Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Learning Complex Heterogeneous Multimodal Fake News via Social Latent Network Inference

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Fake-news detector works without retweet cascades, hitting 89–91% accuracy on short-video benchmarks.

desk verdict A timely idea with a useful problem framing, but the headline SOTA claim is not supported as written because the transductive graph setup can leak labels; worth engaging with, but only after the evaluation is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15508 v1 pith:E74HB3A7 submitted 2025-01-26 cs.MM

Mingxin Li , Yuchen Zhang , Haowei Xu , Xianghua Li , Chao Gao , Zhen Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MM
keywords fakenewsdetectionmultimodalheterogeneousgraphlatentnetworkinferenceHawkesprocessself-supervisedlearningcontrastiveshortvideoplatforms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Fake news on short-video platforms such as TikTok cannot be detected with the retweet-cascade graphs used for Twitter, because real cascades are largely hidden. HML sidesteps this by inferring a latent social network from news timestamps and social attributes: an improved Hawkes process estimates how much each news item influences others under the same event, and these influences are combined with attribute similarities into a heterogeneous graph. On top of that graph, self-supervised unimodal augmentation and cross-modal contrastive learning align text, image, audio, and video features before a graph transformer makes the final real/fake decision. On the FakeSV and FVC benchmarks the method reports 89.14% and 91.02% accuracy, beating previous best results by 0.12 to 4.39 percentage points, and the latent-network component alone improves existing detectors by up to 10 points when plugged into them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inferred latent heterogeneous news graph $\mathcal{H} = (V, E, O_E, A, X)$ in which every node is a news item and edges are typed by event, author introduction, news location, engagement statistics, and feature similarity. The event-edge submatrix $A_e$ comes from an improved Hawkes process $\lambda^*(t) = \lambda_0 + \kappa(t)$, where $\kappa^+$ sums self-excited past same-event influences $\alpha e^{-\beta(t-t_i)}$ and $\kappa^-$ adds cross-event interference scaled by a correlation $\tanh(2\,\mathrm{sim}(\cdot,\cdot)-1)$. This converts unobserved social influence into a prior adjacency matrix, which is then fused with attribute and similarity edges via learned attention weights $\omega_{v\leftrightarrow v}$ and passed through a graph transformer that masks attention with the adjacency, so structure shapes which news representations attend to one another before classification with focal loss.

What would settle it

Run HML under an inductive protocol where every test-set item is disconnected from the training graph by removing all edges incident to test nodes, or split per event so no event appears in both train and test. If accuracy stays near the reported 89–91%, the latent network generalizes; if it falls by several points, the gains come substantially from transductive label propagation through event edges.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a latent cascade network—estimated instead of observed—can carry the social-context signal that retweet-based methods rely on. The authors model news influence intensity with an improved Hawkes process whose intensity is modulated by same-event self-excitation and cross-event interference, then threshold the pairwise influence matrix into event edges. Those edges join four other attribute-derived edge types in a heterogeneous graph where every node is a news item, not a user or venue. A self-supervised multimodal learning stage prunes and masks unimodal features, aligns them within and across modalities, and feeds the resulting representations together with the graph into a graph-transformer encoder trained with focal loss. The paper's evidence for the claim is the reported accuracy on FakeSV and FVC, plus plugin experiments showing consistent gains when the inferred network is added to three existing detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The 80:20 random split still leaves test news connected to training news through event-type edges inside the same graph, and the paper does not show that this transductive wiring is label-free; if those edges leak class information during message passing, the reported accuracy overstates how well the method would perform on genuinely new events.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On FakeSV, HML reaches 89.14% accuracy and 89.22% F1; on FVC, 91.02% accuracy and 90.58% F1, beating all prior multimodal, unimodal, and LLM baselines.
  • Removing the latent network inference drops FakeSV accuracy by about 8 points, and removing the self-supervised multimodal learning drops it by about 10 points, so both stages are necessary for the reported result.
  • The latent-network component applied alone to EANN, MCAN, and CAFE improves accuracy by 0.31 to 9.86 points on Twitter and Weibo, indicating the inferred graph transfers to image-text fake news detection.
  • Because the method never needs observed retweet cascades, it is applicable to platforms where propagation data is unavailable or intentionally hidden.
  • The event-based Hawkes inference also captures cross-event interference, and ablations show that removing it costs 0.52% accuracy, evidence that connections between different events carry useful signal.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because event edges tie every news item in an event to the others, the same transductive wiring that may help the model also means the method's early-detection behavior is untested; evaluating with a split that hides all edges from future news would show whether the latent graph gives genuine lead time.
  • The Hawkes-process parameterization could be reused beyond fake news: any setting with timestamped items and weak or missing relational data, such as rumor cascades in messaging apps or coordinated posting detection, could adopt the same latent-influence matrix as a graph prior.
  • The plugin experiments suggest that the inferred network is a transferable representation, but the paper does not analyze what the learned edge-weight attention actually prefers; a weight-visualization study could turn the method into an interpretability tool for why a post is flagged fake.
  • A direct extension would be to replace the fixed Gaussian noising schedule with a learnable diffusion process, since the similarity computation used in $\mathrm{prop}(\cdot)$ already has a diffusion-like form; that could sharpen cross-event influence estimates on noisier platforms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HML, a multimodal fake-news detection method for short-video platforms where real retweet/cascade data are unavailable. Stage 1 infers a latent social network from event timings via an improved Hawkes process and constructs a heterogeneous graph whose edge types encode event membership, author attributes, location, counts, and content similarity. Stage 2 applies self-supervised unimodal augmentation and cross-modal contrastive learning to the text/image/audio/video features. Stage 3 combines edge types with a learnable attention mechanism, applies a graph transformer, and trains a classifier with focal loss. On FakeSV and FVC, the paper reports accuracy of 89.14% and 91.02%, respectively, claiming state-of-the-art results, and it also reports plugin improvements when the network-inference module is added to EANN, MCAN, and CAFE on Twitter and Weibo.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper addresses a genuine limitation of existing fake-news detection: many short-video platforms do not expose propagation cascades, so methods that rely on explicit social graphs are inapplicable. The idea of inferring a latent social graph from event timing and content attributes is timely, and the plugin experiments on Twitter and Weibo suggest the network-inference component may transfer to other settings. The paper also includes a reasonable ablation design separating Stage 1 and Stage 2 contributions. However, the central performance claim is currently undermined by a plausible transductive label-leakage path in the evaluation protocol and by the absence of any statistical uncertainty quantification. The methodological description of the Hawkes-process estimation is also incomplete. These are fixable in a revision, but they affect exactly the headline result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Experimental Setup and Section 4.1 (Heterogeneous Graph Construction, Eq. (11)-(12))] The random 80:20 split described in the Experimental Setup is not event-stratified, and the graph used for message passing in Eq. (11)-(12) includes all news nodes, so test nodes remain connected to labeled training nodes through the Event edge type A1. Since fake/real status is strongly event-correlated, the Graph Transformer can propagate label information across this edge during training, inflating the reported Acc/F1 values. The paper does not describe an inductive protocol, a masked-edge evaluation, or an event-disjoint split; the ablation study uses the same split and therefore cannot rule out this leakage. Please re-run the evaluation under an event-disjoint or otherwise leakage-free protocol, or provide evidence that test nodes are isolated from labeled nodes.
  2. [Experimental Setup and Table 1] The Experimental Setup promises "interval estimation and K-S test", but Table 1 reports only point estimates, and no confidence interval, standard deviation, or significance test appears anywhere. On FVC the F1 improvement over MMVD is +0.12%; without error bars this is indistinguishable from run-to-run noise and does not support the "outperforms SOTA" claim. Please report repeated-run statistics and significance tests for all headline numbers.
  3. [Event-based Cascade Inference, Eq. (5)] In Eq. (5), prop(·) is defined as the Minkowski distance, i.e., a nonnegative, unbounded quantity, while the text preceding Eq. (2) states that prop(·) is a correlation in [-1,1]. The subsequent tanh(2·sim−1) mapping assumes a bounded similarity; using a raw distance makes the cross-event influence κ− (Eq. (2)) ill-defined and the values of γ uninterpretable. Please correct the definition or specify the normalization that turns a distance into a bounded similarity.
  4. [Social Latent Network Inference (Stage 1)] Section 4.1 states that the Hawkes-process parameters are estimated by the log-likelihood in Eq. (6), but the paper never gives the estimation procedure, update rules, or pseudocode; it also does not specify how the influence I(t) is converted into the adjacency matrix Ae. This makes Stage 1 non-reproducible and the claim that the graph is "maximum likelihood" unverifiable. Please add the full inference algorithm.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (8) and Eq. (9)] The indices in Eq. (8) are inconsistent: the text lists ezi, ezj, ezp and then refers to augmented data ˜zj p, ˜zp p, but the equation does not define these quantities clearly. Please rewrite with consistent notation for original and augmented samples.
  2. [Event-based Cascade Inference, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The noising process introduced in Eqs. (3)-(4) is not connected to the similarity calculation in Eq. (5); the paper should explain how this Gaussian noise enters prop(·) or remove the equations if they are not used.
  3. [Experimental Setup] The phrase "divides the dataset 80:20 following the FakeSV benchmark" is ambiguous; please specify whether this is the official split of FakeSV and cite the exact protocol, since the split choice is central to the leakage concern.
  4. [Figure 3] The figure contains repeated labels such as ℒter1 that are not defined in the text; these should be corrected or removed for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the latent graph re-encodes input features and there are minor self-citations, but the central claim is empirically testable and not forced by definition or by the cited prior work.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a feature-based graph construction followed by supervised classification: event timestamps and labels drive the Hawkes intensity estimate A_e, attribute and similarity statistics form edge types A_i, Eq. (11) combines them by attention, and Eq. (12) performs message passing before the focal loss in Eq. (13). The adjacency therefore depends on the same multimodal features that serve as node attributes, so the 'social latent network' partly re-encodes the input rather than being inferred from independent cascade data; this is a self-referential design choice, but it is not a circular derivation because the classifier output is not defined as the graph, the graph is not fit to the fake/real labels, and the method is evaluated on external benchmarks (FakeSV, FVC, Twitter, Weibo) against multiple baselines with ablations. The self-citations (Hou et al. 2024a/b and Zhu et al. 2024) support the attribute-statistics premise and the graph-transformer encoder, but they are not load-bearing uniqueness claims, and the ablations and case study give independent support. The 80:20 random split with transductive message passing is a potential label-propagation leakage concern, but that is an experimental-validity issue, not a circularity reduction, and an event-stratified or inductive protocol would test it. Minor self-citations and the feature-similarity graph loop keep the score at 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on the Hawkes process assumption, an ad hoc similarity-based cross-event influence, and a graph built from event labels and feature similarities. The parameters of the Hawkes process are fitted to the evaluation data, and no independent evidence is provided for the model's validity.

free parameters (8)
  • alpha (excitation coefficient) = not reported
    Controls the strength of self-excitation within an event in Eq. (2); estimated on the same datasets used for evaluation.
  • beta (decay rate) = not reported
    Sets the exponential decay of influence in Eq. (2).
  • gamma (cross-event coefficient) = not reported
    Scales the influence of news from other events in Eq. (2).
  • rho (graph binarization threshold) = not reported
    Threshold that maps similarity matrices to {0,1} adjacency matrices during heterogeneous graph construction.
  • lambda (loss weighting) = 0.5
    Balances unimodal and cross-modal contrastive losses in Eq. (10); authors state optimal value.
  • e (pruning ratio) = 0.6
    Proportion of modal features pruned in the data augmentation stage; authors state optimal value.
  • tau_uni, tau_crs (contrastive temperatures) = not reported
    Temperature hyperparameters in Eqs. (8) and (9).
  • phi, psi (focal loss hyperparameters) = not reported
    Tunable hyperparameters in Eq. (13).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The influence intensity of news over time follows a Hawkes process with exponential kernel (Eq. 1-2).
    The paper postulates this model without justification from real diffusion data.
  • ad hoc to paper Cross-event news influence is a function of feature similarity via prop(·) = tanh(2·sim - 1), with sim computed as Minkowski distance (Eq. 2, 5).
    The definition of prop is inconsistent between Eq. 2 and Eq. 5, and the use of Gaussian noising to model forgetting is not motivated.
  • domain assumption News in the same event are connected with edge type A1, and A_e (the inferred cascade adjacency) is a submatrix of A1.
    Assumes event labels are available and that event grouping is a valid relational signal.
  • domain assumption An 80:20 random split prevents train/test label leakage through event edges in the graph.
    Not stated or justified; the graph is built over all news including test nodes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Complex Heterogeneous Multimodal Fake News via Social Latent Network Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E74HB3A7

@misc{pith2026250115508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Complex Heterogeneous Multimodal Fake News via Social Latent Network Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E74HB3A7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15508}
}
read the original abstract

With the diversification of online social platforms, news dissemination has become increasingly complex, heterogeneous, and multimodal, making the fake news detection task more challenging and crucial. Previous works mainly focus on obtaining social relationships of news via retweets, limiting the accurate detection when real cascades are inaccessible. Given the proven assessment of the spreading influence of events, this paper proposes a method called HML (Complex Heterogeneous Multimodal Fake News Detection method via Latent Network Inference). Specifically, an improved social latent network inference strategy is designed to estimate the maximum likelihood of news influences under the same event. Meanwhile, a novel heterogeneous graph is built based on social attributes for multimodal news under different events. Further, to better aggregate the relationships among heterogeneous multimodal features, this paper proposes a self-supervised-based multimodal content learning strategy, to enhance, align, fuse and compare heterogeneous modal contents. Based above, a personalized heterogeneous graph representation learning is designed to classify fake news. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms the SOTA in real social media news datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Differences in news dissemination across social [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrate of proposed event-based cascade influ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Framework of HML. The whole framework is divided into three modules. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of the proposed Heterogeneous Graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: T-SNE Visualization of FakeSV dataset. t Title: Hats off to the brave men and women who walk against the fire! Please return safely! Publish Time: Mar 25, 2019 Author Intro: Jieyang City Fire Brigade Official News Location: Jiangsu Count Like: High Event: Xuzhou chemic…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Case study of proposed method HML in Douyin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Bhargava, P.; MacDonald, K.; Newton, C.; Lin, H.; and Pennycook, G. 2023. How Effective are TikTok Misinformation Debunking Videos? Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Boididou, C.; Papadopoulos, S.; Zampoglou, M.; Apostolidis, L.; Papadopoulou, O.; and Kompatsiaris, Y. 2018. Detection and Visualization of Misleading Content on Twitter. International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval, 7(1): 71--86

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bu, Y.; Sheng, Q.; Cao, J.; Qi, P.; Wang, D.; and Li, J. 2023. Combating Online Misinformation Videos: Characterization, Detection, and Future Directions. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 8770--8780

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Bu, Y.; Sheng, Q.; Cao, J.; Qi, P.; Wang, D.; and Li, J. 2024. FakingRecipe: Detecting Fake News on Short Video Platforms from the Perspective of Creative Process. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 1351--1360

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Chen, Y.; Li, D.; Zhang, P.; Sui, J.; Lv, Q.; Tun, L.; and Shang, L. 2022. Cross-modal Ambiguity Learning for Multimodal Fake News Detection. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, 2897--2905

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Cheng, L.; Guo, R.; Shu, K.; and Liu, H. 2021. Causal Understanding of Fake News Dissemination on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 148--157

    work page 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Choi, H.; and Ko, Y. 2021. Using Topic Modeling and Adversarial Neural Networks for Fake News Video Detection. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, 2950--2954

    2021

  2. [10]

    Devlin, J.; Chang, M.-W.; Lee, K.; and Toutanova, K. 2019. BERT : Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language T...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Frankle, J.; and Carbin, M. 2018. The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Representations

    2018

  4. [12]

    Gao, Y.; Liu, F.; and Gao, L. 2023. Echo Chamber Effects on Short Video Platforms. Scientific Reports, 13(1): 6282

    2023

  5. [13]

    P.; Gemmeke, J

    Hershey, S.; Chaudhuri, S.; Ellis, D. P.; Gemmeke, J. F.; Jansen, A.; Moore, R. C.; Plakal, M.; Platt, D.; Saurous, R. A.; Seybold, B.; et al. 2017. CNN Architectures for Large-scale Audio Classification. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, S...

    2017

  6. [14]

    Hou, D.; Gao, C.; Li, X.; and Wang, Z. 2024 a . DAG-Aware Variational Autoencoder for Social Propagation Graph Generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 8508--8516

    2024

  7. [15]

    Hou, D.; Yin, S.; Gao, C.; Li, X.; and Wang, Z. 2024 b . Propagation Dynamics of Rumor vs. Non-rumor across Multiple Social Media Platforms Driven by User Characteristics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17840

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hu, B.; Sheng, Q.; Cao, J.; Shi, Y.; Li, Y.; Wang, D.; and Qi, P. 2024. Bad actor, Good advisor: Exploring the Role of Large Language Models in Fake News Detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 22105--22113

    2024

  9. [17]

    Hu, L.; Yang, T.; Zhang, L.; Zhong, W.; Tang, D.; Shi, C.; Duan, N.; and Zhou, M. 2021. Compare to the Knowledge: Graph Neural Fake News Detection with External Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th I...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Ji, S.; Xu, W.; Yang, M.; and Yu, K. 2013. 3D Convolutional Neural Networks for Human Action Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35(1): 221--231

    2013

  11. [19]

    J.; and Wang, Z

    Jiang, Z.; Chen, T.; Mortazavi, B. J.; and Wang, Z. 2021. Self-damaging Contrastive Learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 4927--4939

    2021

  12. [20]

    Lin, T.-Y.; Goyal, P.; Girshick, R.; He, K.; and Doll \'a r, P. 2017. Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2980--2988

    2017

  13. [21]

    A.; Li, L.; and Faloutsos, C

    Matsubara, Y.; Sakurai, Y.; Prakash, B. A.; Li, L.; and Faloutsos, C. 2017. Nonlinear Dynamics of Information Diffusion in Social Networks. ACM Transactions on the Web, 11(2): 1--40

    2017

  14. [22]

    Nan, Q.; Cao, J.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, Y.; and Li, J. 2021. MDFEND : Multi-domain Fake News Detection. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, 3343--3347

    2021

  15. [23]

    Nguyen, V.-H.; Sugiyama, K.; Nakov, P.; and Kan, M.-Y. 2020. FANG: Leveraging Social Context for Fake News Detection using Graph Representation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, 1165--1174

    2020

  16. [24]

    Papadopoulou, O.; Zampoglou, M.; Papadopoulos, S.; and Kompatsiaris, I. 2019. A Corpus of Debunked and Verified User-generated Videos. Online Information Review, 43(1): 72--88

    2019

  17. [25]

    T.; Nguyen, N

    Phan, H. T.; Nguyen, N. T.; and Hwang, D. 2023. Fake News Detection: A Survey of Graph Neural Network Methods. Applied Soft Computing, 139: 110235

    2023

  18. [26]

    Qi, P.; Bu, Y.; Cao, J.; Ji, W.; Shui, R.; Xiao, J.; Wang, D.; and Chua, T.-S. 2023 a . FakeSV : A Multimodal Benchmark with Rich Social Context for Fake News Detection on Short Video Platforms. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 14444--14452

    2023

  19. [27]

    Qi, P.; Cao, J.; Li, X.; Liu, H.; Sheng, Q.; Mi, X.; He, Q.; Lv, Y.; Guo, C.; and Yu, Y. 2021. Improving Fake News Detection by Using an Entity-enhanced Framework to Fuse Diverse Multimodal Clues. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 1212--1220

    2021

  20. [28]

    Qi, P.; Zhao, Y.; Shen, Y.; Ji, W.; Cao, J.; and Chua, T.-S. 2023 b . Two Heads Are Better Than One: Improving Fake News Video Detection by Correlating with Neighbors. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2023, 11947--11959

    2023

  21. [29]

    Serrano, J. C. M.; Papakyriakopoulos, O.; Hegelich, S.; and Hegelich, S. 2020. NLP -based Feature Extraction for the Detection of COVID-19 Misinformation Videos on YouTube . In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for COVID-19 at ACL 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Shang, L.; Kou, Z.; Zhang, Y.; and Wang, D. 2021. A Multimodal Misinformation Detector for COVID-19 Short Videos on TikTok. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, 899--908

    2021

  23. [31]

    Shu, K.; Mahudeswaran, D.; Wang, S.; Lee, D.; and Liu, H. 2020. FakeNewsNet: A Data Repository with News Content, Social Context, and Spatiotemporal Information for Studying Fake News on Social Media. Big data, 8(3): 171--188

    2020

  24. [32]

    Simonyan, K.; and Zisserman, A. 2015. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-scale Image Recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations

    2015

  25. [33]

    Vo, N.; and Lee, K. 2018. The rise of guardians: Fact-checking URL Recommendation to Combat Fake News. In Proceedings of the 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, 275--284

    2018

  26. [34]

    Wang, Y.; Ma, F.; Jin, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Xun, G.; Jha, K.; Su, L.; and Gao, J. 2018. EANN : Event Adversarial Neural Networks for Multi-modal Fake News Detection. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 849--857

    2018

  27. [35]

    Wu, L.; Liu, P.; and Zhang, Y. 2023. See How you Read? Multi-Reading Habits Fusion Reasoning for Multi-modal Fake News Detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 13736--13744

    2023

  28. [36]

    Wu, Y.; Zhan, P.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; and Xu, Z. 2021. Multimodal Fusion with Co-attention Networks for Fake News Detection. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, 2560--2569

    2021

  29. [37]

    Yin, S.; Zhu, P.; Wu, L.; Gao, C.; and Wang, Z. 2024. GAMC: an Unsupervised Method for Fake News Detection using Graph Autoencoder with Masking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 347--355

    2024

  30. [38]

    Zeng, Z.; Luo, M.; Kong, X.; Liu, H.; Guo, H.; Yang, H.; Ma, Z.; and Zhao, X. 2024. Mitigating World Biases: A Multimodal Multi-View Debiasing Framework for Fake News Video Detection. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 6492--6500

    2024

  31. [39]

    Zhang, K.; Yu, J.; Shi, H.; Liang, J.; and Zhang, X.-Y. 2023. Rumor Detection with Diverse Counterfactual Evidence. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 3321--3331

    2023

  32. [40]

    Zheng, C. 2023. Research on the Flow Experience and Social Influences of Users of Short Online Videos. A Case Study of DouYin. Scientific Reports, 13(1): 3312

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zhou, X.; Wu, J.; and Zafarani, R. 2020. SAFE : Similarity-Aware Multi-modal Fake News Detection. In Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 354--367

    2020

  34. [42]

    Zhu, J.; Gao, C.; Yin, Z.; Li, X.; and Kurths, J. 2024. Propagation Structure-Aware Graph Transformer for Robust and Interpretable Fake News Detection. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 4652--4663

    2024

  35. [43]

    Zhu, Y.; Sheng, Q.; Cao, J.; Nan, Q.; Shu, K.; Wu, M.; Wang, J.; and Zhuang, F. 2023. Memory-guided Multi-view Multi-domain Fake News Detection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(7): 7178--7191

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.