skip to main content
research-article

Fake News Classification: A Quantitative Research Description

Authors Info & Claims
Published:24 December 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Social media can render content circulating to reach millions with a knack to influence people, despite the questionable authencity of the facts. Internet sources are the most convenient and easy approach to obtain any information these days. Fake news has become the topic of interest for academicians and the rest of society. This kind of propaganda has the power to influence the general perception, offering political groups the ability to control the results of democratic affairs such as elections. Automatic identification of fake news has emerged as one of the significant problems due to the high risks involved. It is challenging in a way because of the complexity levels of accurately interpreting the data. An extensive search has already been performed on English language news data. Our work presents a comparative analysis of fake news classifiers on the low resource Bengali language ‘ban fake news’ dataset from Kaggle. The analysis presented compares deep learning techniques such as LSTM (Long short-term Memory) and BiLSTM (Bi-directional Long short-term Memory) and machine learning methods like Naive Bayes, Passive Aggressive Classifier (PAC), and Random Forest. The comparison has been drawn based on classification metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. The deep learning method BiLSTM shows 55.92% accuracy while Random Forest, in contrast, has outperformed all the other methods with an accuracy of 62.37%. The work presented in this paper sets a basis for researchers to select the optimum classifiers for their approach towards fake news detection.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Vicario Michela Del, Bessi Alessandro, Zollo Fabiana, Petroni Fabio, Scala Antonio, Caldarelli Guido, Eugene Stanley H., and Quattrociocchi Walter. 2016. The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 3 (2016), 554559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. [2] Vicario Michela Del, Vivaldo Gianna, Bessi Alessandro, Zollo Fabiana, Scala Antonio, Caldarelli Guido, and Quattrociocchi Walter. 2016. Echo chambers: Emotional contagion and group polarization on Facebook. Scientific Reports 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Zhou Xinyi and Zafarani Reza. 2020. A survey of fake news: Fundamental theories, detection methods, and opportunities. ACMComput. Surv 1, 1, Article 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Farajtabar Mehrdad, Yang Jiachen, Ye Xiaojing, Xu Huan, Trivedi Rakshit, Khalil Elias, Li Shuang, Song Le, and Zha Hongyuan. 2017. Fake news mitigation via point process-based intervention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07823.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] Hunt Allcott and Gentzkow Matthew. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31, 2 (2017), 211236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Castillo Carlos, El-Haddad Mohammed, Pfeffer Jürgen, and Stempeck Matt. Characterizing the life cycle of online news stories using social media reactions. In CSCW'14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [7] Wu Liang, Morstatter Fred, Hu Xia, and Liu Huan. 2016. Mining misinformation in social media. Big Data in Complex and Social Networks 123152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Allcott Hunt and Gentzkow Matthew. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Technical Report, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Balmas Meital. 2014. When fake news becomes real: Combined exposure to multiple news sources and political attitudes of inefficacy, alienation, and cynicism. Communication Research 41, 3 (2014), 430454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Bessi Alessandro and Ferrara Emilio. 2016. Social bots distort the 2016 US presidential election online discussion. First Monday 21, 11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Cheng Justin, Bernstein Michael, Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil Cristian, and Leskovec Jure. Anyone can become a troll: Causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. In CSCW’17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Castillo Carlos, Mendoza Marcelo, and Poblete Barbara. Information credibility on Twitter. In WWW'11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] Chen Yimin, Conroy Niall J., and Rubin Victoria L.. 2015. Misleading online content: Recognizing clickbait as false news. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Workshop on Multimodal Deception Detection 1519. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. [14] Chu Zi, Gianvecchio Steven, Wang Haining, and Jajodia Sushil. 2012. Detecting automation of Twitter accounts: Are you a human, bot, or cyborg? IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 9, 6 (2012), 811824.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Luca Ciampaglia Giovanni, Shiralkar Prashant, Rocha Luis M., Bollen Johan, Menczer Filippo, and Flammini Alessandro. 2015. Computational fact checking from knowledge networks. PloS One 10, 6 (2015), e0128193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [16] Mitchell Waldrop M.. 2017. News feature: The genuine problem of fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 48 (2017), 1263112634.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Axel Gelfert. 2018. Fake news: A definition. Informal Logic 38, 1 (2018), 84117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Wang Yilin, Wang Suhang, Tang Jiliang, Liu Huan, and Li Baoxin. 2015. Unsupervised sentiment analysis for social media images. In IJCAI 23782379.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] Wu Liang, Li Jundong, Hu Xia, and Liu Huan. Gleaning wisdom from the past: Early detection of emerging rumors in social media. In SDM'17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Zubiaga Arkaitz, Aker Ahmet, Bontcheva Kalina, Liakata Maria, and Procter Rob. 2017. Detection and resolution of rumours in social media: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00656.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Brewer Paul R., Goldthwaite Young Dannagal, and Morreale Michelle. 2013. The impact of real news about fake news: Intertextual processes and political satire. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 25, 3 (2013), 323343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] Ward Andrew, Ross L., Reed E., Turiel E., and Brown T.. 1997. Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. Values and Knowledge 103135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. [23] Conroy Niall J., Rubin Victoria L., and Chen Yimin. 2015. Automatic deception detection: Methods for finding fake news. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 52, 1 (2015), 14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Ni Bo, Guo Zhichun, Li Jianing, and Jiang Meng. Improving generalizability of fake news detection methods using propensity score matching. arXiv – CS – Social and Information Networks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Yang Fan, Liu Yang, Yu Xiaohui, and Yang Min. 2012. Automatic detection of rumor on Sina Weibo. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Mining Data Semantics 13. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Wang Shiyao, Huang Minlie, and Deng Zhidong. Densely connected CNN with multi-scale feature attention for text classification. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-18).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Alzubi Jafar, Nayyar Anand, and Kumar Akshi. Machine learning from theory to algorithms: An overview. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1142, Second National Conference on Computational Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] Sharma A. S., Mridul M. A., and Islam M. S.. 2019. Automatic detection of satire in Bangla documents: A CNN approach based on hybrid feature extraction model. 2019 International Conference on Bangla Speech and Language Processing (ICBSLP), Sylhet, Bangladesh.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Khan Junaed Younus, Khondaker Md. Tawkat Islam, Iqbal Anindya, and Afroz Sadia. 2019. A benchmark study on machine learning methods for fake news detection. arXiv:1905.04749v1 [cs.CL] 12 May.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] Zhou Chunting, Sun Chonglin, Liu Zhiyuan, and Lau Francis C. M.. 2015. A C-LSTM neural network for text classification. arXiv 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Ruchansky Natali and Seo Sungyong. 2017. Yan Liu CSI: A hybrid deep model for fake news detection. CIKM '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management 2017, 797806.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Biyani Prakhar, Tsioutsiouliklis Kostas, and Blackmer John. 8 amazing secrets for getting more clicks: Detecting clickbaits in news streams using article informality. In AAAI'16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. [33] Blom Jonas Nygaard and Hansen Kenneth Reinecke. 2015. Click bait: Forward-reference as lure in online news headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 76, (2015), 87100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Chakraborty Abhijnan, Paranjape Bhargavi, Kakarla Sourya, and Ganguly Niloy. Stop clickbait: Detecting and preventing clickbaits in online news media. In ASONAM'16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] Wu Liang, Hu Xia, Morstatter Fred, and Liu Huan. Adaptive spammer detection with sparse group modeling. In ICWSM'17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Wang Yaqing, Yang Weifeng, Ma Fenglong, Xu Jin, Zhong Bin, Deng Qiang, and Gao Jing. Weak supervision for fake news detection via reinforcement learning. arXiv – CS – Machine Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Alzubi Jafar A.. 2016. Diversity-based boosting algorithm. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 7, 5 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Jain Deepak Kumar, Jain Rachna, Upadhyay Yash, Kathuria Abhishek, and Lan Xiangyuan. 2019. Deep refinement: Capsule network with attention mechanism-based system for text classification. Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. [39] Alzubi Jafar A., Jain Rachna, Kathuria Abhishek, Khandelwal Anjali, Saxena Anmol, and Singh Anubhav. 2020. Paraphrase identification using collaborative adversarial networks. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy systems 112, September 2020. DOI: DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-191933Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [40] Hossain Md Z., Rahman Md A., Islam Md S., Kar MdS.. 2020. BanFakeNews: A dataset for detecting fake news in Bangla. Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Hussain Md Gulzar, Hasan Md Rashidul, Rahman Mahmuda, Protim Joy, and Hasan Sakin Al. 2005. Detection of Bangla fake news using MNB and SVM CLASSIFIER. arXiv:2005.14627v1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. [42] Chen J., Huang H., Tian S., and Qu Y.. 2009. Feature selection for text classification with Naïve Bayes. Expert Systems with Applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. [43] Kumar A., Rajpal A., and Rathore D.. 2018. Genre classification using word embeddings and deep learning. 2018 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), Bangalore, 2018, 21422146, DOI: DOI: 10.1109/ICACCI.2018.8554816Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Son L. H., Kumar A., Sangwan S. R., Arora A., Nayyar A., and Abdel-Basset M.. 2019. Sarcasm detection using soft attention-based bidirectional long short-term memory model with convolution network. IEEE Access 7, 2331923328, 2019, DOI: DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899260Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Peng Zhou, Qi Zhenyu, Zheng Suncong, Xu Jiaming, Bao Hongyun, and Xu Bo. 2016. Text classification improved by integrating bidirectional LSTM with two-dimensional max pooling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.06639 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. [46] Fürnkranz Johannes. 1998. A study using n-gram features for text categorization. Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence 3(1998), 110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. [47] Garg Ashutosh and Roth Dan. Understanding probabilistic classifiers. ECML'01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [48] Dietterich Thomas G. et al. 2000. Ensemble methods in machine learning. Multiple Classifier Systems 1857, (2000) 115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [49] Lu Jing, Zhao Peilin, and Hoi Steven C. H.. 2014. Online passive aggressive active learning and its applications. JMLR: Workshop and Conference Proceedings 39, (2014) 266282.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [50] Liu Pengfei, Qiu Xipeng, and Huang Xuanjing. Recurrent neural network for text classification with multi-task learning. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-16).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. [51] Xu G., Meng Y., Qiu X., Yu Z., and Wu X.. 2019. Sentiment analysis of comment texts based on BiLSTM. In IEEE Access 7, 5152251532, 2019, DOI: DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2909919Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. [52] Kumar A., Rajpal A., and Rathore D.. 2018. Genre classification using feature extraction and deep learning techniques. 2018 10th International Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE), Ho Chi Minh City 2018, 175180, DOI: 10.1109/KSE.2018.8573325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Fake News Classification: A Quantitative Research Description

        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

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing
          ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing  Volume 21, Issue 1
          January 2022
          442 pages
          ISSN:2375-4699
          EISSN:2375-4702
          DOI:10.1145/3494068
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          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: 24 December 2021
          • Revised: 1 January 2021
          • Accepted: 1 January 2021
          • Received: 1 August 2020
          Published in tallip Volume 21, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        View Full Text

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format