Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 150 references

The Mass, Fake News, and Cognition Security

T0 review · 0 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-05-24 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes Cognition Security (CogSec) as a new multidisciplinary field to study how fake news affects human cognition from misperception to biased decisions and to develop debunking methods.

desk verdict This 2019 position paper names a research area called CogSec but adds no new data, models, or evidence beyond existing literature on misinformation. read the letter →

arxiv 1907.07759 v1 pith:LWIAUFYL submitted 2019-07-09 cs.CY cs.HC

Bin Guo , Yasan Ding , Yueheng Sun , Shuai Ma , Ke Li This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.HC
keywords fakenewscognitionsecuritymisinformationsocialnetworksdebunkingopiniondiffusioncognitivesciencebotdetection
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

The authors define Cognition Security as the study of fake news effects on cognition and the search for countermeasures, drawing on social science, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, AI, and computer science. They review prior work on fake news propagation and cognition mechanisms while identifying research challenges such as human-content cognition, social influence, opinion diffusion, and detection of fake news and bots. The paper outlines open issues including early detection, explainable debunking, and social contagion models. A sympathetic reader would care because the proposal frames cognitive science as a route to reduce harms from misinformation in social networks. The central premise rests on the idea that advances in understanding human cognition can translate into practical prevention.

What carries the argument

Cognition Security (CogSec), the proposed multidisciplinary research field that examines fake news impacts on cognition mechanisms and develops debunking approaches.

What would settle it

A controlled study in which cognitive-science-based interventions produce no measurable reduction in susceptibility to fake news on perception, knowledge trust, or decision bias.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Cognition Security (CogSec) studies the potential impacts of fake news to human cognition, ranging from misperception, untrusted knowledge acquisition, targeted opinion/attitude formation, to biased decision making, and investigates the effective ways for fake news debunking, as a multidisciplinary field that leverages knowledge from social science, psychology, cognition science, neuroscience, AI and computer science.

Load-bearing premise

Advances in cognitive science provide effective tools for preventing fake news impacts on human thinking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fake news can produce misperception, untrusted knowledge, targeted opinion formation, and biased decisions.
  • Human-content cognition mechanism, social influence, opinion diffusion, fake news detection, and malicious bot detection form core research challenges.
  • Early detection of fake news, explainable debunking, and social contagion models remain open research directions.
  • Multidisciplinary methods combining psychology, AI, and computer science can address propagation and cognition mechanisms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Platform features informed by CogSec could prioritize cognitive-resilient information flows over raw engagement metrics.
  • The framework suggests testable links between bot activity and measurable shifts in user decision patterns.
  • Extending CogSec to offline media environments would require adapting online detection techniques to slower information cycles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a new interdisciplinary research area called Cognition Security (CogSec) focused on the impacts of fake news on human cognition (misperception, untrusted knowledge acquisition, targeted opinion/attitude formation, biased decision making) and on effective debunking strategies. It defines CogSec as drawing from social science, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, AI, and computer science; reviews relevant literature history; identifies key challenges and techniques including human-content cognition mechanisms, social influence and opinion diffusion, fake news detection, and malicious bot detection; and outlines open issues and future directions such as early detection, explainable debunking, and social contagion models.

Significance. If adopted, the proposed framing could help consolidate research on the cognitive dimensions of misinformation beyond detection algorithms alone, by synthesizing existing work across disciplines to identify gaps in propagation and cognition mechanisms. The paper's contribution is primarily organizational and definitional rather than empirical or derivational; its value would lie in whether the community finds the delineated challenges and directions useful for guiding subsequent studies.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The opening sentence contains a grammatical issue ('The wide spread of fake news' should read 'The widespread spread of fake news' or 'The wide dissemination of fake news').
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that cognitive science 'paves a promising way for the prevention of fake news' is asserted without accompanying citations or brief justification; this background claim would benefit from one or two supporting references in the main text to strengthen readability.
  3. The manuscript would benefit from explicit section headings or a table that maps the proposed CogSec challenges (human-content cognition, social influence, detection) to specific cited works, to improve traceability for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed summary of our manuscript and for the positive assessment of its potential to consolidate research on the cognitive dimensions of misinformation. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No specific major comments were provided in the report, so we have no points to address point-by-point at this stage. We will make any minor revisions as appropriate in the next version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: position paper proposes CogSec framing without derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The manuscript is a position paper that defines Cognition Security (CogSec) as a multidisciplinary area motivated by existing cognitive science literature on fake news impacts. It reviews literature, lists challenges (human-content cognition, opinion diffusion, detection), and suggests future directions, but contains no equations, models, fitted parameters, or derivations. The central claim is definitional and organizational rather than predictive or deductive; the motivation from cognitive science is presented as background, not a load-bearing inference that reduces to self-citation or tautology. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked to justify core results. The proposal stands independently of any prior results by the same authors.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on the assumption that cognitive science offers effective prevention tools and introduces CogSec as a new organizing concept without independent evidence or free parameters.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The development of cognitive science paves a promising way for the prevention of fake news
    Invoked in the abstract to justify the new research area.
invented entities (1)
  • Cognition Security (CogSec)
    purpose: A new multidisciplinary research field to study fake news impacts on cognition and debunking methods
    Newly proposed without external validation or falsifiable predictions in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Mass, Fake News, and Cognition Security." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LWIAUFYL

@misc{pith2026190707759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Mass, Fake News, and Cognition Security},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LWIAUFYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1907.07759}
}
read the original abstract

The wide spread of fake news in social networks is posing threats to social stability, economic development and political democracy etc. Numerous studies have explored the effective detection approaches of online fake news, while few works study the intrinsic propagation and cognition mechanisms of fake news. Since the development of cognitive science paves a promising way for the prevention of fake news, we present a new research area called Cognition Security (CogSec), which studies the potential impacts of fake news to human cognition, ranging from misperception, untrusted knowledge acquisition, targeted opinion/attitude formation, to biased decision making, and investigates the effective ways for fake news debunking. CogSec is a multidisciplinary research field that leverages knowledge from social science, psychology, cognition science, neuroscience, AI and computer science. We first propose related definitions to characterize CogSec and review the literature history. We further investigate the key research challenges and techniques of CogSec, including human-content cognition mechanism, social influence and opinion diffusion, fake news detection and malicious bot detection. Finally, we summarize the open issues and future research directions, such as early detection of fake news, explainable fake news debunking, social contagion and diffusion models of fake news, and so on.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 150 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scientific communication in a post -truth society,

    S. Iyengar, and D. S. Massey, “Scientific communication in a post -truth society,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol.116, no.16, pp.7656-7661, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    The science of fake news ,

    D. M. J. Lazer, et al ., “The science of fake news ,” Science, vol.359, no.6380, pp.1094-1096, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Online misinformation: Challenges and future directions,

    M. Fernandez, and H. Alani, “Online misinformation: Challenges and future directions,” in Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference

    work page

  4. [4]

    International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2018, pp. 595-602

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign,

    A. Guess, B. Nyhan, and J. Reifler, “Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign,” European Research Council, vol.9, 2018

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Fake news: Fundamental theories, detection strategies and challenges ,

    X. Zhou, et al., “Fake news: Fundamental theories, detection strategies and challenges ,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 2019, pp.836-837

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    The spread of true and false news online,

    S. Vosoughi, D. Roy, and S. Aral, “The spread of true and false news online,” Science, vol.359, no.6380, pp.1146-1151, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    The misinformation machine ,

    D. Ruths, “The misinformation machine ,” Science, vol.363, no.6425, pp.348-348, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    Limited individual attention and online virality of low - quality information ,

    X. Qiu, et al., “Limited individual attention and online virality of low - quality information ,” Nature Human Behaviour , vol.1, no.7, pp. 0132, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    The Future of Deception: Machine -Generated and Manipulated Images, Video, and Audio? ,

    J. Bakdash, et al. , “The Future of Deception: Machine -Generated and Manipulated Images, Video, and Audio? ,” in 2018 International Workshop on Social Sensing (SocialSens). IEEE, 2018, pp.2-2

    2018

  3. [11]

    Artificial intelligence, deepfakes and a future of ectypes ,

    L. Floridi, “Artificial intelligence, deepfakes and a future of ectypes ,” Philosophy & Technology, vol.31, no.3, pp.317-321, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Deepfakes: a new threat to face recognition? assessment and detection,

    P. Korshunov, and S. Marcel, “Deepfakes: a new threat to face recognition? assessment and detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08685, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Protecting World Leaders Against Deep Fakes ,

    S. Agarwal, et al., “Protecting World Leaders Against Deep Fakes ,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. IEEE, 2019, pp.38-45

    2019

  6. [14]

    Cognitive attraction and online misinformation ,

    A. Acerbi, “Cognitive attraction and online misinformation ,” Palgrave Communications, vol.5, no.1, pp.15-21, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Detection and resolution of rumours in social media: A survey ,

    A. Zubiaga, et al., “Detection and resolution of rumours in social media: A survey ,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , vol.51, no.2, pp. 32-67, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Disinformation on the web: Impact, characteristics, and detection of wikipedia hoaxes,

    S. Kumar, R. West, and J. Leskovec, “Disinformation on the web: Impact, characteristics, and detection of wikipedia hoaxes,” in Proceedings of the 25th international conference on World Wide Web . International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2016, pp.591-602

    2016

  9. [17]

    Separating facts from fiction: Linguistic models to classify suspicious and trusted news posts on twitter ,

    S. Volkova, et al., “Separating facts from fiction: Linguistic models to classify suspicious and trusted news posts on twitter ,” in Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). 2017, pp.647-653

    2017

  10. [18]

    Mining misinformation in social media ,

    L. Wu, et al., “Mining misinformation in social media ,” in Big Data in Complex and Social Networks , 1 st ed., London, UK: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2016, pp.135-162

    2016

  11. [19]

    Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective,

    K. Shu, et al. , “Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective,” ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, vo.19, no.1, pp.22- 36, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Fake news: A survey of research, detection methods, and opportunities,

    X. Zhou, and R. Zafarani, “Fake news: A survey of research, detection methods, and opportunities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00315, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Detection of human, legitimate bot, and malicious bot in online social networks based on wavelets ,

    G. F. C. Campos, et al. , “Detection of human, legitimate bot, and malicious bot in online social networks based on wavelets ,” ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), vol.14, no.1s, pp.26-42, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    On the study of social interactions in twitter,

    S. A. Macskassy, “On the study of social interactions in twitter,” in Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    B. A. Forouzan, Cryptography & network security, New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    Filter bubbles and fake news,

    D. DiFranzo, and M. J. K. Gloria, “Filter bubbles and fake news,” ACM Crossroads, vol.23, no.3, pp.32-35, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    From echo chamber to persuasive device? Rethinking the role of the Internet in campaigns ,

    C. Vaccari, “From echo chamber to persuasive device? Rethinking the role of the Internet in campaigns ,” New Media & Society , vol.15, no.1, pp.109-127, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    The echo chamber: Strategic voting and homophily in social networks,

    A. Tsang, and K. Larson, “The echo chamber: Strategic voting and homophily in social networks,” in Proceedings of the 2016 international conference on autonomous agents & multiagent systems . International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2016 , pp.368-375

    2016

  19. [27]

    Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption ,

    S. Flaxman, S. Goel, and J. M. Rao, “Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption ,” Public opinion quarterly , vol.80, no.S1, pp.298-320, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Falling for fake news: investigating the consumption of news via social media,

    M. Flintham, et al., “Falling for fake news: investigating the consumption of news via social media,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2018, pp.376-385

    2018

  21. [29]

    Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?,

    P. Barberá , et al. , “Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?,” Psychological science, vol. 26, no.10, pp.1531-1542, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Echo chambers on Facebook,

    W. Quattrociocchi, A. Scala, and C. R. Sunstein, “Echo chambers on Facebook,” Available at SSRN 2795110, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Attitudinal effects of mere exposure ,

    R. B. Zajonc, “Attitudinal effects of mere exposure ,” Journal of personality and social psychology, vol.9, no.2p2, pp.1-27, 1968

    1968

  24. [32]

    The spreading of misinformation online ,

    M. Del Vicario, et al. , “The spreading of misinformation online ,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.113, no.3, pp.554- 559, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Online journalists: Foundations for research into their changing roles ,

    J. B. Singer, “Online journalists: Foundations for research into their changing roles ,” Journal of computer -mediated communication , vol.4, no.1, pp.JCMC412, 1998

    1998

  26. [34]

    News media, search engines and social networking sites as varieties of online gatekeepers ,

    R. K. Nielsen, “News media, search engines and social networking sites as varieties of online gatekeepers ,” in Rethinking journalism again , London, UK: Routledge, 2016, pp.93-108

    2016

  27. [35]

    HOW ONLINE GATEKEEPERS GUARD OUR VIEW - NEWS PORTALS'INCLUSION AND RANKING OF MEDIA AND EVENTS,

    C. L. Bui, “HOW ONLINE GATEKEEPERS GUARD OUR VIEW - NEWS PORTALS'INCLUSION AND RANKING OF MEDIA AND EVENTS,” Global Media Journal, vol.9, no.16, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    Talking to the broadcasters on Twitter: Networked gatekeeping in Twitter conversations with journalists ,

    W. W. Xu, and M. Feng, “Talking to the broadcasters on Twitter: Networked gatekeeping in Twitter conversations with journalists ,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , vol.58, no.3, pp.420-437, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship,

    K. Garimella, et al., “Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship,” in Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference . International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2018, pp.913-922

    2018

  30. [38]

    Ferreting facts or fashioning fallacies? Factors in rumor accuracy,

    N. DiFonzo, “Ferreting facts or fashioning fallacies? Factors in rumor accuracy,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass , vol.4, no.11, pp.1124-1137, 2010

    2010

  31. [39]

    Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power ,

    R. M. Entman, “Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power ,” Journal of communication, vol.57, no.1, pp.163-173, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    Media bias and influence: Evidence from newspaper endorsements,

    C. F. Chiang, and B. Knight, “Media bias and influence: Evidence from newspaper endorsements,” The Review of Economic Studies, vol.78, no.3, pp.795-820, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    Iyengar, and D

    S. Iyengar, and D. R. Kinder, News that matters: Television and American opinion. Palo Alto, CA, USA: University of Chicago Press, 2010 , pp.6- 34. 8

    2010

  34. [42]

    K. H. Jamieson, and K. K. Campbell, Interplay of Influence: News, Advertising, Politics and the Internet Age (with InfoTrac). Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2005, pp.22-46

    2005

  35. [43]

    Being the New York Times: the political behaviour of a newspaper,

    R. Puglisi, “Being the New York Times: the political behaviour of a newspaper,” The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, vol.11, no.1, 2011

    2011

  36. [44]

    Does the media matter? A field experiment measuring the effect of newspapers on voting behavior and political opinions ,

    A. S. Gerber, D. Karlan, and D. Bergan, “Does the media matter? A field experiment measuring the effect of newspapers on voting behavior and political opinions ,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , vol.1, no.2, pp.35-52, 2009

    2009

  37. [45]

    Media bias monitor: Quantifying biases of social media news outlets at large -scale,

    F. N. Ribeiro, et al., “Media bias monitor: Quantifying biases of social media news outlets at large -scale,” in Twelfth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Fair and balanced? quantifying media bias through crowdsourced content analysis,

    C. Budak, S. Goel, and J. M. Rao, “Fair and balanced? quantifying media bias through crowdsourced content analysis,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol.80, no.S1, pp.250-271, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election ,

    A. Bovet, and H. A. Makse, “Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election ,” Nature communications, vol.10, no.1, pp.7-20, 2019

    2016

  40. [48]

    Post-truth: Study epidemiology of fake news ,

    A. Kucharski, “Post-truth: Study epidemiology of fake news ,” Nature, vol.540, no.7634, pp.525-525, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Validity judgments of rumors heard multiple times: the shape of the truth effect ,

    N. DiFonzo, et al., “Validity judgments of rumors heard multiple times: the shape of the truth effect ,” Social Influence, vol.11, no.1, pp.22 -39, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks,

    E. W. T. Ngai, S. S. C. Tao, and K. K. L. Moon, “Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks,” International Journal of Information Management, vol.35, no.1, pp.33-44, 2015

    2015

  43. [51]

    Social media and fake news in the 2016 election,

    H. Allcott, and M. Gentzkow, “Social media and fake news in the 2016 election,” Journal of economic perspectives , vol.31, no.2, pp.211 -236, 2017

    2016

  44. [52]

    Rumor clustering, consensus, and polarization: Dynamic social impact and self -organization of hearsay ,

    N. DiFonzo, et al. , “Rumor clustering, consensus, and polarization: Dynamic social impact and self -organization of hearsay ,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol.49, no.3, pp.378-399, 2013

    2013

  45. [53]

    Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook ,

    A. Guess, J. Nagler, and J. Tucker, “Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook ,” Science advances, vol.5, no.1, pp.eaau4586, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    What happened? The Spread of Fake News Publisher Content During the 2016 US Presidential Election ,

    C. Budak, “What happened? The Spread of Fake News Publisher Content During the 2016 US Presidential Election ,” in The World Wide Web Conference. ACM, 2019, pp:139-150

    2016

  47. [56]

    Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation,

    G. Csibra, and G. Gergely, “Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , vol.366, no.1567, pp.1149-1157, 2011

    2011

  48. [57]

    Selection and transmission processes for information in the emerging media environment: Psychological motives and message characteristics ,

    J. N. Cappella, H. S. Kim, and D. Albarrací n, “Selection and transmission processes for information in the emerging media environment: Psychological motives and message characteristics ,” Media psychology, vol.18, no.3, pp.396-424, 2015

    2015

  49. [58]

    A neural model of valuation and information virality,

    C. Scholz, et al., “A neural model of valuation and information virality,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol.114, no.11, pp.2881-2886, 2017

    2017

  50. [59]

    How a user’s personality influences content engagement in social media ,

    N. O. Hodas, and R. Butner, “How a user’s personality influences content engagement in social media ,” in International Conference on Social Informatics. Springer, Cham, 2016, pp.481-493

    2016

  51. [60]

    Creating buzz: the neural correlates of effective message propagation ,

    E. B. Falk, et al. , “Creating buzz: the neural correlates of effective message propagation ,” Psychological Science , vol.24, no.7, pp.1234 - 1242, 2013

    2013

  52. [61]

    Who will share my image?: Predicting the content diffusion path in online social networks,

    W. Hu, et al. , “Who will share my image?: Predicting the content diffusion path in online social networks,” in Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining . ACM, 2018, pp.252-260

    2018

  53. [62]

    Retweet prediction with attention -based deep neural network,

    Q. Zhang, et al., “Retweet prediction with attention -based deep neural network,” in Proceedings of the 25th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management. ACM, 2016, pp.75-84

    2016

  54. [63]

    Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing,

    S. Lewandowsky, et al., “Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol.13, no.3, pp.106-131, 2012

    2012

  55. [64]

    Depression: perspectives from affective neuroscience,

    R. J. Davidson, et al. , “Depression: perspectives from affective neuroscience,” Annual review of psychology , vol.53, no.1, pp.545-574, 2002

    2002

  56. [65]

    Cognitive neuroscience of emotional memory,

    K. S. LaBar, and R. Cabeza, “Cognitive neuroscience of emotional memory,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol.7, no.1, pp.54-64, 2006

    2006

  57. [66]

    Neuroscience and education: myths and messages,

    P. A. Howard-Jones, “Neuroscience and education: myths and messages,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol.15, no.12, pp.817-824, 2014

    2014

  58. [67]

    Neuroscience-inspired artificial intelligence ,

    D. Hassabis, et al. , “Neuroscience-inspired artificial intelligence ,” Neuron, vol.95, no.2, pp.245-258, 2017

    2017

  59. [68]

    Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics,

    C. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec, “Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics,” Journal of economic Literature , vol.43, no.1, pp.9-64, 2005

    2005

  60. [69]

    Progress and challenges in probing the human brain,

    R. A. Poldrack, and M. J. Farah, “Progress and challenges in probing the human brain,” Nature, vol.526, no.7573, pp.371-382, 2015

    2015

  61. [70]

    Audience preferences are predicted by temporal reliability of neural processing,

    J. P. Dmochowski, et al. , “Audience preferences are predicted by temporal reliability of neural processing,” Nature communications, vol.5, pp.4567-4575, 2014

    2014

  62. [71]

    From neural responses to population behavior: Neural focus group predicts population-level media effects,

    E. B. Falk, E. T. Berkman, and M. D. Lieberman, “From neural responses to population behavior: Neural focus group predicts population-level media effects,” Psychological science, vol.23, no.5, pp.439-445, 2012

    2012

  63. [72]

    Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity during natural vision,

    U. Hasson, et al., “Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity during natural vision,” science, vol.303, no.5664, pp.1634-1640, 2004

    2004

  64. [73]

    Cognitive neuroscience of human social behavior,

    R. Adlolphs, “Cognitive neuroscience of human social behavior,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol.4, pp.165-178, 2003

    2003

  65. [74]

    Reaching a consensus ,

    M. H. DeGroot, “Reaching a consensus ,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol.69, no.345, pp.118-121, 1974

    1974

  66. [75]

    Attitude and attitude change,

    R. B. Cialdini, R. E. Petty, and J. T. Cacioppo, “Attitude and attitude change,” Annual review of psychology, vol.32, no.1, pp.357-404, 1981

    1981

  67. [76]

    Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network ,

    D. Kempe, J. Kleinberg, and É. Tardos, “Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network ,” in Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 2003, pp.137-146

    2003

  68. [77]

    Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion,

    P. Rozin, and E. B. Royzman, “Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion,” Personality and social psychology review , vol.5, no.4, pp.296-320, 2001

    2001

  69. [78]

    Emotional contagion,

    E. Hatfield, J. T. Cacioppo, and R. L. Rapson, “Emotional contagion,” Current directions in psychological science, vol.2, no.3, pp.96-100, 1993

    1993

  70. [79]

    Positive consumer contagion: Responses to attractive others in a retail context ,

    J. J. Argo, D. W. Dahl, and A. C. Morales, “Positive consumer contagion: Responses to attractive others in a retail context ,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol.45, no.6, pp.690-701, 2008

    2008

  71. [80]

    Financial contagion ,

    F. Allen, and D. Gale, “Financial contagion ,” Journal of political economy, vol.108, no.1, pp.1-33, 2000

    2000

  72. [81]

    Influence maximization in complex networks through optimal percolation,

    F. Morone, and H. A. Makse, “Influence maximization in complex networks through optimal percolation,” Nature, vol.524, no.7563, pp.65- 147, 2015

    2015

  73. [82]

    Epidemics and percolation in small - world networks,

    C. Moore, and M. E. J. Newman, “Epidemics and percolation in small - world networks,” Physical Review E, vol.61, no.5, pp.5678-5683, 2000

    2000

  74. [83]

    Influential users in Twitter: detection and evolution analysis,

    G. Amati, et al. , “Influential users in Twitter: detection and evolution analysis,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol.78, no.3, pp.3395-3407, 2019

    2019

  75. [84]

    TWITTER TEMPORAL EVOLUTION ANALYSIS: COMPARING EVENT AND TOPIC DRIVEN RETWEET GRAPHS,

    G. Amati, and et al. , “TWITTER TEMPORAL EVOLUTION ANALYSIS: COMPARING EVENT AND TOPIC DRIVEN RETWEET GRAPHS,” IADIS International Journal on Computer Science & Information Systems, vol.11, no.2, 2016

    2016

  76. [85]

    Deepinf: Social influence prediction with deep learning ,

    J. Qiu, et al., “Deepinf: Social influence prediction with deep learning ,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD In ternational Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. ACM, 2018, pp.2110-2119

    2018

  77. [86]

    Structural diversity in social contagion,

    J. Ugander, et al., “Structural diversity in social contagion,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.109, no.16, pp.5962-5966, 2012

    2012

  78. [87]

    Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks,

    A. D. I. Kramer, J. E. Guillory, and J. T. Hancock, “Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol.111, no.24, pp.8788-8790, 2014

    2014

  79. [88]

    Opinion dynamics with v arying susceptibility to persuasion,

    R. Abebe, et al. , “Opinion dynamics with v arying susceptibility to persuasion,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . ACM, 2018 , pp.1089-1098

    2018

  80. [89]

    Truthy: mapping the spread of astroturf in microblog streams,

    J. Ratkiewicz, et al. , “Truthy: mapping the spread of astroturf in microblog streams,” in Proceedings of the 20th international conference companion on World wide web. ACM, 2011, pp.249-252

    2011

  81. [90]

    Rumor cascades ,

    A. Friggeri, et al. , “Rumor cascades ,” in Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 2014. 9

    2014

  82. [91]

    The ugly truth: negative gossip about celebrities and positive gossip about self entertain people in different ways ,

    X. Peng, et al ., “The ugly truth: negative gossip about celebrities and positive gossip about self entertain people in different ways ,” Social neuroscience, vol.10, no.3, pp.320-336, 2015

    2015

  83. [92]

    Threshold models of collective behavior ,

    M. Granovetter, “Threshold models of collective behavior ,” American journal of sociology, vol.83, no.6, pp.1420-1443, 1978

    1978

  84. [93]

    Influential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks ,

    D. Kempe, J. Kleinberg, and É. Tardos, “Influential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks ,” in International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. Springer, 2005, pp.1127-1138

    2005

  85. [94]

    Towards consensus: Some convergence theorems on repeated averaging,

    S. Chatterjee, and E. Seneta, “Towards consensus: Some convergence theorems on repeated averaging,” Journal of Applied Probability, vol.14, no.1, pp.89-97, 1977

    1977

  86. [95]

    Steering opinion dynamics in information diffusion networks,

    Y. Wang, et al. , “Steering opinion dynamics in information diffusion networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.09021, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  87. [96]

    Continuous opinions and discrete actions in opinion dynamics problems,

    A. C. R. Martins, “Continuous opinions and discrete actions in opinion dynamics problems,” International Journal of Modern Physics C, vol.19, no.04, pp.617-624, 2008

    2008

  88. [97]

    RAIN: Social Role -Aware Information Diffusion,

    Y. Yang, et al. , “RAIN: Social Role -Aware Information Diffusion,” in AAAI. 2015, vol.15, pp.367-373

    2015

  89. [98]

    Truth and deception at the rhetorical structure level,

    V. L. Rubin, and T. Lukoianova, “Truth and deception at the rhetorical structure level,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol.66, no.5, pp.905-917, 2015

    2015

  90. [99]

    False information on web and social media: A survey,

    S. Kumar, and N. Shah, “False information on web and social media: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.08559, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  91. [100]

    Information credibility on twitter,

    C. Castillo, M. Mendoza, and B. Poblete, “Information credibility on twitter,” in Proceedings of the 20th i nternational conference on World wide web. ACM, 2011, pp.675-684

    2011

  92. [101]

    A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news,

    M. Potthast, et al. , “A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05638, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Social spammer detection with sentiment information,

    X. Hu, et al., “Social spammer detection with sentiment information,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining . IEEE, 2014 , pp.180-189

    2014

  94. [103]

    Some like it hoax: Automated fake news detection in social networks,

    E. Tacchini, et al., “Some like it hoax: Automated fake news detection in social networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.07506, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Detect rumors using time series of social context information on microblogging websites,

    J. Ma, et al. , “Detect rumors using time series of social context information on microblogging websites,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 2015, pp.1751-1754

    2015

  96. [105]

    News verification by exploiting conflicting social viewpoints in microblogs ,

    Z. Jin, et al. , “News verification by exploiting conflicting social viewpoints in microblogs ,” in Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2016

    2016

  97. [106]

    Unsupervised fake news detection on social media: A generative approach ,

    S. Yang, et al., “Unsupervised fake news detection on social media: A generative approach ,” in Proceedings of 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2019

    2019

  98. [107]

    A convolutional approach for misinformation identification,

    F. Yu, et al., “A convolutional approach for misinformation identification,” in Proceedings of the Twenty -Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2017

    2017

  99. [108]

    Detecting rumors from microblogs with recurrent neural networks,

    J. Ma, et al., “Detecting rumors from microblogs with recurrent neural networks,” in Proceedings of the Twenty -Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2016, pp.3818-3824

    2016

  100. [109]

    A Rumor Events Detection Method Based on Deep Bidirectional GRU Neura l Network ,

    L. Li, G. Cai, and N. Chen, “A Rumor Events Detection Method Based on Deep Bidirectional GRU Neura l Network ,” in 2018 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Image, Vision and Computing (ICIVC) . IEEE, 2018, pp.755-759

    2018

  101. [110]

    Early detection of fake news on social media through propagation path classification with recurrent and convolutional networks,

    Y. Liu, Y. F. B. Wu, “Early detection of fake news on social media through propagation path classification with recurrent and convolutional networks,” in Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . 2018

    2018

  102. [111]

    Csi: A hybrid deep model for fake news detection ,

    N. Ruchansky, S. Seo, and Y. Liu, “Csi: A hybrid deep model for fake news detection ,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 2017, pp.797-806

    2017

  103. [112]

    Beyond news contents: The role of social context for fake news detection ,

    K. Shu, S. Wang, and H. Liu, “Beyond news contents: The role of social context for fake news detection ,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 2019, pp.312-320

    2019

  104. [113]

    Studying fake news via network analysis: detection and mitigation ,

    K. Shu, H. R. Bernard, and H. Liu, “Studying fake news via network analysis: detection and mitigation ,” in Emerging Research Challenges and Opportunities in Computational Social Network Analysis and Mining. Springer, 2019, pp.43-65

    2019

  105. [114]

    The Role of User Profile for Fake News Detection,

    K. Shu, et al., “The Role of User Profile for Fake News Detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.13355, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  106. [115]

    The rise of social bots,

    E. Ferrara, et al., “The rise of social bots,” Communications of the ACM, vol.59, no.7, pp.96-104, 2016

    2016

  107. [116]

    Is that social bot behaving unethically?,

    C. A. de Lima Salge, and N. Berente, “Is that social bot behaving unethically?,” Communications of the ACM, vol.60, no.9, pp.29-31, 2017

    2017

  108. [118]

    Design and analysis of a social botnet ,

    Y. Boshmaf, et al., “Design and analysis of a social botnet ,” Computer Networks, vol.57, no.2, pp.556-578, 2013

    2013

  109. [119]

    Detecting automation of twitter accounts: Are you a human, bot, or cyborg? ,

    Z. Chu, et al., “Detecting automation of twitter accounts: Are you a human, bot, or cyborg? ,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol.9, no.6, pp.811-824, 2012

    2012

  110. [120]

    The socialbot network: when bots socialize for fame and money ,

    Y. Boshmaf, et al., “The socialbot network: when bots socialize for fame and money ,” in Proceedings of the 27th annual computer security applications conference. ACM, 2011, pp.93-102

    2011

  111. [121]

    Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot

    S. Haustein, et al. , “Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on T witter ,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , vol.67, no.1, pp.232-238, 2016

    2016

  112. [122]

    An in-depth characterisation of Bots an d Humans on Twitter,

    Z. Gilani, et al., “An in-depth characterisation of Bots an d Humans on Twitter,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.01508, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  113. [123]

    Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization,

    O. Varol, et al., “Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization,” in Eleventh international AAAI conference on web and social media. 2017

    2017

  114. [124]

    Design and evaluation of a real-time url spam filtering service,

    K. Thomas, et al., “Design and evaluation of a real-time url spam filtering service,” in 2011 IEEE symposium on security and privacy. IEEE, 2011, pp.447-462

    2011

  115. [125]

    Towards detecting compromised accounts on social networks,

    M. Egele, et al. , “Towards detecting compromised accounts on social networks,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Sec ure Computing, vol.14, no.4, pp.447-460, 2015

    2015

  116. [126]

    Deep neural networks for bot detection,

    S. Kudugunta, and E. Ferrara, “Deep neural networks for bot detection,” Information Sciences, vol.467, pp.312-322, 2018

    2018

  117. [127]

    Spam ain't as diverse as it seems: throttling OSN spam with templates underneath,

    H. Gao, et al., “Spam ain't as diverse as it seems: throttling OSN spam with templates underneath,” in Proceedings of the 30th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. ACM, 2014, pp.76-85

    2014

  118. [128]

    You followed my bot! Transforming robots into influential users in Twitter ,

    J. Messias, et al. , “You followed my bot! Transforming robots into influential users in Twitter ,” Peer-reviewed Journal on the Internet , vol.18, no.7-1, 2013

    2013

  119. [129]

    Dissecting a social botnet: Growth, content and influence in Twitter ,

    N. Abokhodair, D. Yoo, and D. W. McDonald, “Dissecting a social botnet: Growth, content and influence in Twitter ,” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 2015, pp.839-851

    2015

  120. [130]

    Reverse engineering socialbot infiltration strategies in twitter,

    C. Freitas, et al., “Reverse engineering socialbot infiltration strategies in twitter,” in 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). IEEE, 2015, pp.25-32

    2015

  121. [131]

    Consumer neuroscience-based metrics predict recall, liking and viewing rates in online advertising ,

    J. Guixeres, et al., “Consumer neuroscience-based metrics predict recall, liking and viewing rates in online advertising ,” Frontiers in psychology, vol.8, pp.1808-1821, 2017

    2017

  122. [132]

    Like/dislike analysis using EEG: determination of most discriminative channels and frequencies ,

    B. Yılmaz, et al., “Like/dislike analysis using EEG: determination of most discriminative channels and frequencies ,” Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, vol.113, no.2, pp.705-713, 2014

    2014

  123. [133]

    Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth

    S. Lewandowsky, U. K. H. Ecker, and J. Cook, “Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era,” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, vol.6, no.4, pp.353-369, 2017

    2017

  124. [134]

    Interest as a proxy of engagement in news reading: Spectral and entropy analyses of EEG activity patterns ,

    I. Arapakis, M. Barreda-Angeles, and A. Pereda-Bañ os, “Interest as a proxy of engagement in news reading: Spectral and entropy analyses of EEG activity patterns ,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol.10, no.1, pp.100-114, 2017

    2017

  125. [135]

    Barrat, M

    A. Barrat, M. Barthelemy, and A. Vespignani, Dynamical processes on complex networks , Paris, France: Cambridge university press, 2008 , pp.50-85

    2008

  126. [136]

    Persuasive messages, popularity cohesion, and message diffusion in social media marketing ,

    Y. T. Chang, H. Yu, and H. P. Lu, “Persuasive messages, popularity cohesion, and message diffusion in social media marketing ,” Journal of Business Research, vol.68, no.4, pp.777-782, 2015

    2015

  127. [137]

    Contagion on complex networks with persuasion,

    W. M. Huang, et al., “Contagion on complex networks with persuasion,” Scientific reports, vol.6, pp.23766-23773, 2016

    2016

  128. [138]

    Automatic rumor detection on microblogs: A survey ,

    J. Cao, et al. , “Automatic rumor detection on microblogs: A survey ,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03505, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  129. [139]

    On early-stage debunking rumors on twitter: Leveraging the wisdom of weak learners ,

    T. N. Nguyen, C. Li, and C. Niederé e, “On early-stage debunking rumors on twitter: Leveraging the wisdom of weak learners ,” in International Conference on Social Informatics. Springer, 2017, pp.141-158. 10

    2017

  130. [140]

    Enquiring minds: Early detection of rumors in social media from enquiry posts ,

    Z. Zhao, P. Resnick, and Q. Mei, “Enquiring minds: Early detection of rumors in social media from enquiry posts ,” in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2015, pp.1395-1405

    2015

  131. [141]

    Call attention to rumors: Deep attention based recurrent neural networks for early rumor detection,

    T. Chen, et al., “Call attention to rumors: Deep attention based recurrent neural networks for early rumor detection,” in Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer, 2018, pp.40-52

    2018

  132. [142]

    Leveraging the implicit structure within social media for emergent rumor detection ,

    J. Sampson, et al., “Leveraging the implicit structure within social media for emergent rumor detection ,” in Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 2016, pp.2377-2382

    2016

  133. [143]

    Mining significant microblogs for misinformation identification: an attention -based approach ,

    Q. Liu, et al. , “Mining significant microblogs for misinformation identification: an attention -based approach ,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), vol.9, no.5, pp.50-67, 2018

    2018

  134. [144]

    Language-aware truth assessment of fact candidates ,

    N. Nakashole, and T. M. Mitchell, “Language-aware truth assessment of fact candidates ,” in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) . 2014, pp.1009-1019

    2014

  135. [145]

    Faitcrowd: Fine grained truth discovery for crowdsourced data aggregation ,

    F. Ma, et al., “Faitcrowd: Fine grained truth discovery for crowdsourced data aggregation ,” in Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . ACM, 2015, pp.745-754

    2015

  136. [146]

    DeClarE: Debunking fake news and false claims using evidence-aware deep learning,

    K. Popat, et al., “DeClarE: Debunking fake news and false claims using evidence-aware deep learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.06416, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  137. [147]

    Rumor detection with hierarchical social attention network,

    Guo H, et al. , “Rumor detection with hierarchical social attention network,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 2018, pp.943-951

    2018

  138. [148]

    ExFaKT: a framework for explaining facts over knowledge graphs and text ,

    M. H. Gad-Elrab, et al., “ExFaKT: a framework for explaining facts over knowledge graphs and text ,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 2019, pp.87-95

    2019

  139. [149]

    Techniques for interpretable machine learning,

    M. Du, N. Liu, and X. Hu, “Techniques for interpretable machine learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00033, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  140. [150]

    Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning,

    F. Doshi-Velez, and B. Kim, “Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  141. [151]

    An interpretable joint graphical model for fact - checking from crowds,

    A. T. Nguyen, et al. , “An interpretable joint graphical model for fact - checking from crowds,” in Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2018

    2018

  142. [152]

    Knowledge graph refinement: A survey of approaches and evaluation methods,

    H. Paulheim, “Knowledge graph refinement: A survey of approaches and evaluation methods,” Semantic web, vol.8, no.3, pp.489-508, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed May 24, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.