skip to main content
10.1145/3331184.3331285acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Leveraging Emotional Signals for Credibility Detection

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 July 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The spread of false information on the Web is one of the main problems of our society. Automatic detection of fake news posts is a hard task since they are intentionally written to mislead the readers and to trigger intense emotions to them in an attempt to be disseminated in the social networks. Even though recent studies have explored different linguistic patterns of false claims, the role of emotional signals has not yet been explored. In this paper, we study the role of emotional signals in fake news detection. In particular, we propose an LSTM model that incorporates emotional signals extracted from the text of the claims to differentiate between credible and non-credible ones. Experiments on real world datasets show the importance of emotional signals for credibility assessment.

References

  1. J. Carrillo de Albornoz, L. Plaza, and P. Gervás. Sentisense: An easily scalable concept-based affective lexicon for sentiment analysis. In LREC '12, pages 3562--3567, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. P. Ekman. An argument for basic emotions.Cognition & Emotion, 6(3/4):169--200,1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. A. Giachanou, P. Rosso, I. Mele, and F. Crestani. Early commenting features for emotional reactions prediction. In SPIRE '18, pages 168--182, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. A. Giachanou, P. Rosso, I. Mele, and F. Crestani. Emotional influence prediction of news posts. In ICWSM '18, pages 592--595, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. I. Hernandez-Farías, V. Patti, and P. Rosso. Irony detection in twitter: The role of affective content. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 16(3):19:1--19:24,2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8): 1735--1780, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. Ma, W. Gao, P. Mitra, S. Kwon, B. J. Jansen, K.-F. Wong, and M. Cha. Detecting rumors from microblogs with recurrent neural networks. In IJCAI'16, pages 3818--3824, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. M. Mohammad. Word affect intensities. In LREC '18, pages 174--183, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. M. Mohammad and P. D. Turney. Crowdsourcing a word-emotion association lexicon. Computational Intelligence, 29(3):436--465, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. J. Pennington, R. Socher, and C. Manning. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In EMNLP '14, pages 1532--1543, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. K. Popat, S. Mukherjee, J. Strötgen, and G. Weikum. Where the truth lies: Explaining the credibility of emerging claims on the web and social media. In WWW '17 Companion, pages 1003--1012, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. K. Popat, S. Mukherjee, A. Yates, and G. Weikum. Declare: Debunking fake news and false claims using evidence-aware deep learning. In EMNLP '18, pages 22--32,2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. S. Poria, A. Gelbukh, A. Hussain, N. Howard, D. Das, and S. Bandyopadhyay. Enhanced senticnet with affective labels for concept-based opinion mining. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28(2):31--38, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. H. Rashkin, E. Choi, J. Y. Jang, S. Volkova, and Y. Choi. Truth of varying shades: Analyzing language in fake news and political fact-checking. In EMNLP '17, pages 2931--2937, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Y. R. Tausczik and J. W. Pennebaker. The psychological meaning of words: Liwc and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology, 29(1): 24--54, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Vosoughi, D. Roy, and S. Aral. The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380): 1146--1151, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. W. Y. Wang. "liar, liar pants on fire": A new benchmark dataset for fake news detection. In ACL (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 422--426, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Y. Zheng, B. Mobasher, and R. Burke. Emotions in Context-Aware Recommender Systems, pages 311--326. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Leveraging Emotional Signals for Credibility 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
        SIGIR'19: Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
        July 2019
        1512 pages
        ISBN:9781450361729
        DOI:10.1145/3331184

        Copyright © 2019 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 ACM 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: 18 July 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        SIGIR'19 Paper Acceptance Rate84of426submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader