| Literature DB >> 36076015 |
Ling Xing1, Jinglong Yao2, Honghai Wu2, Huahong Ma2.
Abstract
The spread of false content on microblogging platforms has created information security threats for users and platforms alike. The confusion caused by false content complicates feature selection during credibility evaluation. To solve this problem, a collaborative key point-based content credibility evaluation model, CECKP, is proposed in this paper. The model obtains the key points of the microblog text from the word level to the sentence level, then evaluates the credibility according to the semantics of the key points. In addition, a rumor lexicon constructed collaboratively during word-level coding strengthens the semantics of related words and solves the feature selection problem when using deep learning methods for content credibility evaluation. Experimental results show that, compared with the Att-BiLSTM model, the F1 score of the proposed model increases by 3.83% and 3.8% when the evaluation results are true and false respectively. The proposed model accordingly improves the performance of content credibility evaluation based on optimized feature selection.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36076015 PMCID: PMC9454392 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-19444-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Microblog content credibility evaluation model based on collaborative key points.
Figure 2Flowchart of microblog rumor word database construction.
Information about the rumor lexicon.
| Category | Number | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Noun | 1687 | Health, disaster, elderly |
| Verb | 756 | Crash, lead to, provocation |
| Subject | 354 | Blast, vacation, plastic |
| Connective | 49 | Child…abducted…, forward…free… |
Adjustable parameter settings.
| Adjustable parameters | Value |
|---|---|
| Vector embedding dimension | 200 |
| Learning_rate | 0.001 |
| Optimizer | Adam |
| Batch_size | 64 |
| Dropout | 0.3 |
| Number of layers for multi-head attention | 8 |
Experimental results for CECKP model and comparison models.
| Model | Classification | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | False | 0.7082 | 0.7052 | 0.7153 | 0.7102 |
| True | 0.7119 | 0.7010 | 0.7061 | ||
| CNN | False | 0.8280 | 0.8222 | 0.8370 | 0.8295 |
| True | 0.8340 | 0.8190 | 0.8264 | ||
| R-CNN | False | 0.8452 | 0.8348 | 0.8607 | 0.8475 |
| True | 0.8562 | 0.8297 | 0.8427 | ||
| H-BLSTM | False | 0.8475 | 0.8428 | 0.8543 | 0.8485 |
| True | 0.8523 | 0.8407 | 0.8465 | ||
| Att- BiLSTM | False | 0.8607 | 0.8585 | 0.8637 | 0.8611 |
| True | 0.8628 | 0.8577 | 0.8602 | ||
| CECKP | False | 0.8988 | 0.8966 | 0.9017 | 0.8991 |
| True | 0.9011 | 0.8960 | 0.8985 |
Figure 3Performance comparison of models on the CECKP-dataset when evaluation results are true.
Figure 4Performance comparison of models on the CECKP-dataset when evaluation results are false.
Experimental results of model simplification test.
| Model | Classification | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CECKP-NT | False | 0.8752 | 0.8827 | 0.8653 | 0.8739 |
| True | 0.8679 | 0.8850 | 0.8764 | ||
| CECKP-NK | False | 0.8683 | 0.8576 | 0.8833 | 0.8703 |
| True | 0.8797 | 0.8533 | 0.8633 | ||
| CECKP | False | 0.8988 | 0.8966 | 0.9017 | 0.8991 |
| True | 0.9011 | 0.8960 | 0.8985 |
Figure 5Visual analysis of the weights of key points for rumor words.