Feature Drift in Fake News Detection: An Interpretable Analysis
Source abstract
Abstract
In recent years, fake news detection and its characteristics have attracted a number of researchers. However, most detection algorithms are driven by data rather than theories, which causes the existing approaches to only perform well on specific datasets. To the extreme, several features only perform well on specific datasets. In this study, we first define the feature drift in fake news detection methods, and then demonstrate the existence of feature drift and use interpretable models (i.e., Shapley Additive Explanations and Partial Dependency Plots) to verify the feature drift. Furthermore, by controlling the distribution of tweets’ creation times, a novel sampling method is proposed to explain the reason for feature drift. Finally, the Anchors method is used in this paper as a supplementary interpretation to exhibit the potential characteristics of feature drift further. Our work provides deep insights into the temporal patterns of fake news detection, proving that the model’s performance is also highly related to the distribution of datasets.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Misinformation and Its Impacts · Spam and Phishing Detection · Complex Network Analysis Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Institute of Cyberspace Security, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China
College of Information Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China
Computational Communication Research Center, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai 519087, China
Funding
Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation · National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (55)
Show source-provided references
1. Zhou, X., and Zafarani, R. (2018). Fake news: A survey of research, detection methods, and opportunities. arXiv.
2. A Novel Spatiotemporal Behavior-Enabled Random Walk Strategy on Online Social Platforms10.1109/TCSS.2021.3105381 ↗
3. Patterns of interest change in stack overflow10.1038/s41598-022-15724-3 ↗
4. Alam, S., and Ravshanbekov, A. (2019). Sieving fake news from genuine: A synopsis. arXiv.
5. The science of fake news10.1126/science.aao2998 ↗
6. Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election10.1038/s41467-018-07761-2 ↗
7. Silverman, C. (2016). This Analysis Shows How Wiral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News on Facebook, BuzzFeed News.
8. How to Stamp Out Fake News10.1038/scientificamerican0217-24 ↗
9. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election10.1257/jep.31.2.211 ↗
10. Liu, Y., Jin, X., Shen, H., and Cheng, X. (2017, January 23–26). Do rumors diffuse differently from non-rumors? A systematically empirical analysis in sina weibo for rumor identification. Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Jeju, Republic of Korea.10.1007/978-3-319-57454-7_32 ↗
11. The spread of true and false news online10.1126/science.aap9559 ↗
12. Meyers, M., Weiss, G., and Spanakis, G. (2020, January 26–27). Fake News Detection on Twitter Using Propagation Structures. Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary International Symposium on Disinformation in Open Online Media, Online.10.1007/978-3-030-61841-4_10 ↗
13. On deception and deception detection: Content analysis of computer-mediated stated beliefs
14. Törnberg, P. (2018). Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion. PLoS ONE, 13.10.1371/journal.pone.0203958 ↗
15. A survey of fake news: Fundamental theories, detection methods, and opportunities10.1145/3395046 ↗
16. Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook10.1126/sciadv.aau4586 ↗
17. Causes and consequences of mainstream media dissemination of fake news: Literature review and synthesis
18. Study epidemiology of fake news10.1038/540525a ↗
19. Volkova, S., Shaffer, K., Jang, J.Y., and Hodas, N. (August, January 30). Separating facts from fiction: Linguistic models to classify suspicious and trusted news posts on twitter. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
20. ‘Lyin’Ted’, ‘Crooked Hillary’, and ‘Deceptive Donald’: Language of Lies in the 2016 US Presidential Debates10.1002/acp.3376 ↗
21. Gogate, M., Adeel, A., and Hussain, A. (December, January 27). Deep learning driven multimodal fusion for automated deception detection. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI), Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1109/SSCI.2017.8285382 ↗
22. Document representation and feature combination for deceptive spam review detection10.1016/j.neucom.2016.10.080 ↗
23. Neural networks for deceptive opinion spam detection: An empirical study10.1016/j.ins.2017.01.015 ↗
24. Ma, J., Gao, W., and Wong, K.F. (2018, January 15–20). Rumor detection on twitter with tree-structured recursive neural networks. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Melbourne, Australia.10.18653/v1/P18-1184 ↗
25. Kwon, S., Cha, M., and Jung, K. (2017). Rumor detection over varying time windows. PLoS ONE, 12.10.1371/journal.pone.0168344 ↗
26. Linguistic feature based learning model for fake news detection and classification10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114171 ↗
27. Wang, W.Y. (August, January 30). ‘Liar, Liar Pants on Fire’: A New Benchmark Dataset for Fake News Detection. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
28. Rumor2vec: A rumor detection framework with joint text and propagation structure representation learning10.1016/j.ins.2020.12.080 ↗
29. Liang, B., Li, H., Su, M., Bian, P., Li, X., and Shi, W. (2018, January 13–19). Deep Text Classification Can Be Fooled. Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI’18, Stockholm, Sweden.10.24963/ijcai.2018/585 ↗
30. Network-based fake news detection: A pattern-driven approach10.1145/3373464.3373473 ↗
31. Propagation2Vec: Embedding partial propagation networks for explainable fake news early detection10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102618 ↗
32. DSS: A hybrid deep model for fake news detection using propagation tree and stance network10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116635 ↗
33. Liu, Y., and Wu, Y.F.B. (2018, January 2–7). Early detection of fake news on social media through propagation path classification with recurrent and convolutional networks. Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11268 ↗
34. Shu, K., Cui, L., Wang, S., Lee, D., and Liu, H. (2019, January 4–8). defend: Explainable fake news detection. Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, Anchorage, AK, USA.10.1145/3292500.3330935 ↗
35. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions
36. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.H., and Friedman, J.H. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 ↗
37. Doshi-Velez, F., and Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv.
38. Molnar, C. (2022). Interpretable Machine Learning. A Guide for Making Black Box Models Explainable, Independently published.
39. Techniques for interpretable machine learning10.1145/3359786 ↗
40. What are decision trees?10.1038/nbt0908-1011 ↗
41. Weisberg, S. (2005). Applied Linear Regression, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/0471704091 ↗
42. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). “Why should i trust you?” Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
43. Singhal, S., Kabra, A., Sharma, M., Shah, R.R., Chakraborty, T., and Kumaraguru, P. (2020, January 7–12). Spotfake+: A multimodal framework for fake news detection via transfer learning (student abstract). Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New York, NY, USA.10.1609/aaai.v34i10.7230 ↗
44. NES-TL: Network embedding similarity-based transfer learning10.1109/TNSE.2019.2942341 ↗
45. Lu, Y.J., and Li, C.T. (2020, January 5–10). GCAN: Graph-aware Co-Attention Networks for Explainable Fake News Detection on Social Media. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Online.10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.48 ↗
46. Ma, J., Gao, W., and Wong, K.F. (August, January 30). Detect rumors in microblog posts using propagation structure via kernel learning. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
47. Shu, K., Mahudeswaran, D., Wang, S., and Liu, H. (2020, January 8–11). Hierarchical propagation networks for fake news detection: Investigation and exploitation. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Atlanta, GA, USA.10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7329 ↗
48. Wu, K., Yang, S., and Zhu, K.Q. (2015, January 13–17). False rumors detection on sina weibo by propagation structures. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Data Engineering, Seoul, Republic of Korea.10.1109/ICDE.2015.7113322 ↗
49. Barabási, A.L. (2016). Network Science, Cambridge University Press.
50. Fake news propagates differently from real news even at early stages of spreading10.1140/epjds/s13688-020-00224-z ↗
51. Statistical mechanics of complex networks10.1103/RevModPhys.74.47 ↗
52. Dong, J., and Horvath, S. (2007). Understanding network concepts in modules. BMC Syst. Biol., 1.10.1186/1752-0509-1-24 ↗
53. Zhang, J., Tang, J., Zhong, Y., Mo, Y., Li, J., Song, G., Hall, W., and Sun, J. (2017, January 4–9). Structinf: Mining structural influence from social streams. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10512 ↗
54. Link weight prediction using supervised learning methods and its application to yelp layered network10.1109/TKDE.2018.2801854 ↗
55. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2018, January 2–7). Anchors: High-precision model-agnostic explanations. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11491 ↗