while asking reasonable questions, finally a comment that answers the question. I was wondering the same thing as u/bufferoverflow: sure, polygraphs don't work, but I've never heard of microexpressions being pseudoscience before. Everyone acts as if it's a given that whatever possible lie detector you come up with, it has to be snakeoil.
I'm not for it, but it's not a polygraph as described.