PreprintCited by 46Misinformation and Its ImpactsSpam and Phishing DetectionTopic Modeling

Faking Fake News for Real Fake News Detection: Propaganda-loaded Training Data Generation

Open access
Huang, Kung-Hsiang, McKeown, Kathleen, Nakov, Preslav, Choi, Yejin, Ji, Heng·2022·arXiv

Abstract

Despite recent advances in detecting fake news generated by neural models, their results are not readily applicable to effective detection of human-written disinformation. What limits the successful transfer between them is the sizable gap between machine-generated fake news and human-authored ones, including the notable differences in terms of style and underlying intent. With this in mind, we propose a novel framework for generating training examples that are informed by the known styles and strategies of human-authored propaganda. Specifically, we perform self-critical sequence training guided by natural language inference to ensure the validity of the generated articles, while also incorporating propaganda techniques, such as appeal to authority and loaded language. In particular, we create a new training dataset, PropaNews, with 2,256 examples, which we release for future use. Our experimental results show that fake news detectors trained on PropaNews are better at detecting human-written disinformation by 3.62 - 7.69% F1 score on two public datasets.

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.2203.05386

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Prior Seq2Seq fake article generators occasionally make grammar and commonsense mistakes, making them not deceptive enough to humans.

    “However, the articles generated by these approaches occasionally make grammar and commonsense mistakes, making them not deceptive enough to humans.”

    From On the Risk of Misinformation Pollution with Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2022

    The Introduction and Table 8 discussion say earlier generators produce too much inaccurate information, and §5.2 reports that humans rated GROVER-GEN articles slightly less plausible than the authors’ articles. The paper does not establish that earlier articles make grammar and commonsense mistakes or that such mistakes make them insufficiently deceptive to humans. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    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: 1

  1. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Lan- guage models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, K.-H., McKeown, K., Nakov, P., Choi, Y., & Ji, H.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
14571-14589
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385572054
Cited by
46
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3
FWCI
39.93
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (HR001120C0123, HR00112290105)
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 › Topic Modeling
Keywords
fake news detection, disinformation, propaganda techniques, training data generation, natural language inference, appeal to authority, loaded language, transfer learning

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