A Review of Machine Learning Approaches for Rumour Detection: Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions (Machine Learning for Rumour Detection)

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT24102133

Keywords:

Rumour Detection Using ML, Machine Learning, Rumour Detection From Social Media

Abstract

Rumours and misinformation propagate rapidly across online social networks, posing significant challenges to maintaining the integrity of information dissemination. In recent years, machine learning (ML) techniques have emerged as promising tools for automating the detection and mitigation of rumours. This review paper provides a comprehensive examination of the advancements in rumour detection using ML approaches. The paper begins by outlining the landscape of rumour dissemination in online social networks, highlighting the characteristics and challenges associated with rumour detection. Subsequently, it systematically categorizes and analyzes various ML methods employed for rumour detection, including supervised, unsupervised, and semi-supervised learning approaches. Furthermore, the review delves into the diverse features and representations utilized in ML models for rumour detection, such as textual content, user engagement patterns, network structures, and temporal dynamics. It discusses the strengths and limitations of different feature sets and their impact on the effectiveness of rumour detection systems. Moreover, the paper explores the intricacies of dataset construction and evaluation methodologies for training and testing rumour detection models. It examines commonly used benchmark datasets and evaluation metrics, emphasizing the importance of robust evaluation frameworks for assessing the performance of ML-based rumour detection systems accurately. Additionally, the review identifies key challenges and open research questions in the field of rumour detection using ML, including handling evolving rumour patterns, addressing adversarial attacks, and enhancing the interpretability and explain ability of ML models. It also discusses potential directions for future research aimed at advancing the state-of-the-art in rumour detection and mitigation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Vahed Qazvinian, Emily Rosengren, Dragomir R. Radev, Qiaozhu Mei “Rumor has it Identifying Misinformation in Microblogs" Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1589–1599, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 27–31, 2011.

S. Kwon, M. Cha, K. Jung,W. Chen, and Y.Wang, "Prominent features of rumor propagation in online social media," in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Data Mining (ICDM), Dec. 2013, pp. 1103_1108. doi: 10.1109/ICDM.2013.61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2013.61

Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, "Deep learning," Nature, vol. 521, pp. 436_444, May 2015. doi: 10.1038/nature14539. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539

C. Song, C. Tu, C. Yang, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, "CED: Credible early detection of social media rumors," 2015, arXiv:1811.04175. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.04175.

R. Procter, F. Vis, and A. Voss, “Reading the riots on twitter:methodological innovation for the analysis of big data," International journal of social research methodology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 197– 214, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.774172

C. Andrews, E. Fichet, Y. Ding, E. S. Spiro, and K. Starbird, “Keeping up with the tweet-dashians: The impact of’official’accounts on online rumoring," in Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 2016, pp. 452–465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819986

V. Qazvinian, E. Rosengren, D. R. Radev, and Q. Mei, “Rumor has it: Identifying misinformation in microblogs," in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011, pp. 1589–1599.

Afroz, S., Brennan, M., Greenstadt, R., 2012. Detecting hoaxes, frauds, and deception in writing style online. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. SP ’12. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 461–475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2012.34

Aker, A., Derczynski, L., Bontcheva, K., 2017. Simple open stance clas sification for rumour analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Con ference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, RANLP 2017. pp. 31–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26615/978-954-452-049-6_005

D’Andrea, E., Ducange, P., Bechini, A., Renda, A., Marcelloni, F., 2019. Monitoring the public opinion about the vaccination topic from tweets analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 116, 209–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.09.009

S. A. Alkhodair, S. H. H. Ding, B. C. M. Fung, and J. Liu, ‘‘Detecting breaking news rumors of emerging topics in social media,’’ Inf. Process. Manage., to be published.

E. Agichtein, C. Castillo, D. Donato, A. Gionis, and G. Mishne, ‘‘Finding high-quality content in social media,’’ in Proc. Int. Conf. Web Search Data Mining (WSDM), 2008, pp. 183–194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1341531.1341557

O. Ajao, D. Bhowmik, and S. Zargari, ‘‘Fake news identification on Twitter with hybrid CNN and RNN models,’’ in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Social Media Soc., 2008, pp. 226–230. doi: 10.1145/3217804.3217917. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3217804.3217917

C. Boididou, K. Andreadou, S. Papadopoulos, D.-T. Dang-Nguyen, G. Boato, M. Riegler, and Y. Kompatsiaris, ‘‘Verifying multimedia use at MediaEval,’’ in Proc. MediaEval, 2015, pp. 1–3.

C. Castillo, M. Mendoza, and B. Poblete, ‘‘Information credibility on Twitter,’’ in Proc. 20th Int. Conf. World Wide Web, 2011, pp. 675–684. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963500

T. Chen, H. Chen, and X. Li, ‘‘Rumor detection via recurrent neural networks: A case study on adaptivity with varied data compositions,’’ in Trends and Applications in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), vol. 11154, M. Ganji, L. Rashidi, B. Fung, and C. Wang, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04503-6_10

S. Deng, L. Huang, G. Xu, X. Wu, and Z. Wu, ‘‘On deep learning for trust aware recommendations in social networks,’’ IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1164–1177, May 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2016.2514368

Y. Gao, X. Han, and B. Li, ‘‘A neural rumor detection framework by incorporating uncertainty attention on social media texts,’’ in Proc. Int. Conf. Cogn. Comput. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, Jun. 2019, pp. 91–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23407-2_8

G. Grekousis, ‘‘Artificial neural networks and deep learning in urban geography: A systematic review and meta-analysis,’’ Comput., Envi ron. Urban Syst., vol. 74, pp. 244–256, Mar. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j. compenvurbsys.2018.10.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.10.008

A. Gupta, P. Kumaraguru, C. Castillo, and P. Meier, ‘‘TweetCred: Real time credibility assessment of content on Twitter,’’ in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Social Inform. (SocInfo), Barcelona, Spain, L. M. Aiello and D. McFarland, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, Nov. 2014, pp. 228–243. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-13734-6_16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13734-6_16

Wehrmann, W. Becker, H. E. L. Cagnini, and R. C. Barros, ‘‘A character based convolutional neural network for language-agnostic Twitter senti ment analysis,’’ in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Neural Netw. (IJCNN), May 2017, pp. 2384–2391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2017.7966145

Downloads

Published

03-05-2024

Issue

Section

Research Articles

Similar Articles

1-10 of 282

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.