| Literature DB >> 33424132 |
Rohit Kumar Kaliyar1, Anurag Goswami1, Pratik Narang2.
Abstract
The increasing popularity of social media platforms has simplified the sharing of news articles that have led to the explosion in fake news. With the emergence of fake news at a very rapid rate, a serious concern has produced in our society because of enormous fake content dissemination. The quality of the news content is questionable and there exists a necessity for an automated tool for the detection. Existing studies primarily focus on utilizing information extracted from the news content. We suggest that user-based engagements and the context related group of people (echo-chamber) sharing the same opinions can play a vital role in the fake news detection. Hence, in this paper, we have focused on both the content of the news article and the existence of echo chambers in the social network for fake news detection. Standard factorization methods for fake news detection have limited effectiveness due to their unsupervised nature and primarily employed with traditional machine learning models. To design an effective deep learning model with tensor factorization approach is the priority. In our approach, the news content is fused with the tensor following a coupled matrix-tensor factorization method to get a latent representation of both news content as well as social context. We have designed our model with a different number of filters across each dense layer along with dropout. To classify on news content and social context-based information individually as well as in combination, a deep neural network (our proposed model) was employed with optimal hyper-parameters. The performance of our proposed approach has been validated on a real-world fake news dataset: BuzzFeed and PolitiFact. Classification results have demonstrated that our proposed model (EchoFakeD) outperforms existing and appropriate baselines for fake news detection and achieved a validation accuracy of 92.30%. These results have shown significant improvements over the existing state-of-the-art models in the area of fake news detection and affirm the potential use of the technique for classifying fake news.Entities:
Keywords: Deep learning; Echo chamber; Fake news; Social media; Tensor decomposition
Year: 2021 PMID: 33424132 PMCID: PMC7776294 DOI: 10.1007/s00521-020-05611-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Comput Appl ISSN: 0941-0643 Impact factor: 5.606
Fig. 1Examples of fake news on social media. Source: Facebook and Twitter
Fig. 2Features for fake news detection
Dimensionality of feature matrices
| Matrix | Dimension |
|---|---|
| News-user engagement matrix ( | (182 |
| Count matrix ( | (182 |
| User-community matrix ( | (15,257 |
| Tensor ( | (182 |
| Mode-1 tensor | (182 |
| Input matrix (content + context) | (182 |
Fig. 3Proposed method
Fig. 4Tensor decomposition approach
Fig. 5Architecture of our proposed network-EchoFakeD
Layered architecture of our proposed network-EchoFakeD
| Layer | Input (number of filters) | Output (number of filters) |
|---|---|---|
| Dense layer | 1503 | 128 |
| Dropout layer | 128 | 128 |
| Dense layer | 128 | 128 |
| Dense layer | 128 | 2048 |
| Dropout layer | 2048 | 2048 |
| Dense layer | 2048 | 32 |
| Dropout layer | 32 | 32 |
| Dense layer | 32 | 2 |
FakeNewsNet dataset
| News source | News articles | Fake news articles | Number of users |
|---|---|---|---|
| BuzzFeed | 182 | 91 | 15,257 |
| PolitiFact | 240 | 120 | 23,865 |
Hyperparameters for EchoFakeD
| Hyperparameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Number of dense layers | 5 |
| Number of hidden nodes | 128,128,32,2 |
| Activation function | ReLU |
| Loss function | Binary cross-entropy |
| Optimizer | Adam |
| Dropout | 0.2 |
| Learning rate | 0.1 |
| Number of epochs | 20 |
| Batch-size | 64 |
Representation of confusion matrix
| Predicted positive | Predicted negative | |
|---|---|---|
| Actual positive | True positive (TP) | False negative (FN) |
| Actual negative | False positive (FP) | True negative (TN) |
Confusion matrix for news content + social context-based classification with EchoFakeD (BuzzFeed)
| Predicted positive | Predicted negative | |
|---|---|---|
| Actual positive | 19 (TP) | 3 (FN) |
| Actual negative | 2 (FP) | 19 (TN) |
Confusion matrix using content and context-based features with EchoFakeD (PoitiFact)
| Predicted positive | Predicted negative | |
|---|---|---|
| Actual positive | 19 (TP) | 2 (FN) |
| Actual negative | 3 (FP) | 20 (TN) |
Confusion matrix for news content-based classification with EchoFakeD (BuzzFeed)
| Predicted positive | Predicted negative | |
|---|---|---|
| Actual positive | 17 (TP) | 4 (FN) |
| Actual negative | 3 (FP) | 16 (TN) |
Confusion matrix for social context-based classification with EchoFakeD (BuzzFeed)
| Predicted positive | Predicted negative | |
|---|---|---|
| Actual positive | 18 (TP) | 3 (FN) |
| Actual negative | 2 (FP) | 16 (TN) |
Confusion matrix for news content-based classification with EchoFakeD (PoitiFact)
| Predicted positive | Predicted negative | |
|---|---|---|
| Actual positive | 17 (TP) | 3 (FN) |
| Actual negative | 2 (FP) | 16 (TN) |
Confusion matrix for social context-based classification with EchoFakeD (PoitiFact)
| Predicted positive | Predicted negative | |
|---|---|---|
| Actual positive | 17 (TP) | 2 (FN) |
| Actual negative | 2 (FP) | 16 (TN) |
Performance of our proposed model with BuzzFeed
| Approach | Precision | Recall | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EchoFakeD with news content | 0.8500 | 0.8095 | 0.8293 | 0.8250 |
| EchoFakeD with social context | 0.8571 | 0.9000 | 0.8780 | 0.8718 |
| EchoFakeD with content + context | 0.9047 | 0.8636 | 0.8837 | 0.9180 |
Performance of our proposed model with PolitiFact
| Approach | Precision | Recall | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EchoFakeD with news content | 0.8500 | 0.8947 | 0.8718 | 0.8684 |
| EchoFakeD with social context | 0.8947 | 0.8947 | 0.8947 | 0.8919 |
| EchoFakeD with content + context | 0.8636 | 0.9048 | 0.8837 | 0.9230 |
Fig. 6Classification accuracy and cross-entropy loss with EchoFakeD using BuzzFeed
Fig. 7Classification accuracy and cross-entropy loss with EchoFakeD using PolitiFact
False-positive rate (FPR) and false-negative rate (FNR) using BuzzFeed
| Approach | FPR | FNR |
|---|---|---|
| EchoFakeD with news content | 0.1579 | 0.1905 |
| EchoFakeD with social context | 0.1111 | 0.1429 |
| EchoFakeD with content + context | 0.0952 | 0.1364 |
False-positive rate (FPR) and false-negative rate (FNR) using PolitiFact
| Approach | FPR | FNR |
|---|---|---|
| EchoFakeD with news content | 0.1111 | 0.1500 |
| EchoFakeD with social context | 0.1111 | 0.1053 |
| EchoFakeD with content + context | 0.1304 | 0.0952 |
Comparison with existing benchmarks with BuzzFeed
| Authors | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Castillo et al. [ | 73.50 | 78.30 | 75.60 |
| Castillo et al. [ | 79.50 | 78.40 | 78.90 |
| Gupta et al. (CITDetect) [ | 65.70 | 100.00 | 79.20 |
| Gupta et al. (CIMTDetect) [ | 72.90 | 92.30 | 81.30 |
| Papanastasiou et al. [ | 85.20 | 83.00 | 83.50 |
| Zhou et al. [ | 84.90 | 85.20 | 84.20 |
| [ | 83.33 | 86.96 | 85.11 |
| Proposed model-EchoFakeD | 90.47 | 86.36 | 88.37 |
Comparison with existing benchmarks using PolitiFact
| Authors | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Castillo et al. [ | 77.70 | 79.10 | 78.30 |
| Castillo et al. [ | 82.30 | 79.20 | 79.30 |
| Gupta et al. (CITDetect) [ | 67.90 | 97.50 | 79.10 |
| Gupta et al. (CIMTDetect ) [ | 80.30 | 84.20 | 81.80 |
| Papanastasiou et al. [ | 87.20 | 82.10 | 84.30 |
| [ | 82.10 | 84.60 | 84.04 |
| Proposed model-EchoFakeD | 86.36 | 90.48 | 88.37 |
Fig. 8An example of fake news. Source: Facebook