Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

It's about Time: Rethinking Evaluation on Rumor Detection Benchmarks using Chronological Splits

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.03147 v1 pith:CBLMXUE6 submitted 2023-02-06 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords splitsrumordetectionmodelsrandombenchmarkschronologicalclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

New events emerge over time influencing the topics of rumors in social media. Current rumor detection benchmarks use random splits as training, development and test sets which typically results in topical overlaps. Consequently, models trained on random splits may not perform well on rumor classification on previously unseen topics due to the temporal concept drift. In this paper, we provide a re-evaluation of classification models on four popular rumor detection benchmarks considering chronological instead of random splits. Our experimental results show that the use of random splits can significantly overestimate predictive performance across all datasets and models. Therefore, we suggest that rumor detection models should always be evaluated using chronological splits for minimizing topical overlaps.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Framework of Voting Prediction of Parliament Members

    cs.SI 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A multi-country framework predicts individual parliamentary votes with up to 85% accuracy and bill outcomes with up to 84% accuracy, but the evaluation does not include trivial baselines.

Pith tools