skip to main content
10.1145/3132847.3132877acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

CSI: A Hybrid Deep Model for Fake News Detection

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 November 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The topic of fake news has drawn attention both from the public and the academic communities. Such misinformation has the potential of affecting public opinion, providing an opportunity for malicious parties to manipulate the outcomes of public events such as elections. Because such high stakes are at play, automatically detecting fake news is an important, yet challenging problem that is not yet well understood. Nevertheless, there are three generally agreed upon characteristics of fake news: the text of an article, the user response it receives, and the source users promoting it. Existing work has largely focused on tailoring solutions to one particular characteristic which has limited their success and generality.

In this work, we propose a model that combines all three characteristics for a more accurate and automated prediction. Specifically, we incorporate the behavior of both parties, users and articles, and the group behavior of users who propagate fake news. Motivated by the three characteristics, we propose a model called CSI which is composed of three modules: Capture, Score, and Integrate. The first module is based on the response and text; it uses a Recurrent Neural Network to capture the temporal pattern of user activity on a given article. The second module learns the source characteristic based on the behavior of users, and the two are integrated with the third module to classify an article as fake or not. Experimental analysis on real-world data demonstrates that CSI achieves higher accuracy than existing models, and extracts meaningful latent representations of both users and articles.

References

  1. Alex Beutel, Wanhong Xu, Venkatesan Guruswami, Christopher Palow, and Christos Faloutsos. 2013. Copycatch: stopping group attacks by spotting lockstep behavior in social networks Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 119--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Carlos Castillo, Mohammed El-Haddad, Jürgen Pfeffer, and Matt Stempeck. 2014. Characterizing the life cycle of online news stories using social media reactions Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, 211--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Carlos Castillo, Marcelo Mendoza, and Barbara Poblete. 2011. Information credibility on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web. ACM, 675--684. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Nikan Chavoshi, Hossein Hamooni, and Abdullah Mueen. 2016. DeBot: Twitter Bot Detection via Warped Correlation. 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) (2016), 817--822.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Yimin Chen, Niall J Conroy, and Victoria L Rubin. 2015. Misleading online content: Recognizing clickbait as false news Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Workshop on Multimodal Deception Detection. ACM, 15--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Brett Edkins. 2016. Americans Believe They Can Detect Fake News. Studies Show They Can't. (December. 2016). www.forbes.com/sites/brettedkins/2016/12/20/americans-believe-they-can-detect-fake-news-studies-show-they-cant/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Vanessa Wei Feng and Graeme Hirst. 2013. Detecting Deceptive Opinions with Profile Compatibility. IJCNLP. 338--346.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. William Ferreira and Andreas Vlachos. 2016. Emergent: a novel data-set for stance classification Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. ACL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Adrien Friggeri, Lada A Adamic, Dean Eckles, and Justin Cheng. 2014. Rumor Cascades. ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Aditi Gupta, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Carlos Castillo, and Patrick Meier. 2014. Tweetcred: Real-time credibility assessment of content on twitter International Conference on Social Informatics. Springer, 228--243.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Michael Hüsken and Peter Stagge. 2003. Recurrent neural networks for time series classification. Neurocomputing Vol. 50 (2003), 223--235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Meng Jiang, Peng Cui, and Christos Faloutsos. 2016. Suspicious behavior detection: Current trends and future directions. IEEE Intelligent Systems Vol. 31, 1 (2016), 31--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Fang Jin, Edward Dougherty, Parang Saraf, Yang Cao, and Naren Ramakrishnan. 2013. Epidemiological modeling of news and rumors on twitter Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Social Network Mining and Analysis. ACM, 8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Srijan Kumar, Robert West, and Jure Leskovec. 2016. Disinformation on the web: Impact, characteristics, and detection of wikipedia hoaxes Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 591--602. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sejeong Kwon, Meeyoung Cha, and Kyomin Jung. 2017. Rumor Detection over Varying Time Windows. PLOS ONE, Vol. 12, 1 (2017), e0168344.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Quoc V Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents. ICML, Vol. Vol. 14. 1188--1196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Ji Young Lee and Franck Dernoncourt. 2016. Sequential short-text classification with recurrent and convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03827 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jure Leskovec, Anand Rajaraman, and Jeffrey David Ullman. 2014. Mining of massive datasets. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Gilad Lotan. 2016. Fake News Is Not the Only Problem. (November. 2016). points.datasociety.net/fake-news-is-not-the-problem-f00ec8cdfcbGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Wuqiong Luo, Wee Peng Tay, and Mei Leng. 2013. Identifying infection sources and regions in large networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing Vol. 61, 11 (2013), 2850--2865. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jing Ma, Wei Gao, Prasenjit Mitra, Sejeong Kwon, Bernard J Jansen, Kam-Fai Wong, and Meeyoung Cha. 2016. Detecting rumors from microblogs with recurrent neural networks Proceedings of IJCAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jing Ma, Wei Gao, Zhongyu Wei, Yueming Lu, and Kam-Fai Wong. 2015. Detect rumors using time series of social context information on microblogging websites Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 1751--1754. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sapa Maheshwari. 2016. How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study. (November. 2016). https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Benjamin Markines, Ciro Cattuto, and Filippo Menczer. 2009. Social spam detection Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web. ACM, 41--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. David M Markowitz and Jeffrey T Hancock. 2014. Linguistic traces of a scientific fraud: The case of Diederik Stapel. PloS one, Vol. 9, 8 (2014), e105937.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Laura McClure. 2017. How to tell fake news from real news. (January. 2017). blog.ed.ted.com/2017/01/12/how-to-tell-fake-news-from-real-news/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Krikamol Muandet and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2013. One-class support measure machines for group anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1303.0309 (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Arjun Mukherjee, Bing Liu, and Natalie Glance. 2012. Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews. Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 191--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Amela Prelić, Stefan Bleuler, Philip Zimmermann, Anja Wille, Peter Bühlmann, Wilhelm Gruissem, Lars Hennig, Lothar Thiele, and Eckart Zitzler. 2006. A systematic comparison and evaluation of biclustering methods for gene expression data. Bioinformatics, Vol. 22, 9 (2006), 1122--1129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Victoria L Rubin. 2017. Deception Detection and Rumor Debunking for Social Media. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Victoria L Rubin, Yimin Chen, and Niall J Conroy. 2015. Deception detection for news: three types of fakes. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 52, 1 (2015), 1--4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Kate Starbird, Jim Maddock, Mania Orand, Peg Achterman, and Robert M Mason. 2014. Rumors, false flags, and digital vigilantes: Misinformation on twitter after the 2013 boston marathon bombing. iConference 2014 Proceedings (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks Advances in neural information processing systems. 3104--3112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Tess Townsend. 2017. Google has banned 200 publishers since it passed a new policy against fake news. (January. 2017). www.recode.net/2017/1/25/14375750/google-adsense-advertisers-publishers-fake-newsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Onur Varol, Emilio Ferrara, Clayton A Davis, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2017. Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03107 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Di Wang and Eric Nyberg. 2015. A Long Short-Term Memory Model for Answer Sentence Selection in Question Answering. ACL (2). 707--712.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhaoxu Wang, Wenxiang Dong, Wenyi Zhang, and Chee Wei Tan. 2014. Rumor source detection with multiple observations: Fundamental limits and algorithms ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. Vol. 42. ACM, 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Ke Wu, Song Yang, and Kenny Q Zhu. 2015. False rumors detection on sina weibo by propagation structures Data Engineering (ICDE), 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on. IEEE, 651--662.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Liang Xiong, Barnabás Póczos, and Jeff G Schneider. 2011 a. Group anomaly detection using flexible genre models Advances in neural information processing systems. 1071--1079. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Liang Xiong, Barnabás Póczos, Jeff G Schneider, Andrew J Connolly, and Jake VanderPlas. 2011 b. Hierarchical Probabilistic Models for Group Anomaly Detection. AISTATS. 789--797.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose Yu, Xinran He, and Yan Liu. 2015. Glad: group anomaly detection in social media analysis. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), Vol. 10, 2 (2015), 18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Zhe Zhao, Paul Resnick, and Qiaozhu Mei. 2015. Enquiring minds: Early detection of rumors in social media from enquiry posts Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 1395--1405. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Kai Zhu and Lei Ying. 2016. Information source detection in the SIR model: A sample-path-based approach. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON) Vol. 24, 1 (2016), 408--421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. CSI: A Hybrid Deep Model for Fake News Detection

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CIKM '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
          November 2017
          2604 pages
          ISBN:9781450349185
          DOI:10.1145/3132847

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 6 November 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CIKM '17 Paper Acceptance Rate171of855submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

          Upcoming Conference

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader