Rumor Identification in Microblogging Systems Based on Users’ Behavior
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
A Probabilistic Interpretation of Precision, Recall and F-Score, with Implication for Evaluation
Goutte, C., & Gaussier, E. (2005) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-31865-1_25 · Cited by 2,285 · see citing works
A REVIEW OF GOODNESS OF FIT STATISTICS FOR USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELS1
LEMESHOW, S., & HOSMER, D. W. (1982) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113284 · Cited by 1,947 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
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
“For example, some recent work has mis-defined a rumour as a piece of information that is deemed false (e.g. [Cai et al. 2014; Liang et al. 2015]), while the majority of the literature defines rumours instead as “unverified and instrumentally relevant information statements in circulation” [DiFonzo…”
BackgroundThe Web of False Information: Rumors, Fake News, Hoaxes, Clickbait, and Various Other Shenanigans
Zannettou, S., Sirivianos, M., Blackburn, J., & Kourtellis, N. (2019) · Journal of Data and Information Quality · doi:10.1145/3309699 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
- 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