CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 293Misinformation and Its ImpactsSpam and Phishing DetectionComplex Network Analysis Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 84 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

False Information on Web and Social Media: A Survey

Open access
Kumar, Srijan, Shah, Neil·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1804.08559arXiv 1804.08559
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

False information can be created and spread easily through the web and social media platforms, resulting in widespread real-world impact. Characterizing how false information proliferates on social platforms and why it succeeds in deceiving readers are critical to develop efficient detection algorithms and tools for early detection. A recent surge of research in this area has aimed to address the key issues using methods based on feature engineering, graph mining, and information modeling. Majority of the research has primarily focused on two broad categories of false information: opinion-based (e.g., fake reviews), and fact-based (e.g., false news and hoaxes). Therefore, in this work, we present a comprehensive survey spanning diverse aspects of false information, namely (i) the actors involved in spreading false information, (ii) rationale behind successfully deceiving readers, (iii) quantifying the impact of false information, (iv) measuring its characteristics across different dimensions, and finally, (iv) algorithms developed to detect false information. In doing so, we create a unified framework to describe these recent methods and highlight a number of important directions for future research.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1804.08559

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 85 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [3][3] Daron Acemoglu, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Ali ParandehGheibi. Spread of (mis) information in social networks. Games and Economic Behavior , 70(2):194-227, 2010. -
  2. [5][5] Leman Akoglu, Rishi Chandy, and Christos Faloutsos. Opinion fraud detection in online reviews by network effects. Proceedings of the 7th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , 2013. -
  3. [6][6] Leman Akoglu, Mary McGlohon, and Christos Faloutsos. Oddball: Spotting anomalies in weighted graphs. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . Springer, 2010. -
  4. [12][12] Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Cailliau, Jean-François Groff, and Bernd Pollermann. World-wide web: The information universe. Internet Research , 20(4):461-471, 2010. -
  5. [15][15] Alex Beutel, Kenton Murray, Christos Faloutsos, and Alexander J Smola. CoBaFi: collaborative bayesian filtering. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web . ACM, 2014. -
  6. [16][16] Alex Beutel, Wanhong Xu, Venkatesan Guruswami, Christopher Palow, and Christos Faloutsos. Copycatch: stopping group attacks by spotting lockstep behavior in social networks. In Proceedings of the 22rd International Conference on World Wide Web . ACM, 2013. -
  7. [18][18] Ceren Budak, Divyakant Agrawal, and Amr El Abbadi. Limiting the spread of misinformation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web . ACM, 2011. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–293 of 293

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kumar, S., & Shah, N.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1804.08559
arXiv
1804.08559
OpenAlex
W2799165947
Cited by
289
References
85
Citations by year
2025: 15 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 10
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
misinformation, fake news detection, hoaxes, fake reviews, social media, World Wide Web, graph mining, feature engineering

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