Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
skip to main content
10.1145/3289600.3291382acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
tutorial

Fake News: Fundamental Theories, Detection Strategies and Challenges

Published:30 January 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The explosive growth of fake news and its erosion to democracy, justice, and public trust increased the demand for fake news detection. As an interdisciplinary topic, the study of fake news encourages a concerted effort of experts in computer and information science, political science, journalism, social science, psychology, and economics. A comprehensive framework to systematically understand and detect fake news is necessary to attract and unite researchers in related areas to conduct research on fake news. This tutorial aims to clearly present (1) fake news research, its challenges, and research directions; (2) a comparison between fake news and other related concepts (e.g., rumors); (3) the fundamental theories developed across various disciplines that facilitate interdisciplinary research; (4) various detection strategies unified under a comprehensive framework for fake news detection; and (5) the state-of-the-art datasets, patterns, and models. We present fake news detection from various perspectives, which involve news content and information in social networks, and broadly adopt techniques in data mining, machine learning, natural language processing, information retrieval and social search. Facing the upcoming 2020 U.S. presidential election, challenges for automatic, effective and efficient fake news detection are also clarified in this tutorial.

References

  1. Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 31, 2 (2017), 211--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Blake E Ashforth and Fred Mael. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review, Vol. 14, 1 (1989), 20--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Xin Dong, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Geremy Heitz, Wilko Horn, Ni Lao, Kevin Murphy, Thomas Strohmann, Shaohua Sun, and Wei Zhang. 2014. Knowledge vault: A web-scale approach to probabilistic knowledge fusion. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 601--610. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Nitin Jindal and Bing Liu. 2008. Opinion spam and analysis. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 219--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. David MJ Lazer, Matthew A Baum, Yochai Benkler, Adam J Berinsky, Kelly M Greenhill, Filippo Menczer, Miriam J Metzger, Brendan Nyhan, Gordon Pennycook, David Rothschild, et almbox. 2018. The science of fake news. Science, Vol. 359, 6380 (2018), 1094--1096.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Raymond S Nickerson. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, Vol. 2, 2 (1998), 175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jay Pujara and Sameer Singh. 2018. Mining Knowledge Graphs From Text. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 789--790. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. K Rapoza. 2017. Can `fake news' impact the stock market?Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kai Shu, H Russell Bernard, and Huan Liu. 2018a. Studying Fake News via Network Analysis: Detection and Mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10233 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Kai Shu, Deepak Mahudeswaran, Suhang Wang, Dongwon Lee, and Huan Liu. 2018b. FakeNewsNet: A Data Repository with News Content, Social Context and Dynamic Information for Studying Fake News on Social Media. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01286 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kai Shu, Amy Sliva, Suhang Wang, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. 2017. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, Vol. 19, 1 (2017), 22--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Craig Silverman. 2016. This analysis shows how viral fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook. BuzzFeed News, Vol. 16 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Alexander Smith and Vladimir Banic. 2016. Fake News: How a partying Macedonian teen earns thousands publishing lies. NBC News, Vol. 9 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Udo Undeutsch. 1967. Beurteilung der glaubhaftigkeit von aussagen. Handbuch der psychologie, Vol. 11 (1967), 26--181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Liang Wu, Fred Morstatter, Xia Hu, and Huan Liu. 2016. Mining misinformation in social media. Big Data in Complex and Social Networks (2016), 123--152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Xinyi Zhou and Reza Zafarani. 2018. Fake News: A Survey of Research, Detection Methods, and Opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2492706 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Fake News: Fundamental Theories, Detection Strategies and Challenges

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            WSDM '19: Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
            January 2019
            874 pages
            ISBN:9781450359405
            DOI:10.1145/3289600

            Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 30 January 2019

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • tutorial

            Acceptance Rates

            WSDM '19 Paper Acceptance Rate84of511submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate498of2,863submissions,17%

            Upcoming Conference

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader