Weak Supervision for Fake News Detection via Reinforcement Learning
Open accessAbstract
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 Moreover, due to the dynamic nature of news, annotated samples may become outdated quickly and cannot represent the news articles on newly emerged events.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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946 · see citing works
Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2011) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1107.4557 · Cited by 1,008 · see citing works
Leveraging the Crowd to Detect and Reduce the Spread of Fake News and Misinformation
Kim, J., Tabibian, B., Oh, A., Schölkopf, B., & Gomez-Rodriguez, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3159652.3159734 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Fake News Detection in Social Networks via Crowd Signals
Tschiatschek, S., Singla, A., Gomez Rodriguez, M., Merchant, A., & Krause, A. (2018) · Companion of the The Web Conference 2018 on The Web Conference 2018 - WWW '18 · doi:10.1145/3184558.3188722 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- [Castillo, Mendoza, and Poblete 2011] Castillo, C.; Mendoza, M.; and Poblete, B. 2011. Information credibility on twitter. In Proceedings of WWW , 675-684.
- [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.
- [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.
- [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 .
- [Grandvalet and Bengio 2005] Grandvalet, Y., and Bengio, Y. 2005. Semi-supervised learning by entropy minimization. In Proceedings of NIPS , 529-536.
- [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.
- [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.
- [Kim 2014] Kim, Y. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882 . · arXiv
- [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.
- [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.
- [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.
- [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.
- [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.
- [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
- [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
- [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.
- [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.
- [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.
- [Sutton and Barto 1998] Sutton, R. S., and Barto, A. G. 1998. Introduction to reinforcement learning , volume 135. MIT press Cambridge.
- [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.
- [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
- [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.
- [Wu, Li, and Wang 2018] Wu, J.; Li, L.; and Wang, W. Y. 2018. Reinforced co-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06035 . · arXiv
- [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
A survey of human-in-the-loop for machine learning
Wu, X., Xiao, L., Sun, Y., Zhang, J., Ma, T., & He, L. (2022) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2022.05.014 · Cited by 800 · see citing works
Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review
Aïmeur, E., Amri, S., & Brassard, G. (2023) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5 · Cited by 772 · see citing works
The Role of the Crowd in Countering Misinformation: A Case Study of the COVID-19 Infodemic
Micallef, N., He, B., Kumar, S., Ahamad, M., & Memon, N. (2020) · 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) · doi:10.1109/bigdata50022.2020.9377956 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.aaai.org/ (unspecified)
- 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