Automatic detection of rumor on Sina Weibo
Abstract
The problem of gauging information credibility on social networks has received considerable attention in recent years. Most previous work has chosen Twitter, the world's largest micro-blogging platform, as the premise of research. In this work, we shift the premise and study the problem of information credibility on Sina Weibo, China's leading micro-blogging service provider. With eight times more users than Twitter, Sina Weibo is more of a Facebook-Twitter hybrid than a pure Twitter clone, and exhibits several important characteristics that distinguish it from Twitter. We collect an extensive set of microblogs which have been confirmed to be false rumors based on information from the official rumor-busting service provided by Sina Weibo. Unlike previous studies on Twitter where the labeling of rumors is done manually by the participants of the experiments, the official nature of this service ensures the high quality of the dataset. We then examine an extensive set of features that can be extracted from the microblogs, and train a classifier to automatically detect the rumors from a mixed set of true information and false information. The experiments show that some of the new features we propose are indeed effective in the classification, and even the features considered in previous studies have different implications with Sina Weibo than with Twitter. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on rumor analysis and detection on Sina Weibo.
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?
Yang et al. (2012) reported that adding client-based and location-based features to earlier features substantially boosted accuracy; adding them to Castillo et al. propagation features increased accuracy by 6.3%, from 72.3% to 78.6%.
“The authors reported that adding these two features on top of earlier reported features led to a substantial boost of accuracy.For instance, adding the two features on top of the propagation-based features reported by Castillo et al. (2011) led to an increase of 6.3% in accuracy (from 72.3% to 78.6%).”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Yang et al. (2012)
Liu et al. (2015) proposed verification features based on journalist insights and showed their approach outperformed the Yang et al. (2012) and Castillo et al. (2011) baselines.
“The authors showed that the proposed approach outperformed the two baselines.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media (2019) · cites this paper as Yang et al. (2012)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective
Shu, K., Sliva, A., Wang, S., Tang, J., & Liu, H. (2017) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3137597.3137600 · Cited by 3,304 · see citing works
An overview of online fake news: Characterization, detection, and discussion
Zhang, X., & Ghorbani, A. A. (2020) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2019.03.004 · Cited by 997 · see citing works
Liu, Y., & Wu, Y.-F. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11268 · Cited by 663 · see citing works
“There are also existing approaches that detect fake news based on a combination of different types of features (Castillo, Mendoza, and Poblete 2011; Yang et al. 2012; Sun et al. 2013; Ma et al. 2015; Kwon, Cha, and Jung 2017).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationA survey on fake news and rumour detection techniques
Bondielli, A., & Marcelloni, F. (2019) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2019.05.035 · Cited by 658 · 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 baselines achieve 85.4% [Castillo et al. 2011] and 77.2% accuracy [Yang et al. 2012].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCombating Fake News: A Survey on Identification and Mitigation Techniques
Sharma, K., Qian, F., Jiang, H., Ruchansky, N., Zhang, M., & Liu, Y. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3305260 · Cited by 514 · see citing works
Self-citationGCAN: Graph-aware Co-Attention Networks for Explainable Fake News Detection on Social Media
Lu, Y.-J., & Li, C.-T. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.48 · Cited by 427 · see citing works
Disinformation on the Web: Impact, Characteristics, and Detection of Wikipedia Hoaxes
Kumar, S., West, R., & Leskovec, J. (2016) · Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2872427.2883085 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
False Information on Web and Social Media: A Survey
Kumar, S., & Shah, N. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1804.08559 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Multimodal fake news detection via progressive fusion networks
Jing, J., Wu, H., Sun, J., Fang, X., & Zhang, H. (2023) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103120 · Cited by 243 · 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
- Authors
- Yang, F., Liu, Y., Yu, X., & Yang, M.
- Affiliations
- Shandong University, Jinan, China and Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Software Engineering
- Shandong University, Jinan, China and York University, Toronto, Canada and Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Software Engineering
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Mining Data Semantics
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2012-08-12
- Pages
- 1-7
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 0
- Funders
- Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-10-0532)
- Independent Innovation Foundation of Shandong University (2012ZD0122009TB016)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (6.11E+15)
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