Identifying rumors and their sources in social networks
Abstract
Information that propagates through social networks can carry a lot of false claims. For example, rumors on certain topics can propagate rapidly leading to a large number of nodes reporting the same (incorrect) observations. In this paper, we describe an approach for nding the rumor source and assessing the likelihood that a piece of information is in fact a rumor, in the absence of data provenance information. We model the social network as a directed graph, where vertices represent individuals and directed edges represent information ow (e.g., who follows whom on Twitter). A number of monitor nodes are injected into the network whose job is to report data they receive. Our algorithm identies rumors and their sources by observing which of the monitors received the given piece of information and which did not. We show that, with a sucient number of monitor nodes, it is possible to recognize most rumors and their sources with high accuracy.
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?
There has been very little work in automatic rumour detection despite increasing interest in analysing rumours and building tools for previously identified rumours.
“Despite the increasing interest in analysing rumours in social media and building tools to deal with rumours that had been previously identified (Seo et al. 2012;Takahashi and Igata 2012), there has been very little work in automatic rumour detection.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Seo et al. 2012
Cites
What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cui, P., Wang, X., Pei, J., & Zhu, W. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2018.2849727 · Cited by 1,274 · see citing works
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
The 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
Trustworthiness Perceptions of Social Media Resources Named after a Crisis Event
Chauhan, A., & Hughes, A. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3392849 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Seo, E., Mohapatra, P., & Abdelzaher, T.
- Venue
- SPIE Proceedings
- Publisher
- SPIE
- Published
- 2012-05-01
- Volume
- 8389
- Pages
- 83891I-83891I-13
- ISSN
- 0277-786X
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 1
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
