Multimodal Fake News Analysis Based on Image–Text Similarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the fast and extensive development of computer vision techniques, multimodal analyses are utilized more frequently for online fake news detection. To better understand the image–text relationship and its role in fake news detection, in this article, we proposed and evaluated four image–text similarities, namely, textual similarity, semantic similarity, contextual similarity, and post-training similarity. The textual and semantic similarities indicate the original image–text similarities in terms of the text information and image caption information. The contextual similarity reflects the image–text similarity in the format of meaningful named entities. The post-training similarity demonstrates how image–text similarity involves before and after a fake news detection model is trained. By evaluating the proposed similarity measurements on three real-world datasets, we find that fake news image–text similarity is higher than real news image–text similarity in most of the cases. Furthermore, the comparison of models’ performance further validates the significance of visual information in online fake news detection. These findings may be considered as the fundamental logic to explain the original purpose of fake news creation and can be used as influential features for improving models’ performance in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".