An Efficient Deep Learning Technique for Bangla Fake News Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People connect with a plethora of information from many online portals due to the availability and ease of access to the internet and electronic communication devices. However, news portals sometimes abuse press freedom by manipulating facts. Most of the time, people are unable to discriminate between true and false news. It is difficult to avoid the detrimental impact of Bangla fake news from spreading quickly through online channels and influencing people’s judgment. In this work, we investigated many real and false news pieces in Bangla to discover a common pattern for determining if an article is disseminating incorrect information or not. We developed a deep learning model that was trained and validated on our selected dataset. For learning, the dataset contains 48,678 legitimate news and 1,299 fraudulent news. To deal with the imbalanced data, we used random undersampling and then ensemble to achieve the combined output. In terms of Bangla text processing, our proposed model achieved an accuracy of 98.29% and a recall of 99%.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".