A benchmark study of machine learning models for online fake news detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation of fake news and its propagation on social media has become a major concern due to its ability to create devastating impacts. Different machine learning approaches have been suggested to detect fake news. However, most of those focused on a specific type of news (such as political) which leads us to the question of dataset-bias of the models used. In this research, we conducted a benchmark study to assess the performance of different applicable machine learning approaches on three different datasets where we accumulated the largest and most diversified one. We explored a number of advanced pre-trained language models for fake news detection along with the traditional and deep learning ones and compared their performances from different aspects for the first time to the best of our knowledge. We find that BERT and similar pre-trained models perform the best for fake news detection, especially with very small dataset. Hence, these models are significantly better option for languages with limited electronic contents, i.e., training data. We also carried out several analysis based on the models’ performance, article’s topic, article’s length, and discussed different lessons learned from them. We believe that this benchmark study will help the research community to explore further and news sites/blogs to select the most appropriate fake news detection method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".