Can Fake News Detection Models Maintain the Performance through Time? A Longitudinal Evaluation of Twitter Publications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The negative impact of false information on social networks is rapidly growing. Current research on the topic focused on the detection of fake news in a particular context or event (such as elections) or using data from a short period of time. Therefore, an evaluation of the current proposals in a long-term scenario where the topics discussed may change is lacking. In this work, we deviate from current approaches to the problem and instead focus on a longitudinal evaluation using social network publications spanning an 18-month period. We evaluate different combinations of features and supervised models in a long-term scenario where the training and testing data are ordered chronologically, and thus the robustness and stability of the models can be evaluated through time. We experimented with 3 different scenarios where the models are trained with 15-, 30-, and 60-day data periods. The results show that detection models trained with word-embedding features are the ones that perform better and are less likely to be affected by the change of topics (for example, the rise of COVID-19 conspiracy theories). Furthermore, the additional days of training data also increase the performance of the best feature/model combinations, although not very significantly (around 2%). The results presented in this paper build the foundations towards a more pragmatic approach to the evaluation of fake news detection models in social networks.
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 | 0.023 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".