Benjamin D. Horne

Benjamin D. Horne, Maurício Gruppi, Sibel Adalı

A major concern with text-based news veracity detection methods is that they may not generalize across countries and cultures. In this short paper, we explicitly test news veracity models across news data from the United States and the United Kingdom, demonstrating there is reason for concern of generalizabilty. Through a series of testing scenarios, we show that text-based classifiers perform poorly when trained on one country's news data and tested on another. Furthermore, these same models have trouble classifying unseen, unreliable news sources. In conclusion, we discuss implications of these results and avenues for future work.

Benjamin D. Horne, William Dron, Sibel Adali

In this work, we ask two questions: 1. Can we predict the type of community interested in a news article using only features from the article content? and 2. How well do these models generalize over time? To answer these questions, we compute well-studied content-based features on over 60K news articles from 4 communities on reddit.com. We train and test models over three different time periods between 2015 and 2017 to demonstrate which features degrade in performance the most due to concept drift. Our models can classify news articles into communities with high accuracy, ranging from 0.81 ROC AUC to 1.0 ROC AUC. However, while we can predict the community-specific popularity of news articles with high accuracy, practitioners should approach these models carefully. Predictions are both community-pair dependent and feature group dependent. Moreover, these feature groups generalize over time differently, with some only degrading slightly over time, but others degrading greatly. Therefore, we recommend that community-interest predictions are done in a hierarchical structure, where multiple binary classifiers can be used to separate community pairs, rather than a traditional multi-class model. Second, these models should be retrained over time based on accuracy goals and the availability of training data.

Benjamin D. Horne, Sibel Adali

The problem of fake news has gained a lot of attention as it is claimed to have had a significant impact on 2016 US Presidential Elections. Fake news is not a new problem and its spread in social networks is well-studied. Often an underlying assumption in fake news discussion is that it is written to look like real news, fooling the reader who does not check for reliability of the sources or the arguments in its content. Through a unique study of three data sets and features that capture the style and the language of articles, we show that this assumption is not true. Fake news in most cases is more similar to satire than to real news, leading us to conclude that persuasion in fake news is achieved through heuristics rather than the strength of arguments. We show overall title structure and the use of proper nouns in titles are very significant in differentiating fake from real. This leads us to conclude that fake news is targeted for audiences who are not likely to read beyond titles and is aimed at creating mental associations between entities and claims.