Cited by 186Misinformation and Its ImpactsSpam and Phishing DetectionTopic Modeling

Deep Learning Algorithms for Detecting Fake News in Online Text

Girgis, Sherry, Amer, Eslam, Gadallah, Mahmoud·2018·2018 13th International Conference on Computer Engineering and Systems (ICCES)

Abstract

Spreading of fake news is a social phenomenon that is pervasive at the social level between individuals, and also through social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Fake news that we are interested in is one of many kinds of deception in social media, but it's more important one as it is created with dishonest intention to mislead people. We are concerned about this issue because we have noticed that this phenomenon has recently caused through the means of social communication to change the course of society and peoples and also their views, for example, during revolutions in some Arab countries have emerged some false news that led to the absence of truth and stirs up public opinion and also fake of news is one of the factors Trump successes in the presidential election. So we decided to face and reduce this phenomenon, which is still the main factor to choose most of our decisions. Techniques of fake news detection varied, ingenious, and often exciting. In this paper our objective is to build a classifier that can predict whether a piece of news is fake or not based only its content, thereby approaching the problem from a purely deep learning perspective by RNN technique models (vanilla, GRU) and LSTMs. We will show the difference and analysis of results by applying them to the dataset that we used called LAIR. We found that the results are close, but the GRU is the best of our results that reached (0.217) followed by LSTM (0.2166) and finally comes vanilla (0.215). Due to…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icces.2018.8639198

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The unaided human capacity to detect deception is 54%.

    “Reports indicate that the unaided human capacity to detect deception stands at a mere 54% (Girgis et al. 2018).”

    From Deepfakes: current and future trends (2024) · cites this paper as Girgis et al. 2018

  • A classifier can predict whether a piece of news is fake based only on its content using RNN models.

    “A classifier that can predict whether a piece of news is fake or not based only its content is built in Girgis et al. (2018), thereby approaching the problem from a purely deep learning perspective by RNN models, i.e., vanilla, Gate Recurrent Unit (GRU) and LSTM.”

    From Deepfakes: current and future trends (2024) · cites this paper as Girgis et al. 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Girgis, S., Amer, E., & Gadallah, M.
Affiliations
  • Modern Academy (EG)
  • Misr International University (EG)
Venue
2018 13th International Conference on Computer Engineering and Systems (ICCES)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-12
Pages
93-97
OpenAlex
W2914393943
Cited by
186
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
49.32
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems (ICCES) (publishedVersion)
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 › Topic Modeling
Keywords
fake news detection, misinformation, social media, text classification, recurrent neural networks, GRU, LSTM, hybrid CNN-RNN model

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