Cited by 157Misinformation and Its ImpactsSpam and Phishing DetectionHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Weak Supervision for Fake News Detection via Reinforcement Learning

Open access
Wang, Yaqing, Yang, Weifeng, Ma, Fenglong, Xu, Jin, Zhong, Bin, Deng, Qiang, Gao, Jing·2020·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Today social media has become the primary source for news. Via social media platforms, fake news travel at unprecedented speeds, reach global audiences and put users and communities at great risk. Therefore, it is extremely important to detect fake news as early as possible. Recently, deep learning based approaches have shown improved performance in fake news detection. However, the training of such models requires a large amount of labeled data, but manual annotation is time-consuming and expensive. Moreover, due to the dynamic nature of news, annotated samples may become outdated quickly and cannot represent the news articles on newly emerged events. Therefore, how to obtain fresh and high-quality labeled samples is the major challenge in employing deep learning models for fake news detection. In order to tackle this challenge, we propose a reinforced weakly-supervised fake news detection framework, i.e., WeFEND, which can leverage users' reports as weak supervision to enlarge the amount of training data for fake news detection. The proposed framework consists of three main components: the annotator, the reinforced selector and the fake news detector. The annotator can automatically assign weak labels for unlabeled news based on users' reports. The reinforced selector using reinforcement learning techniques chooses high-quality samples from the weakly labeled data and filters out those low-quality ones that may degrade the detector's prediction performance. The fake news detector aims to identify fake news based on the news content. We tested the proposed framework on a large collection of news articles published via WeChat official accounts and associated user reports. Extensive experiments on this dataset show that the proposed WeFEND model achieves the best performance compared with the state-of-the-art methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v34i01.5389

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Fake news is diverse and dynamic in content, topics, publishing methods, media platforms, and sophisticated linguistic styles geared to emulate true news.

    “fake news is diverse and dynamic in terms of content, topics, publishing methods and media platforms, and sophisticated linguistic styles geared to emulate true news.”

    From Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Wang et al. 2020

    The Introduction (p. 1) describes fake news about several topics, its spread on social media, and the dynamic nature of news articles. The Insight Analysis (p. 8) also finds that news-content distributions change over time. Our copy does not substantiate diverse publishing methods or sophisticated linguistic styles designed to emulate true news. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [Castillo, Mendoza, and Poblete 2011] Castillo, C.; Mendoza, M.; and Poblete, B. 2011. Information credibility on twitter. In Proceedings of WWW , 675-684.
  2. [Chia and Knapskog 2011] Chia, P. H., and Knapskog, S. J. 2011. Re-evaluating the wisdom of crowds in assessing web security. In Proceedings of FC , 299-314.
  3. [Conroy, Rubin, and Chen 2015] Conroy, N. J.; Rubin, V. L.; and Chen, Y. 2015. Automatic deception detection: Methods for finding fake news. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 52(1):1-4.
  4. [Feng et al. 2018] Feng, J.; Huang, M.; Zhao, L.; Yang, Y.; and Zhu, X. 2018. Reinforcement learning for relation classification from noisy data. In Proceedings of AAAI .
  5. [Grandvalet and Bengio 2005] Grandvalet, Y., and Bengio, Y. 2005. Semi-supervised learning by entropy minimization. In Proceedings of NIPS , 529-536.
  6. [Gupta et al. 2014] Gupta, A.; Kumaraguru, P.; Castillo, C.; and Meier, P. 2014. Tweetcred: Real-time credibility assessment of content on twitter. In International Conference on Social Informatics , 228-243.
  7. [Jin et al. 2014] Jin, Z.; Cao, J.; Jiang, Y .-G.; and Zhang, Y. 2014. News credibility evaluation on microblog with a hierarchical propagation model. In Proceedings of ICDM , 230239.
  8. [Kim 2014] Kim, Y. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882 . · arXiv
  9. [Kwon et al. 2013] Kwon, S.; Cha, M.; Jung, K.; Chen, W.; and Wang, Y. 2013. Prominent features of rumor propagation in online social media. In Proceedings of ICDM , 1103-1108.
  10. [Ma et al. 2016] Ma, J.; Gao, W.; Mitra, P.; Kwon, S.; Jansen, B. J.; Wong, K.-F.; and Cha, M. 2016. Detecting rumors from microblogs with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of IJCAI , 3818-3824.
  11. [Maaten and Hinton 2008] Maaten, L. v. d., and Hinton, G. 2008. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research 9(Nov):2579-2605.
  12. [Moore and Clayton 2008] Moore, T., and Clayton, R. 2008. Evaluating the wisdom of crowds in assessing phishing websites. In Proceedings of FC , 16-30.
  13. [Pedregosa et al. 2011] Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Michel, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Blondel, M.; Prettenhofer, P.; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V.; Vanderplas, J.; Passos, A.; Cournapeau, D.; Brucher, M.; Perrot, M.; and Duchesnay, E. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12:2825-2830.
  14. [P´ erez-Rosas et al. 2017] P´ erez-Rosas, V.; Kleinberg, B.; Lefevre, A.; and Mihalcea, R. 2017. Automatic detection of fake news. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07104 . · arXiv
  15. [Popat et al. 2018] Popat, K.; Mukherjee, S.; Yates, A.; and Weikum, G. 2018. Declare: Debunking fake news and false claims using evidence-aware deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.06416 . · arXiv
  16. [Ruchansky, Seo, and Liu 2017] Ruchansky, N.; Seo, S.; and Liu, Y. 2017. Csi: A hybrid deep model for fake news detection. In Proceedings of CIKM , 797-806.
  17. [Shu et al. 2017] Shu, K.; Sliva, A.; Wang, S.; Tang, J.; and Liu, H. 2017. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACMSIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 19(1):22-36.
  18. [Song et al. 2018] Song, Y.; Shi, S.; Li, J.; and Zhang, H. 2018. Directional skip-gram: Explicitly distinguishing left and right context for word embeddings. In Proceedings of NAACL , 175-180.
  19. [Sutton and Barto 1998] Sutton, R. S., and Barto, A. G. 1998. Introduction to reinforcement learning , volume 135. MIT press Cambridge.
  20. [Sutton et al. 2000] Sutton, R. S.; McAllester, D. A.; Singh, S. P.; and Mansour, Y. 2000. Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation. In Proceedings of NIPS , 1057-1063.
  21. [Tacchini et al. 2017] Tacchini, E.; Ballarin, G.; Della Vedova, M. L.; Moret, S.; and de Alfaro, L. 2017. Some like it hoax: Automated fake news detection in social networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.07506 . · arXiv
  22. [Wang et al. 2018] Wang, Y.; Ma, F.; Jin, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Xun, G.; Jha, K.; Su, L.; and Gao, J. 2018. Eann: Event adversarial neural networks for multi-modal fake news detection. In Proceedings of KDD , 849-857.
  23. [Wu, Li, and Wang 2018] Wu, J.; Li, L.; and Wang, W. Y. 2018. Reinforced co-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06035 . · arXiv
  24. [Wu, Yang, and Zhu 2015] Wu, K.; Yang, S.; and Zhu, K. Q. 2015. False rumors detection on sina weibo by propagation structures. In Proceedings of ICDE , 651-662.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, Y., Yang, W., Ma, F., Xu, J., Zhong, B., Deng, Q., & Gao, J.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Tencent (China) (CN)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2020-04-03
Volume
34
Issue
01
Pages
516-523
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W3034027410
Cited by
157
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
FWCI
52.96
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1742845)
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 › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
fake news detection, weakly supervised learning, reinforcement learning, user reports, sample selection, social media news, WeChat official accounts

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