Cited by 150

Rumor Identification in Microblogging Systems Based on Users’ Behavior

Liang, Gang, He, Wenbo, Xu, Chun, Chen, Liangyin, Zeng, Jinquan·2015·IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems

Abstract

In recent years, microblog systems such as Twitter and Sina Weibo have averaged multimillion active users. On the other hand, the microblog system has become a new means of rumor-spreading platform. In this paper, we investigate the machine-learning-based rumor identification approaches. We observed that feature design and selection has a stronger impact on the rumor identification accuracy than the selection of machine-learning algorithms. Meanwhile, the rumor publishers' behavior may diverge from normal users', and a rumor post may have different responses from a normal post. However, mass behavior on rumor posts has not been explored adequately. Hence, we investigate rumor identification schemes by applying five new features based on users' behaviors, and combine the new features with the existing well-proved effective user behavior-based features, such as followers' comments and reposting, to predict whether a microblog post is a rumor. Experiment results on real-world data from Sina Weibo demonstrate the efficacy and efficiency of our proposed method and features. From the experiments, we conclude that the rumor detection based on mass behaviors is more effective than the detection based on microblogs' inherent features.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tcss.2016.2517458

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?

  • Recent research uses differing definitions of rumour; some work wrongly treats rumours as false information, while most literature defines them as unverified and instrumentally relevant circulating statements.

    “Recent publications in the research literature have used definitions of rumours that differ from one another.”

    From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Liang et al. 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liang, G., He, W., Xu, C., Chen, L., & Zeng, J.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems
Published
2015-09
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
99-108
ISSN
2329-924X
Cited by
150
References
2
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61373091, 91338107, 11102124)
  • Ministry of Education of China (20130181110095)
  • Provincial Key Science, Technology Research and Development Program of Sichuan, China (2013SZ0002, 2014SZ0109)
  • Sichuan Provincial Department of Science and Technology Project (2014JY0036)
  • Scientific Research Fund of Sichuan Provincial Education Department (13TD0014)

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