Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Neighborhood-Order Learning Graph Attention Network for Fake News Detection

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

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

Pith's one-line read A graph attention network that lets each news node choose its own k-hop neighborhood in every layer outperforms fixed-depth message passing for fake news detection, especially when labeled data is scarce.

desk verdict A coherent but incremental GNN architecture whose large reported gains over baselines rest on an unfair-looking baseline setup; worth refereeing, but only after a clean re-run. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06927 v1 pith:LJKKQUPX submitted 2025-02-10 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Batool Lakzaei , Mostafa Haghir Chehreghani , Alireza Bagheri This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords fakenewsdetectiongraphneuralnetworkssemi-supervisedlearningneighborhoodorderGumbel-SoftmaxattentionnetworkadaptivemessagepassingKNNsimilarity
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

This paper tries to establish that a graph neural network can detect fake news better by letting every node—each news article—choose its own neighborhood distance in every layer, rather than being limited to the fixed L-hop reach of a standard L-layer network. The proposed NOL-GAT couples a Hop Network that picks a k-hop order for each node via Gumbel-Softmax with an Embedding Network that aggregates along that chosen order. Across five fake-news datasets and label fractions of 10%, 20%, and 30%, the paper reports accuracy and macro-F1 gains over six semi-supervised baselines, with the largest margins at 10% labels. A sympathetic reader would care because the mechanism addresses a known bottleneck—distant but semantically relevant neighbors are unreachable in shallow GNNs—without adding depth, and because low-label settings are where fake-news detection is most needed in practice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the paired Hop Network Φ and Embedding Network Ψ, both implemented as GATv2 networks. Φ consumes each node's current embedding together with its φ-hop neighbors and outputs a probability vector over Γ; the Straight-Through Gumbel-Softmax turns that vector into a one-hot choice of neighborhood order γ, and Ψ then updates the node embedding from exactly the γ-hop neighbors. What this buys is a differentiable, node-level decision about reach: a node at the periphery of a KNN similarity graph can decide to listen to a 6-hop article, while a central node can stick to 1-hop or 2-hop neighbors, and the decision can change from layer to layer. The whole architecture operates on a fixed KNN graph built from Doc2Vec text embeddings, so the only difference from a standard GATv2 is this learned hop selection.

What would settle it

Re-run the six baselines with their own published optimal hyperparameters and original feature pipelines on the same five datasets, add DHGAT and LOSS-GAT to the comparison, and check the 10%-label accuracy gap; if NOL-GAT's margin over the best proper baseline falls below roughly five accuracy points, or if either omitted method matches or beats it, the central outperformance claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fixed-depth message passing is the wrong constraint for semi-supervised fake news detection. NOL-GAT replaces the uniform rule 'aggregate over 1-hop neighbors in each layer' with a per-node, per-layer categorical choice: a probability distribution over neighborhood orders Γ = {0, 1, ..., dg}, where dg is the graph diameter, is output by a GATv2-based Hop Network, a neighborhood order is sampled differentiably with the Straight-Through Gumbel-Softmax estimator, and a second GATv2-based Embedding Network aggregates messages from exactly that hop distance. Because the selection is categorical and node-specific, the model can pull information from far-away nodes that a shallow standard GNN would never reach, while still avoiding the homogenization that deep stacking causes. The paper reports that this design outperforms all six compared baselines across five datasets and all three label proportions, and argues that it mitigates over-squashing and over-smoothing while keeping computational cost lower than deep alternatives.

Load-bearing premise

The headline 'significantly outperforms' claim assumes the baselines were given a fair run—same Doc2Vec features and hyperparameters as NOL-GAT while faithfully preserving their original architectures—and that no omitted close competitor (DHGAT, LOSS-GAT) would match NOL-GAT's numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 10% labeled data, the reported margins over the best baseline reach about 19 accuracy points on Fake.Br and about 9 points on FakeNewsDetection, with similar macro-F1 gaps.
  • Because the hop choice is per layer, the same node can use a 4-hop neighborhood in layer 1 and a 2-hop neighborhood in layer 2, so the model adapts to local graph position rather than a global depth budget.
  • The reported optimal KNN graph parameter is k = 6 or 7 across datasets; smaller or larger values reduce macro-F1, showing that graph construction and hop selection interact.
  • NOL-GAT keeps the same architecture and hyperparameters as its GATv2 baseline except for the message-passing rule, so the paper attributes the gains specifically to adaptive neighborhood-order selection.
  • The model is content-only and operates on a similarity graph, so the claimed gains do not depend on user profiles or propagation trees, making the method applicable to any text dataset.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the per-node hop choices are stable across training runs, the sampled neighborhood orders could serve as a primitive explanation: which distant articles actually shaped a prediction. The paper does not analyze the learned distributions, so this is an extension, not a reported result.
  • The mechanism is graph-agnostic, so a natural next test is whether the same adaptive hop selection transfers to other semi-supervised node-classification tasks, such as citation or social-network label prediction.
  • A direct head-to-head with the closely related decision-based heterogeneous GAT (DHGAT) and the label-propagation method LOSS-GAT, both cited in the paper but absent from the experiments, would isolate whether the gain comes from hop-order flexibility or from other design choices such as heterogeneous neighbor types.
  • The complexity claim could be made quantitative by measuring wall-clock time and memory at matched accuracy against a deep GATv2; the paper asserts reduced complexity but does not report runtime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 NOL-GAT, a graph attention architecture for semi-supervised fake news detection in which each node, at each layer, learns a categorical distribution over neighborhood orders (k-hop distances) using a Gumbel-Softmax estimator. A hop network (Φ) predicts the order, and an embedding network (Ψ) aggregates neighbors at the selected order. The architecture is evaluated on five datasets (Fake.Br, Fact-checked News, FakeNewsNet, FakeNewsDetection, FakeNewsData) at 10%, 20%, and 30% labeled-data rates, against six baselines (CO-GNN, L2Q, TGNCL, LSTM-CP-GCN, TextGCN, GATv2). The paper reports ten-run means and standard deviations for accuracy and macro-F1, and claims significant gains, especially in low-label settings, along with qualitative advantages such as mitigating over-squashing and reducing computational complexity.

Significance. If the reported results are taken at face value, the contribution is a simple and plausible mechanism: replacing fixed-depth message passing with per-node, per-layer hop selection, which is differentiable via Gumbel-Softmax and can be implemented as a small modification of GATv2. The GATv2 ablation in Figure 3 supports the claim that the adaptive hop-selection mechanism, rather than merely added capacity, drives the improvement. The manuscript also provides public code and reports ten-run means and standard deviations, which is good experimental practice. However, the significance is currently contingent on the fairness and completeness of the experimental protocol: the adaptation of TextGCN and LSTM-CP-GCN to a generic two-layer GCN is not described in sufficient detail, the KNN graph degree is tuned but not reported in the main tables, and the closest related methods from the same group (DHGAT, LOSS-GAT) are omitted. Until these issues are resolved, the headline outperformance claim is not verifiable from the manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.3] The baseline configurations for TextGCN and LSTM-CP-GCN are not faithful to their original architectures. The text states that 'For TextGCN and LSTM-CP-GCN, a two-layer GCN with the same number of hidden units is used, following the original model architecture.' TextGCN's original mechanism is a heterogeneous graph with word and document nodes plus pretrained word embeddings, and LSTM-CP-GCN uses a sentence graph with CP-decomposed co-occurrence weights and LSTM-generated features. Reducing both to a plain two-layer GCN on the Doc2Vec-based KNN graph removes precisely the components that define these methods, which is likely to weaken them substantially. Please specify the exact adapted architecture and feature inputs for each baseline, or run the original implementations with their native graph constructions, and state whether any hyperparameters were re-tuned for the adapted versions.
  2. [Section 6.4.3 and Tables 3–7] The main results do not report the KNN graph degree k used for each method. Section 6.4.3 tunes k and reports that the optimum is generally 6–7, but Tables 3–7 do not state whether NOL-GAT and each baseline used the same k, the per-dataset optimal k for NOL-GAT, or a fixed default for the baselines. If the reported NOL-GAT numbers were selected from the best k per dataset while baselines used a single un-tuned k, the reported margins (e.g., +0.19 accuracy over TextGCN on Fake.Br at 10% labels) would partly reflect test-set selection rather than the architecture. Please report the exact k for every method and every dataset, and, if k was tuned for NOL-GAT, provide a sensitivity analysis for the baselines over the same k values.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 6.2] The closest related methods, DHGAT [46] and LOSS-GAT [28], are discussed in the related work but are absent from the experimental comparison. Both are semi-supervised GAT-based fake news detectors by the same research group; DHGAT in particular uses the same decision/representation network split as NOL-GAT, differing mainly in the action space (neighborhood type vs. hop order). Because the contribution is framed as an improvement in adaptive neighborhood selection, the absence of these methods from Tables 3–7 makes it impossible to assess whether NOL-GAT offers a genuine advance over the authors' own prior work. Please add these comparisons or justify their omission with concrete reasons.
  4. [Abstract and Section 6.4] The claim that NOL-GAT 'significantly outperforms' baselines is not supported by any significance test. The tables report means and standard deviations over ten runs, but no paired t-tests, confidence intervals, or effect-size statistics are provided. While many margins appear large, some comparisons have overlapping variation (e.g., Table 4, 30% label case for Co-GNN vs. TextGCN), and no formal test is given. Please add appropriate statistical tests for the headline comparisons, or qualify the 'significant' language accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2] The baseline named 'L2Q' is cited as [43], but reference [43] is titled 'Learning How to Propagate Messages in Graph Neural Networks' (L2P). Please clarify whether the baseline is L2P, a renamed variant, or a different method, and ensure the citation and name are consistent.
  2. [Section 5 and Abstract] The claims about mitigating over-squashing, improving information flow, and reducing computational complexity are stated as advantages but are not measured or quantified anywhere in the experiments. Please either provide supporting measurements (e.g., over-squashing metrics, training time, or FLOPs) or soften these claims to be qualitative/hypothesized rather than demonstrated properties.
  3. [Table 1] In Table 1, the set of vertices is written as V_KNN = {v1, d2, ..., dn}; the second element should presumably be v2. Please correct this typo.
  4. [Algorithm 1 and Section 4.3] There are several typographical inconsistencies: 'Gumble-Softmax' should be 'Gumbel-Softmax', 'hope network' should be 'hop network', and Equation (5) uses 'P' in the denominator where 'Σ' would be clearer. These should be cleaned up before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical and self-contained, with self-citations used only as background and no fitted quantity relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its headline results from its inputs by construction. The proposed mechanism, hop-network selection of a neighborhood order via Gumbel-Softmax followed by embedding-network aggregation (Eqs. 6 and 9), is an architectural proposal evaluated on held-out label proportions; the reported accuracy and macro-F1 scores are experimental outputs rather than quantities forced by definition. The related-work section cites the authors' own DHGAT, LOSS-GAT, and survey, but these citations are contextual and not load-bearing: none is invoked to justify NOL-GAT's design, to rule out alternatives, or to establish a uniqueness claim. No self-definitional loop appears because the model's objective is not defined in terms of the reported success metric. The KNN parameter-sensitivity analysis in Section 6.4.3 reports an empirical optimum, but the paper never defines the reported accuracies as a prediction derived from that fitted k; possible test-set tuning or weakened TextGCN/LSTM-CP-GCN baselines would be experimental-fairness concerns, not circularity under the specified patterns. Likewise, the resemblance of the decision/representation split to prior work such as DHGAT or L2P concerns incremental novelty, not circularity. Therefore no step satisfying the circularity definitions can be quoted, and the correct finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no scientific constants or derived quantities. The commitments are the Gumbel-Softmax machinery, the KNN graph assumption, and the architectural premise that per-node hop order is learnable from local context. Several training hyperparameters are absent from the text, which weakens reproducibility.

free parameters (4)
  • K (KNN graph degree) = 6 or 7 (per dataset)
    Swept over {3,...,8} in Section 6.4.3; the value used in the main tables is not reported per dataset.
  • phi (hop network neighborhood order) = not reported
    Equation 6 uses a user-defined phi, never specified in Section 6.3.
  • number of NOL-GAT layers L = not reported
    Algorithm 1 takes L as input but the experiments do not state its value.
  • Gumbel-Softmax temperature (iota) = not reported
    Equation 5 depends on iota; no value or schedule is given.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Gumbel-Softmax provides a differentiable approximation of discrete sampling.
    Used in Eq. 4-5 for selecting hop orders; standard result cited to [51].
  • domain assumption Textually similar news articles (via Doc2Vec and KNN) tend to share veracity labels.
    The graph construction in Section 4.2 assumes the KNN similarity graph is a useful carrier of label structure.
  • ad hoc to paper An optimal neighborhood order exists per node per layer and is inferable from the node's local context.
    Core design premise of NOL-GAT (Section 4.3); no theoretical analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neighborhood-Order Learning Graph Attention Network for Fake News Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJKKQUPX

@misc{pith2026250206927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neighborhood-Order Learning Graph Attention Network for Fake News Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJKKQUPX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06927}
}
read the original abstract

Fake news detection is a significant challenge in the digital age, which has become increasingly important with the proliferation of social media and online communication networks. Graph Neural Networks (GNN)-based methods have shown high potential in analyzing graph-structured data for this problem. However, a major limitation in conventional GNN architectures is their inability to effectively utilize information from neighbors beyond the network's layer depth, which can reduce the model's accuracy and effectiveness. In this paper, we propose a novel model called Neighborhood-Order Learning Graph Attention Network (NOL-GAT) for fake news detection. This model allows each node in each layer to independently learn its optimal neighborhood order. By doing so, the model can purposefully and efficiently extract critical information from distant neighbors. The NOL-GAT architecture consists of two main components: a Hop Network that determines the optimal neighborhood order and an Embedding Network that updates node embeddings using these optimal neighborhoods. To evaluate the model's performance, experiments are conducted on various fake news datasets. Results demonstrate that NOL-GAT significantly outperforms baseline models in metrics such as accuracy and F1-score, particularly in scenarios with limited labeled data. Features such as mitigating the over-squashing problem, improving information flow, and reducing computational complexity further highlight the advantages of the proposed model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of the proposed model NOL-GAT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of the neighborhood limitation in standard GNNs. The graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Macro-F1 (a) and accuracy (b) comparision of NOL-GAT and standard GATv2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Macro-F1 (a) and accuracy (b) comparision, for different amounts of labeled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Parameter sensitivity of k (number of nearest neighbors in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    Lakzaei, M

    B. Lakzaei, M. H. Chehreghani, A. Bagheri, A decision-based heteroge- nous graph attention network for multi-class fake news detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03290 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [28]

    LOSS-GAT: Label Propagation and One-Class Semi-Supervised Graph Attention Network for Fake News Detection

    B. Lakzaei, M. H. Chehreghani, A. Bagheri, Loss-gat: Label propagation and one-class semi-supervised graph attention network for fake news detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08401 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Paraschiv, N

    M. Paraschiv, N. Salamanos, C. Iordanou, N. Laoutaris, M. Sirivianos, A unified graph-based approach to disinformation detection using contex- tual and semantic relations, in: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 16, 2022, pp. 747–758

    work page 2022

  4. [2]

    B. Xie, X. Ma, J. Wu, J. Yang, S. Xue, H. Fan, Heterogeneous graph neural network via knowledge relations for fake news detection, in: Pro- ceedings of the 35th International Conference on Scientific and Statisti- cal Database Management, 2023, pp. 1–11

    work page 2023

  5. [3]

    Choudhary, A

    A. Choudhary, A. Arora, Gin-fnd: Leveraging users’ preferences for graph isomorphic network driven fake news detection, Multimedia Tools and Applications 83 (22) (2024) 62061–62087

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    T. S. Teja, L. H. Sandhya, S. K. Choudhary, A graph neural network approach to combatting fake news, in: 2023 International Conference on Sustainable Computing and Smart Systems (ICSCSS), IEEE, 2023, pp. 575–579

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    M. P. S. Gˆ olo, M. C. de Souza, R. G. Rossi, S. O. Rezende, B. M. Nogueira, R. M. Marcacini, One-class learning for fake news detection 30 through multimodal variational autoencoders, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 122 (2023) 106088

    work page 2023

  8. [6]

    J. E. Van Engelen, H. H. Hoos, A survey on semi-supervised learning, Machine learning 109 (2) (2020) 373–440

    2020

Show all 59 references
  1. [7]

    Breve, L

    F. Breve, L. Zhao, M. Quiles, W. Pedrycz, J. Liu, Particle competition and cooperation in networks for semi-supervised learning, IEEE Trans- actions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 24 (9) (2011) 1686–1698

    2011

  2. [8]

    L. Shi, Y. Zhang, J. Cheng, H. Lu, Skeleton-based action recognition with multi-stream adaptive graph convolutional networks, IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing 29 (2020) 9532–9545

    2020

  3. [9]

    R. G. Rossi, A. de Andrade Lopes, S. O. Rezende, Optimization and label propagation in bipartite heterogeneous networks to improve trans- ductive classification of texts, Information Processing & Management 52 (2) (2016) 217–257

    2016

  4. [10]

    T. N. Kipf, M. Welling, Semi-supervised classification with graph con- volutional networks, in: 5th International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings, OpenReview.net, 2017. URL https://openreview....

    2017

  5. [11]

    K. Xu, W. Hu, J. Leskovec, S. Jegelka, How powerful are graph neural networks?, in: 7th International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019, OpenRe- view.net, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=ryGs6iA5Km

    2019

  6. [12]

    Gholamzadeh Nasrabadi, A

    F. Gholamzadeh Nasrabadi, A. Kashani, P. Zahedi, M. Haghir Chehreghani, Content augmented graph neural net- works, ACM Trans. WebJust Accepted (2024). doi:10.1145/3700790. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3700790

    2024 doi

  7. [13]

    J. You, R. Ying, J. Leskovec, Position-aware graph neural networks, in: K. Chaudhuri, R. Salakhutdinov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, 9-15 June 2019, Long Beach, California, USA, Vol. 97 of Proceedings of Machine 31 Lea...

    2019

  8. [14]

    Zohrabi, S

    M. Zohrabi, S. Saravani, M. H. Chehreghani, Centrality-based and similarity-based neighborhood extension in graph neural net- works, J. Supercomput. 80 (16) (2024) 24638–24663. doi:10.1007/ S11227-024-06336-X . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-024-06336-x

    2024 doi

  9. [15]

    S. Luan, C. Hua, Q. Lu, J. Zhu, X. Chang, D. Precup, When do we need graph neural networks for node classification?, in: H. Cherifi, L. M. Rocha, C. Cherifi, M. Donduran (Eds.), Complex Networks & Their Ap- plications XII - Proceedings of The Twelfth International Conference o...

    2023 doi

  10. [16]

    Haghir Chehreghani, Half a decade of graph convolutional networks, Nature Machine Intelligence 4 (3) (2022) 192–193

    M. Haghir Chehreghani, Half a decade of graph convolutional networks, Nature Machine Intelligence 4 (3) (2022) 192–193

    2022

  11. [17]

    M. C. de Souza, B. M. Nogueira, R. G. Rossi, R. M. Marcacini, B. N. Dos Santos, S. O. Rezende, A network-based positive and unlabeled learning approach for fake news detection, Machine learning 111 (10) (2022) 3549–3592

    2022

  12. [18]

    W. Shi, R. Rajkumar, Point-gnn: Graph neural network for 3d object detection in a point cloud, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 1711–1719

    2020

  13. [19]

    C. Gao, X. Wang, X. He, Y. Li, Graph neural networks for recommender system, in: Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 2022, pp. 1623–1625

    2022

  14. [20]

    Gholinejad, M

    N. Gholinejad, M. H. Chehreghani, Heterophily-aware fair recommenda- tion using graph convolutional networks, CoRR abs/2402.03365 (2024). arXiv:2402.03365, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2402.03365. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.03365 32

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [21]

    G. Lu, J. Li, J. Wei, Aspect sentiment analysis with heterogeneous graph neural networks, Information Processing & Management 59 (4) (2022) 102953

    2022

  16. [22]

    G. Hu, Y. Ding, S. Qi, X. Wang, Q. Liao, Multi-depth graph convo- lutional networks for fake news detection, in: Natural Language Pro- cessing and Chinese Computing: 8th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2019, Dunhuang, China, October 9–14, 2019, Proceedings, Part I 8, Sprin...

    2019

  17. [23]

    Monti, F

    F. Monti, F. Frasca, D. Eynard, D. Mannion, M. M. Bronstein, Fake news detection on social media using geometric deep learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.06673 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Y. Ren, B. Wang, J. Zhang, Y. Chang, Adversarial active learning based heterogeneous graph neural network for fake news detection, in: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), IEEE, 2020, pp. 452–461

    2020

  19. [25]

    Benamira, B

    A. Benamira, B. Devillers, E. Lesot, A. K. Ray, M. Saadi, F. D. Malliaros, Semi-supervised learning and graph neural networks for fake news detection, in: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, 2019, pp. 568–569

    2019

  20. [26]

    Hiremath, S

    P. Hiremath, S. S. Kalagi, et al., Analysis of fake news detection using graph neural network (gnn) and deep learning, in: 2023 2nd Interna- tional Conference on Automation, Computing and Renewable Systems (ICACRS), IEEE, 2023, pp. 1805–1811

    2023

  21. [27]

    Lakzaei, M

    B. Lakzaei, M. Haghir Chehreghani, A. Bagheri, Disinformation detec- tion using graph neural networks: a survey, Artificial Intelligence Review 57 (3) (2024) 52

    2024

  22. [29]

    Asghari, M

    S. Asghari, M. H. Chehreghani, M. H. Chehreghani, On using node in- dices and their correlations for fake account detection, in: S. Tsumoto, 33 Y. Ohsawa, L. Chen, D. V. den Poel, X. Hu, Y. Motomura, T. Takagi, L. Wu, Y. Xie, A. Abe, V. Raghavan (Eds.), IEEE International Conf...

    2022

  23. [30]

    Davoudi, M

    M. Davoudi, M. R. Moosavi, M. H. Sadreddini, Dss: A hybrid deep model for fake news detection using propagation tree and stance network, Expert Systems with Applications 198 (2022) 116635. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116635. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...

    2022

  24. [31]

    Yadav, A

    A. Yadav, A. Gupta, An emotion-driven, transformer-based network for multimodal fake news detection, International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval 13 (1) (2024) 7

    2024

  25. [32]

    Z. Qu, Y. Meng, G. Muhammad, P. Tiwari, Qmfnd: A quantum mul- timodal fusion-based fake news detection model for social media, Infor- mation Fusion 104 (2024) 102172

    2024

  26. [33]

    X. Fang, H. Wu, J. Jing, Y. Meng, B. Yu, H. Yu, H. Zhang, Nsep: Early fake news detection via news semantic environment perception, Information Processing & Management 61 (2) (2024) 103594

    2024

  27. [34]

    Al Obaid, H

    A. Al Obaid, H. Khotanlou, M. Mansoorizadeh, D. Zabihzadeh, Robust semi-supervised fake news recognition by effective augmentations and ensemble of diverse deep learners, IEEE Access 11 (2023) 54526–54543

    2023

  28. [35]

    Shaeri, A

    P. Shaeri, A. Katanforoush, A semi-supervised fake news detection using sentiment encoding and lstm with self-attention, in: 2023 13th Interna- tional Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering (ICCKE), IEEE, 2023, pp. 590–595

    2023

  29. [36]

    H. T. Canh, P. H. Thong, L. T. Giang, P. D. Hung, Fake news detec- tion based on multi-view fuzzy clustering algorithm, in: International Conference on Ad Hoc Networks, Springer, 2023, pp. 150–166

    2023

  30. [37]

    S. H. Akdag, N. K. Cicekli, Early detection of fake news on emerg- ing topics through weak supervision, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems (2024) 1–22. 34

    2024

  31. [38]

    V. D. K. Nguyen, P. Do, Fake news detection using knowledge graph and graph convolutional network, in: International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Data Science, Springer, 2023, pp. 216–224

    2023

  32. [39]

    T. Liu, Q. Cai, C. Xu, B. Hong, F. Ni, Y. Qiao, T. Yang, Rumor de- tection with a novel graph neural network approach, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16206 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Inan, Zoka: a fake news detection method using edge-weighted graph attention network with transfer models, Neural Computing and Appli- cations 34 (14) (2022) 11669–11677

    E. Inan, Zoka: a fake news detection method using edge-weighted graph attention network with transfer models, Neural Computing and Appli- cations 34 (14) (2022) 11669–11677

    2022

  34. [41]

    Zhang, Q

    Z. Zhang, Q. Lv, X. Jia, W. Yun, G. Miao, Z. Mao, G. Wu, Gbca: Graph convolution network and bert combined with co-attention for fake news detection, Pattern Recognition Letters 180 (2024) 26–32

    2024

  35. [42]

    D. B. Acharya, H. Zhang, Feature selection and extraction for graph neural networks, in: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Southeast Confer- ence, 2020, pp. 252–255

    2020

  36. [43]

    T. Xiao, Z. Chen, D. Wang, S. Wang, Learning how to propagate messages in graph neural networks, in: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 2021, pp. 1894–1903

    2021

  37. [44]

    Chaudhary, B

    L. Chaudhary, B. Singh, Gumbel-softmax based graph convolution net- work approach for community detection, International Journal of Infor- mation Technology 15 (6) (2023) 3063–3070

    2023

  38. [45]

    Finkelshtein, X

    B. Finkelshtein, X. Huang, M. M. Bronstein, ˙I. ˙I. Ceylan, Cooperative graph neural networks, in: Forty-first International Conference on Ma- chine Learning (ICML), 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Q. Le, T. Mikolov, Distributed representations of sentences and docu- ments, in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, 2014, pp. 1188–1196. 35

    2014

  40. [48]

    Mikolov, K

    T. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, J. Dean, Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space, in: 1st International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    U. Alon, E. Yahav, On the bottleneck of graph neural networks and its practical implications, in: 9th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Q. Li, Z. Han, X.-M. Wu, Deeper insights into graph convolutional net- works for semi-supervised learning, in: Proceedings of the AAAI confer- ence on artificial intelligence, Vol. 32, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    E. Jang, S. Gu, B. Poole, Categorical reparameterization with gumbel- softmax, in: 5th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    C. J. Maddison, A. Mnih, Y. W. Teh, The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables, in: 5th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Brody, U

    S. Brody, U. Alon, E. Yahav, How attentive are graph attention net- works?, in: The Tenth International Conference on Learning Represen- tations (ICLR), 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    R. M. Silva, R. L. Santos, T. A. Almeida, T. A. Pardo, Towards auto- matically filtering fake news in portuguese, Expert Systems with Appli- cations 146 (2020) 113199

    2020

  47. [55]

    K. Shu, D. Mahudeswaran, S. Wang, D. Lee, H. Liu, Fakenewsnet: A data repository with news content, social context, and spatiotemporal information for studying fake news on social media, Big data 8 (3) (2020) 171–188

    2020

  48. [56]

    X. Li, B. Wang, Y. Wang, M. Wang, Graph-based text classification by contrastive learning with text-level graph augmentation, ACM Transac- tions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 18 (4) (2024) 1–21

    2024

  49. [57]

    Q. Ren, B. Zhou, D. Yan, W. Guo, Fake news classification using tensor decomposition and graph convolutional network, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 11 (2) (2023) 2190–2200. 36

    2023

  50. [58]

    L. Yao, C. Mao, Y. Luo, Graph convolutional networks for text classifi- cation, in: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 33, 2019, pp. 7370–7377

    2019

  51. [59]

    Z. Wu, D. Pi, J. Chen, M. Xie, J. Cao, Rumor detection based on propagation graph neural network with attention mechanism, Expert systems with applications 158 (2020) 113595. 37

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.