Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 39 references

WISE: Web Information Satire and Fakeness Evaluation

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read On a balanced 20,000-title Reddit dataset, a 33M-parameter distilled model (MiniLM) reaches 87.58% accuracy, edging out 110M–125M-parameter baselines, while RoBERTa-base tops ROC-AUC at 95.42%.

desk verdict Legitimate benchmark, overstated headline: the MiniLM 'exceeds' claim is an untested 0.22 pp gap, and promised DeLong tests are missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.24000 v3 pith:W3EGNZ65 submitted 2025-12-30 cs.CL

Gaurab Chhetri , Subasish Das , Tausif Islam Chowdhury This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords fakenewsdetectionsatireclassificationlightweighttransformersknowledgedistillationFakeddittextbenchmarkevaluationmisinformation
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

Distinguishing fake news from satire is hard because both mimic news style, but this paper argues the task does not require huge models. It builds the WISE benchmark on a balanced 20,000-sample Fakeddit subset and shows that MiniLM, a lightweight 33M-parameter transformer, achieves the highest accuracy (87.58%), slightly above RoBERTa-base (87.36%) and BERT-base (87.17%). RoBERTa-base retains the best ranking quality (95.42% ROC-AUC), and DistilBERT offers a strong efficiency-accuracy compromise. The core message is that distilled, compact models can match or exceed large baselines for this classification, making deployment in resource-constrained settings feasible.

What carries the argument

The WISE framework is a benchmark pipeline: a balanced dataset curated from Fakeddit (10,000 'Satire/Parody' titles and 10,000 titles from 'Misleading Content' plus 'Manipulated Content'), stratified 5-fold cross-validation, fixed hyperparameters across all models, and a broad metric suite (accuracy, macro-F1, ROC-AUC, PR-AUC, MCC, Brier, ECE). Statistical tests—paired t-tests with Benjamini-Hochberg correction, McNemar tests, and DeLong tests—are used to confirm that observed differences are not random. The framework's job is to isolate architectural capacity and efficiency trade-offs for this specific task.

What would settle it

Run MiniLM and RoBERTa-base on an external fake-news-versus-satire benchmark such as the Golbeck dataset of full articles (283 fake, 203 satire) or on full-text news articles; if MiniLM's accuracy drops below RoBERTa-base's by more than the 0.22-point margin seen here, the central claim that lightweight models match baselines is specific to title-level Reddit data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

WISE evaluates eight lightweight transformers and two baselines on a balanced fake-news-versus-satire title classification task, and the central finding is that lightweight models can match or exceed baseline performance. MiniLM achieves the highest accuracy among all ten models at 87.58%, while RoBERTa-base achieves the highest ROC-AUC at 95.42%. The paper interprets this as evidence that distillation-based compression preserves the linguistic cues needed to separate satirical intent from deceptive framing, provided the student model keeps enough depth and attention capacity.

Load-bearing premise

The 'fake news' label is assumed to be fairly represented by Fakeddit's 'Misleading Content' and 'Manipulated Content' posts, and the evaluation is limited to Reddit titles longer than 50 characters; if these are not good proxies for intentionally deceptive news, the conclusions hold only for this curated subset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the finding holds, a 33M-parameter model like MiniLM can replace models two-to-four times larger for title-level satire-fake classification without losing accuracy, which lowers the compute barrier for misinformation detection systems.
  • For applications where threshold tuning and ranking matter most, RoBERTa-base remains the preferred choice because its 95.42% ROC-AUC indicates better separation across decision thresholds.
  • DistilBERT can serve as the default for latency-sensitive or resource-constrained deployments, delivering 86.28% accuracy and 93.90% ROC-AUC at a fraction of the baseline size.
  • The 87–88% accuracy range, well above the mid-70% to low-80% ranges reported in earlier small-scale satire-fake studies, suggests that larger balanced datasets and rigorous cross-validation account for a substantial share of measured performance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The title-only setup means these results may not transfer to full-text articles, where satire's humor and irony cues could be distributed differently; a reasonable speculation is that lightweight-model advantages shrink or disappear on longer texts.
  • Because 'fake news' is proxied by Fakeddit's 'Misleading Content' and 'Manipulated Content' labels, the benchmark likely measures the specific contrast between those Reddit categories and satire/parody, not all forms of real-world misinformation.
  • The small gap between MiniLM and RoBERTa-base suggests that much of the remaining error is intrinsic to the task—satire and deceptive news share stylistic features—so further gains may require modeling intent beyond surface text, such as source credibility or visual context.
  • A practical extension would be to use MiniLM or DistilBERT as a first-pass filter and RoBERTa-base as a second-pass verifier on borderline cases, a hybrid the paper itself gestures toward.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a balanced 20,000-title subset of Fakeddit (10,000 satire/parody and 10,000 fake-news proxies defined as Misleading plus Manipulated Content) and fine-tunes eight lightweight transformers (TinyBERT, TinyBERT4L, ALBERT, MiniBERT, MiniLM, Small-BERT-L2, DistilBERT, ELECTRA-small) and two baselines (BERT-base, RoBERTa-base). Using stratified 5-fold cross-validation, it reports accuracy, macro F1, precision, recall, MCC, ROC-AUC, PR-AUC, Brier score, ECE, and per-class metrics. The central claim is that a lightweight model, MiniLM, achieves the highest accuracy (87.58%) while RoBERTa-base achieves the highest ROC-AUC (95.42%), supporting the conclusion that lightweight models can match or exceed baseline performance for satire-versus-fake-news title classification.

Significance. The benchmark addresses a real gap: systematic comparison of compact transformers specifically for the fake-news-versus-satire distinction, a task where lightweight deployment matters. The use of public Hugging Face checkpoints, fixed hyperparameters, YAML configurations, and a described reproducibility protocol are strengths, and the dataset size (20k) is an improvement over earlier satire/fake datasets. If the statistical claims are substantiated, the paper would provide a useful deployment-oriented reference. However, the headline 'exceed baseline' conclusion is currently supported only by a 0.22-percentage-point accuracy difference that is never subjected to the significance tests the paper itself promises, and several reporting inconsistencies prevent the reader from verifying the results.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.3.5/§4.3] The statistical framework promised in §3.3.5 — paired t-tests with BH correction, McNemar tests, and DeLong tests — is only partially delivered. §4.3 reports two t-test comparisons (RoBERTa vs DistilBERT, BERT vs DistilBERT) and a vague McNemar summary, and no DeLong results appear anywhere. The paper's central claim that MiniLM 'exceeds' RoBERTa-base by 0.22 pp in accuracy (87.58 vs 87.36) is never tested. Given the 5-fold standard deviations (0.0039 for MiniLM vs 0.0227 for RoBERTa), the difference may well be sampling noise. Without a reported significance test for this specific comparison, only 'comparable' is supported, not 'exceed' as stated in the abstract, §4.5, and §5.3.
  2. [§3.3.1] The cross-validation split description is internally inconsistent. The text says: 'the training-validation set (80% of data) is further split into training (70%) and validation (15%) sets, with the remaining 15% held out as the test set.' These numbers sum to 100%, not 80%, and they do not describe a 5-fold split with a 20% held-out test set per fold. If the authors instead nested splits inside each fold, that is not what is written. This ambiguity affects the validity of every reported mean and confidence interval, and it must be clarified (or corrected) before the evaluation can be reproduced.
  3. [Figure 2 / Table 4] The ROC-AUC values printed in Figure 2 differ systematically from the ROC-AUC column in Table 4 for nearly every model. Examples: MiniLM 0.935 vs 0.9452, ELECTRA-small 0.919 vs 0.9303, RoBERTa-base 0.949 vs 0.9542, BERT-base 0.944 vs 0.9488. The caption says the curves are computed from out-of-fold predictions, while Table 4 reports the mean per-fold AUC; even so, the magnitude of several discrepancies is large (e.g., 0.011 for ELECTRA-small) and the relationship is not explained. The reader cannot tell which numbers are authoritative. This undermines the paper's verification of the 'highest ROC-AUC' claims and must be resolved.
  4. [§4.4/§3.3.4] Efficiency is a listed contribution and a central part of the deployment recommendations, but no actual efficiency measurements are reported. §3.3.4 states 'Efficiency is tracked as end-to-end training time and inference time for a single prediction pass,' yet §4.4 contains only qualitative assertions such as 'being significantly smaller and faster' and 'more efficient,' with no times, no speedups, and no efficiency table. Table 2 gives parameter counts only. To support the 'efficiency-accuracy trade-off' recommendations, the paper needs to report the measured training and inference times (or at least inference throughput) for each model.
  5. [§3.1.1] The 'fake news' class is defined as 5,000 Misleading Content plus 5,000 Manipulated Content samples from Fakeddit, with all titles longer than 50 characters. The paper asserts that these categories 'represent intentionally deceptive content' and are appropriate proxies for fake news, but no external validation is provided, and other Fakeddit categories (False Connection, Imposter Content) are excluded. As the reader's report notes, if this proxy is not representative, the conclusions apply only to this curated Reddit-title subset. I encourage the authors to either validate the proxy against held-out Fakeddit categories or another satire/fake-news dataset (e.g., Golbeck et al.), or explicitly reframe the claims as being about these Fakeddit subcategories rather than 'fake news' generally.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3] Typo: 'percemt' should be 'percent' in the DistilBERT description.
  2. [§3.2.1] The model name is inconsistently written as 'TinyBERT4L2' in the text and 'TinyBERT4L' in tables and elsewhere; unify the notation.
  3. [References] Reference [1] cites a Wired summary rather than the original Vosoughi et al. Science paper; [32] is the original. Consider consolidating to avoid duplication.
  4. [§4.1] The prose in §4.1 says 'clear performance hierarchies' but the ROC curves in Figure 2 are very close together; consider adding a zoomed inset or reporting AUC differences explicitly in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the benchmark measures public checkpoints on an external dataset; the lightweight-vs-baseline claim is an empirical comparison, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that lightweight models can match or exceed baseline performance — is supported by 5-fold cross-validated accuracy, F1, ROC-AUC, and related metrics computed from held-out folds of the external Fakeddit dataset using public Hugging Face checkpoints. No quantity is defined in terms of the conclusion, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing result is imported from the authors' own prior work: the three self-citations ([6], [7], [8]) concern highway safety and transit tweets and are unrelated to fake-vs-satire classification. The assertions that 'Misleading Content' and 'Manipulated Content' are 'appropriate proxies for fake news' are dataset-construction assumptions about label semantics, not circular derivations. The manuscript's own limitations section notes the study is title-level, single-dataset, and uses fixed hyperparameters, which are external-validity concerns rather than evidence that a result equals its input. The promised DeLong tests in §3.3.5 are not reported in §4.3, and the MiniLM-vs-RoBERTa accuracy gap is not significance-tested; that is missing evidence or statistical under-support, not circularity. The measured ROC curves in Figure 2 are explicitly 'computed from out-of-fold predictions,' so even the ranking-quality results are genuinely predictive. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends primarily on the Fakeddit label proxy and the fixed training protocol; neither is independently validated. No new entities are postulated; the 'WISE framework' is a benchmark procedure, not a scientific entity.

free parameters (10)
  • Learning rate = 1e-5
    Fixed across all models; per-model tuning could change rankings.
  • Batch size = 16
    Fixed across all models; affects convergence and final metrics.
  • Weight decay = 0.1
    Fixed; not tuned per architecture.
  • Dropout = 0.3
    Fixed; some models may require different regularization.
  • Label smoothing = 0.1
    Fixed; directly affects Brier score and ECE calibration results.
  • Max epochs / early stopping = 20 epochs, patience 2
    Fixed; smaller models may be undertrained.
  • Random seed = 42
    Single seed; different seeds might change the MiniLM-vs-RoBERTa margin.
  • Token max_length = 256
    Covers mean length but some titles up to 296 chars; truncation policy not detailed.
  • Title length threshold = >50 characters
    Data selection threshold; affects dataset composition and difficulty.
  • Fake-news class composition = 5,000 Misleading + 5,000 Manipulated
    Manual choice of proxy classes; excludes False Connection and Imposter Content.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Fakeddit labels are accurate and correspond to the intended categories.
    The paper relies on Fakeddit's annotation without further verification.
  • domain assumption 'Misleading Content' + 'Manipulated Content' is a valid proxy for fake news.
    §3.1.1 states these categories 'represent intentionally deceptive content' but gives no external validation.
  • domain assumption Title-only text (51-296 chars) is sufficient to distinguish satire from fakeness.
    The authors limit to titles >50 chars and do not test full-text or multimodal variants.
  • domain assumption Hugging Face checkpoints implement the architectures described.
    Model performance depends on the specific pretrained weights used.
  • standard math Stratified 5-fold CV with a single seed gives unbiased performance estimates.
    Standard practice, but with n=5 folds and one seed, variance across seeds is unmeasured.
  • standard math Paired t-tests on 5 fold metrics are valid.
    Assumes approximate normality of fold-level metrics; not checked, and n=5 gives low power.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WISE: Web Information Satire and Fakeness Evaluation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W3EGNZ65

@misc{pith2026251224000,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WISE: Web Information Satire and Fakeness Evaluation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W3EGNZ65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.24000}
}
read the original abstract

Distinguishing fake or untrue news from satire or humor poses a unique challenge due to their overlapping linguistic features and divergent intent. This study develops WISE (Web Information Satire and Fakeness Evaluation) framework which benchmarks eight lightweight transformer models alongside two baseline models on a balanced dataset of 20,000 samples from Fakeddit, annotated as either fake news or satire. Using stratified 5-fold cross-validation, we evaluate models across comprehensive metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, ROC-AUC, PR-AUC, MCC, Brier score, and Expected Calibration Error. Our evaluation reveals that MiniLM, a lightweight model, achieves the highest accuracy (87.58%) among all models, while RoBERTa-base achieves the highest ROC-AUC (95.42%) and strong accuracy (87.36%). DistilBERT offers an excellent efficiency-accuracy trade-off with 86.28\% accuracy and 93.90\% ROC-AUC. Statistical tests confirm significant performance differences between models, with paired t-tests and McNemar tests providing rigorous comparisons. Our findings highlight that lightweight models can match or exceed baseline performance, offering actionable insights for deploying misinformation detection systems in real-world, resource-constrained settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.24000 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the WISE framework 1 Introduction The rapid proliferation of online information has intensified the need to distinguish malicious fake news from satirical content. Fake news, defined as intentionally false information presented as factual, has become a major societal concern, often conflated with other misleading content such as satire and factual errors [9]. False news spreads faster and farther than tr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ROC curves for all evaluated models showing discriminative capabilities across different architectural designs. Curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sinan Aral, Soroush Vosoughi, and Deb Roy. 2018. Humans, not bots, are to blame for spreading false news on Twitter.Wired(2018). Summary of the Science study highlighting human-driven virality of false news

    2018

  2. [2]

    Yoav Benjamini and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological)57, 1 (1995), 289–300

    1995

  3. [3]

    Peter Bourgonje, Julian Moreno-Schneider, and Georg Rehm. 2017. From clickbait to fake news detection: An approach based on detecting the stance of headlines to articles. InProceedings of the 2017 EMNLP Workshop on Natural Language Processing Meets Journalism. Association for Computational Linguistics, 84–89. doi:10.18653/v1/W17-4211

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/w17-4211 2017

  4. [4]

    Clint Burfoot and Timothy Baldwin. 2009. Automatic satire detection: Are you having a laugh?. InProceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers. Association for Computational Linguistics, 161–164. doi:10.3115/1667583.1667603

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Dipankar Das, Anirban Basak, Sanjoy Dutta, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2020. A heuristic-driven ensemble framework for fake news detection using content and social context information.Information Processing & Management57, 6 (2020), 102377. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102377

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    2023.Artificial Intelligence in Highway Safety

    Subasish Das. 2023.Artificial Intelligence in Highway Safety. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    2023

  7. [7]

    Subasish Das. 2024. Mapping Communication Patterns of Transit Agencies on Social Media. pp–688–700. doi:10.1061/9780784485521.062

    work page doi:10.1061/9780784485521.062 2024

  8. [8]

    Subasish Das and Hamsa Abbas Zubaidi. 2023. City Transit Rider Tweets: Un- derstanding Sentiments and Politeness.Journal of Urban Technology30, 1 (Jan. 2023), pp–111–126. doi:10.1080/10630732.2021.1903288

    arXiv 2023

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Jennifer Golbeck, Matthew Mauriello, Brooke Auxier, Keval Bhanushali, Christo- pher Bonk, Mohamed Amine Bouzaghrane, Cody Buntain, Riya Chanduka, Paul Cheakalos, Jeannine Everett, Waleed Falak, Carl Gieringer, Josh Graney, Kather- ine Hoffman, Laura Huth, Ziang Ma, Hao Miao, S...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Horne and Sibel Adali

    Benjamin D. Horne and Sibel Adali. 2017. Fake news packs a lot in title, uses simpler, repetitive content, more similar to satire than real news.ArXiv(2017). Shows stylistic similarity between fake news and satire, particularly in headlines

    2017

  3. [11]

    Ganesh Jawahar, Benoit Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2020. What does BERT learn about the structure of language?. InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 3651–3657. https://aclanthology.or...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. 2020. TinyBERT: Distilling BERT for natural language understand- ing. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020. Asso- ciation for Computational Lingui...

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Rohit Kumar Kaliyar, Anurag Goswami, and Pratik Narang. 2021. FakeBERT: Fake news detection in social media with a BERT-based deep learning approach. Multimedia Tools and Applications80 (2021), 11765–11788. Combines BERT and CNN for improved fake news detection

    2021

  6. [14]

    Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. ALBERT: A Lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1eA7AEtvS

    2020

  7. [15]

    Or Levi, Pedram Hosseini, Mona Diab, and David Broniatowski. 2019. Identifying Nuances in Fake News vs. Satire: Using Semantic and Linguistic Cues. InProceed- ings of the Second Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Internet Freedom: Censorship, Disinformation, and Propa...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101(2017)

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Rada Mihalcea and Carlo Strapparava. 2006. Learning to laugh (automatically): Computational models for humor recognition.Computational Intelligence22, 2 (2006), 126–142. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8640.2006.00278.x

    2006

  10. [18]

    Kai Nakamura, Sharon Levy, and William Yang Wang. 2019. r/Fakeddit: A New Multimodal Benchmark Dataset for Fine-grained Fake News Detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03854(2019). https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.03854 WSDM Companion ’26, February 22–26, 2026, Boise, ID, USA Chhetri et al

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Preslav Nakov, Giovanni Da San Martino, Tamer Elsayed, Alberto Barrón-Cedeño, Rubén Míguez, Shaden Shaar, Firoj Alam, Fatima Haouari, Maram Hasanain, and Pepa Atanasova. 2021. The CLEF-2021 CheckThat! lab on detecting check-worthy claims, previously fact-checked claims, and fa...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Duc Tuan Nguyen and Quang Nhat Minh Pham. 2021. Multimodal Fusion with BERT and Attention Mechanism for Fake News Detection. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2104.11476. Fuses textual BERT and visual VGG-19 features with attention for fake news detection

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library.Advances in neural information processing systems...

    2019

  14. [22]

    Martin Potthast, Johannes Kiesel, Kevin Reinartz, Janek Bevendorff, and Benno Stein. 2018. A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news. InProceed- ings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 231–240. doi:...

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    S. Rastogi. 2023. A review on fake news detection: 3T’s – typology, time of detection, and taxonomies.Multimedia Tools and Applications(2023). Survey dis- tinguishing types of false information including satire, with detection taxonomy and datasets

    2023

  16. [24]

    Victoria L Rubin. 2015. Deception detection and rumor debunking for social media. InThe SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. Sage, 491–504

    2015

  17. [25]

    Rubin et al

    Victoria L. Rubin et al. 2016. Fake News or Truth? Using Satirical Cues to Detect Satire. InProceedings of the ACL. SVM classifier using humor and absurdity cues achieved high precision and recall for satire detection

    2016

  18. [26]

    Victoria L Rubin, Niall J Conroy, Yimin Chen, and Sarah Cornwell. 2016. Fake news or truth? Using satirical cues to detect potentially misleading news. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Deception Detection. Association for Computational Linguistics,...

    2016

  19. [27]

    Natali Ruchansky, Sungyong Seo, and Yan Liu. 2017. CSI: A hybrid deep model for fake news detection. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 797–806. doi:10.1145/3132847.3132877

    2017

  20. [28]

    Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. Dis- tilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: Smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108(2019). https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.01108

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rakhi Seth and Aakanksha Sharaff. 2024. BERT-CA Sentinels: Adapting BERT with attention mechanism for satirical news detection in social media texts. In 2024 2nd World Conference on Communication & Computing (WCONF). IEEE, 1–7

    2024

  22. [30]

    Kai Shu, Deepak Mahudeswaran, Suhang Wang, Dongwon Lee, and Huan Liu

  23. [31]

    Zhiqing Sun, Hongkun Yu, Xiaodan Song, Renjie Liu, Yiming Yang, Denny Zhou, and Yujing Lin. 2020. MobileBERT: A compact task-agnostic BERT for resource- limited devices. InProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2158–2170. doi:1...

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online.Science359, 6380 (2018), 1146–1151. False news spreads faster and farther than true news; human behavior is key

    2018

  25. [33]

    Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2019. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=rJ4km2R5t7

    2019

  26. [34]

    Wenhui Wang, Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, and Furu Wei. 2020. MiniLM: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 33. 5776–5788. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al

  28. [36]

    Feng Yang, Jianfeng Qiang, Pengfei Liu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2017. Identi- fying humor in dialogues using convolutional neural networks and attention mechanism. InProceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing. Association for Computati...

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    InProceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations

    Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. InProceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system demonstrations. 38–45

    2020

  30. [39]

    Xinyi Zhang and Ali A Ghorbani. 2020. An overview of online fake news: Char- acterization, detection, and discussion.Information Processing & Management57, 2 (2020), 102025. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2019.03.004 Received 27 November 2025

    2020 doi

  31. [2020]

    doi:10.1089/big.2020.0062

    Fakenewsnet: A data repository with news content, social context, and spatiotemporal information for studying fake news on social media.Big Data8, 3 (2020), 171–188. doi:10.1089/big.2020.0062

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.