Exploiting Context for Rumour Detection in Social Media
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Zubiaga et al.'s context-learning approach used conditional random fields as a sequential classifier to learn reporting dynamics during an event.
“Their context-learning approach relied on conditional random fields (CRF) as a sequential classifier that learns the reporting dynamics during an event, so that the classifier can determine, for each new tweet, whether it is or not a rumour based on what has been seen so far during the event.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga et al. 2017
Zubiaga et al. avoid reliance on enquiring tweets because not all rumours trigger them, which may lead to low recall.
“Moreover, they avoid the reliance on enquiring tweets, which they argue that not all rumours may trigger and hence may lead to low recall, as rumours not provoking enquiring tweets would be missed.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga et al. 2017
The state-of-the-art approach for rumour detection is Zubiaga et al. (2017), which leverages context from earlier posts associated with an event to determine if a tweet is a rumour.
“The state-of-the-art approach for rumour detection is that presented by Zubiaga et al. (2017), which leverages context from earlier posts associated with a particular event to determine if a tweet constitutes a rumour.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga et al. 2017
Zubiaga et al. (2016b, 2017) proposed an alternative approach that learns context throughout a breaking news story to determine if a tweet is a rumour.
“In contrast, Zubiaga et al. (2016bZubiaga et al. ( , 2017) ) suggested an alternative approach that learns context throughout a breaking news story to determine if a tweet constitutes a rumour.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga et al. 2017
Zubiaga et al. build on the hypothesis that a tweet alone may not suffice to know if its underlying story is a rumour due to lack of context.
“They build on the hypothesis that a tweet alone may not suffice to know if its underlying story is a rumour, due to the lack of context.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga et al. 2017
Zubiaga et al.'s approach improved performance over Zhao et al.'s baseline and over several non-sequential classifiers, and achieved state-of-the-art recall results.
“Their approach led to improved performance over the baseline classifier by Zhao et al. (2015), improving also a number of non-sequential classifiers compared as baselines.The classifier was also evaluated in terms of recall in this case, achieving state-of-the-art results.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga et al. 2017
Recent research shows that using context and interactions can help in determining whether a social media post reports a rumour.
“Recent research shows that the use of context (Zubiaga et al. 2017) and interactions (Zhao et al. 2015) can be of help”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Zubiaga et al. 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media
Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3161603 · Cited by 608 · cited 3× · see citing works
“A rumour detection system can in fact be the first component of a system that deals with rumours [36]: (1) rumour detection; (2) rumour tracking; (3) rumour stance classification, and (4) rumour veracity classification.”
BackgroundSelf-citationSemEval-2017 Task 8: RumourEval: Determining rumour veracity and support for rumours
Derczynski, L., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., Procter, R., Wong Sak Hoi, G., & Zubiaga, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017) · doi:10.18653/v1/s17-2006 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
Self-citationRumor Diffusion and Convergence during the 3.11 Earthquake: A Twitter Case Study
Takayasu, M., Sato, K., Sano, Y., Yamada, K., Miura, W., & Takayasu, H. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121443 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Crowdsourcing the Annotation of Rumourous Conversations in Social Media
Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M., Procter, R., Bontcheva, K., & Tolmie, P. (2015) · Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2740908.2743052 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Self-citationDigital Wildfires: Propagation, Verification, Regulation, and Responsible Innovation
Webb, H., Burnap, P., Procter, R., Rana, O., Stahl, B. C., Williams, M., Housley, W., Edwards, A., & Jirotka, M. (2016) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/2893478 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- [1]1. Allport, G.W., Postman, L.: An analysis of rumor. Public Opinion Quarterly 10(4), 501-517 (1946)
- [2]2. Bazerli, G., Bean, T., Crandall, A., Coutin, M., Kasindi, L., Procter, R.N., Rodger, S., Saber, D., Slachmuijlder, L., Trewinnard, T.: Humanitarianism 2.0. Global Policy Journal (2015)
- [3]3. Bontcheva, K., Derczynski, L., Funk, A., Greenwood, M.A., Maynard, D., Aswani, N.: TwitIE: An open-source information extraction pipeline for microblog text. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics (2013)
- [4]4. Cai, G., Wu, H., Lv, R.: Rumors detection in chinese via crowd responses. In: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). pp. 912-917. IEEE (2014)
- [5]5. Cunningham, H., Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K.: Text processing with gate. Gateway Press CA (2011)
- [7]7. Derczynski, L., Bontcheva, K., Lukasik, M., Declerck, T., Scharl, A., Georgiev, G., Osenova, P., Lobo, T.P., Kolliakou, A., Stewart, R., et al.: Pheme: Computing veracity - the fourth challenge of big social data. In: Proceedings of the Extended Semantic Web Conference EU Project Networking session (ESCW-PN) (2015)
- [8]8. DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P.: Rumor, gossip and urban legends. Diogenes 54(1), 19-35 (2007)
- [9]9. Giasemidis, G., Singleton, C., Agrafiotis, I., Nurse, J.R., Pilgrim, A., Willis, C., Greetham, D.: Determining the veracity of rumours on twitter. In: International Conference on Social Informatics. pp. 185-205. Springer (2016)
- [10]10. Hamidian, S., Diab, M.T.: Rumor detection and classification for twitter data. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Social Media Technologies, Communication, and Informatics (SOTICS). pp. 71-77 (2015)
- [11]11. Hamidian, S., Diab, M.T.: Rumor identification and belief investigation on twitter. In: Proceedings of NAACL-HLT. pp. 3-8 (2016)
- [12]12. Jin, Z., Cao, J., Zhang, Y., Luo, J.: News verification by exploiting conflicting social viewpoints in microblogs. In: Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 2972-2978 (2016)
- [13]13. Lafferty, J., McCallum, A., Pereira, F.: Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on machine learning, ICML. vol. 1, pp. 282-289 (2001)
- [14]14. Liang, G., He, W., Xu, C., Chen, L., Zeng, J.: Rumor identification in microblogging systems based on users behavior. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 2(3), 99-108 (2015)
- [15]15. Liu, X., Nourbakhsh, A., Li, Q., Fang, R., Shah, S.: Real-time rumor debunking on twitter. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. pp. 1867-1870. ACM (2015)
- [16]16. Lukasik, M., Bontcheva, K., Cohn, T., Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M., Procter, R.: Using gaussian processes for rumour stance classification in social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.01962 (2016) · arXiv
- [17]17. Lukasik, M., Cohn, T., Bontcheva, K.: Classifying tweet level judgements of rumours in social media. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). pp. 2590-2595 (2015)
- [18]18. Ma, J., Gao, W., Mitra, P., Kwon, S., Jansen, B.J., Wong, K.F., Cha, M.: Detecting rumors from microblogs with recurrent neural networks. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). pp. 3818-3824 (2016)
- [19]19. Ma, J., Gao, W., Wei, Z., Lu, Y., Wong, K.F.: Detect rumors using time series of social context information on microblogging websites. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. pp. 1751-1754. ACM (2015)
- [20]20. Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G.S., Dean, J.: Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. pp. 3111-3119 (2013)
- [21]21. M¨ uller, A.C., Behnke, S.: Pystruct: learning structured prediction in python. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 15(1), 2055-2060 (2014)
- [22]22. Procter, R., Crump, J., Karstedt, S., Voss, A., Cantijoch, M.: Reading the riots: What were the police doing on twitter? Policing and society 23(4), 413-436 (2013)
- [23]23. Procter, R., Vis, F., Voss, A.: Reading the riots on twitter: methodological innovation for the analysis of big data. International journal of social research methodology 16(3), 197-214 (2013)
- [24]24. Qazvinian, V., Rosengren, E., Radev, D.R., Mei, Q.: Rumor has it: Identifying misinformation in microblogs. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). pp. 1589-1599 (2011)
- [25]25. Sankaranarayanan, J., Samet, H., Teitler, B.E., Lieberman, M.D., Sperling, J.: Twitterstand: news in tweets. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGSPATIAL international conference on advances in geographic information systems. pp. 4251. ACM (2009)
- [26]26. Starbird, K., Maddock, J., Orand, M., Achterman, P., Mason, R.M.: Rumors, false flags, and digital vigilantes: Misinformation on twitter after the 2013 boston marathon bombing. Proceedings of iConference 2014 (2014)
- [27]27. Sutton, C., McCallum, A.: An introduction to conditional random fields. Machine Learning 4(4), 267-373 (2011)
- [29]29. Tolmie, P., Procter, R., Randall, D.W., Rouncefield, M., Burger, C., Wong Sak Hoi, G., Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M.: Supporting the use of user generated content in journalistic practice. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 3632-3644. ACM (2017)
- [30]30. Tolmie, P., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., Liakata, M., Zubiaga, A.: Microblog analysis as a programme of work. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.03193 (2015) · arXiv
- [31]31. Tolosi, L., Tagarev, A., Georgiev, G.: An analysis of event-agnostic features for rumour classification in twitter. In: ICWSM Workshop on Social Media in the Newsroom. pp. 151-158 (2016)
- [33]33. Wu, K., Yang, S., Zhu, K.Q.: False rumors detection on sina weibo by propagation structures. In: 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Data Engineering. pp. 651-662. IEEE (2015)
- [34]34. Zeng, L., Starbird, K., Spiro, E.S.: # unconfirmed: Classifying rumor stance in crisis-related social media messages. In: Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. pp. 747-750 (2016)
- [35]35. Zhao, Z., Resnick, P., Mei, Q.: Enquiring minds: Early detection of rumors in social media from enquiry posts. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. pp. 1395-1405. ACM (2015)
- [37]37. Zubiaga, A., Ji, H., Knight, K.: Curating and contextualizing twitter stories to assist with social newsgathering. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. pp. 213-224. ACM (2013)
- [38]38. Zubiaga, A., Kochkina, E., Liakata, M., Procter, R., Lukasik, M.: Stance classification in rumours as a sequential task exploiting the tree structure of social media conversations. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING). Association for Natural Language Processing (ANLP) (2016)
- [40]40. Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M., Procter, R., Wong Sak Hoi, G., Tolmie, P.: Analysing how people orient to and spread rumours in social media by looking at conversational threads. PLoS ONE 11(3), 1-29 (03 2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1371% 2Fjournal.pone.0150989
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media
Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3161603 · Cited by 608 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Future of False Information Detection on Social Media: New Perspectives and Trends
Guo, B., Ding, Y., Yao, L., Liang, Y., & Yu, Z. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3393880 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
True or False: Studying the Work Practices of Professional Fact-Checkers
Micallef, N., Armacost, V., Memon, N., & Patil, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512974 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
PADA: Example-based Prompt Learning for on-the-fly Adaptation to Unseen Domains
Ben-David, E., Oved, N., & Reichart, R. (2022) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00468 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Silver Lining in the Fake News Cloud: Can Large Language Models Help Detect Misinformation?
Kumar, R., Goddu, B., Saha, S., & Jatowt, A. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2024.3440248 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M., & Procter, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Zubiaga, Arkaitz
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2017
- Pages
- 109-123
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W2737907513
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 57.26
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K000128/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- rumor detection, social media, conditional random fields, contextual learning, news events, misinformation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review