Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 83 references

GAMED: Knowledge Adaptive Multi-Experts Decoupling for Multimodal Fake News Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a multimodal fake news detector built on decoupled text and image expert streams, refined by adaptive normalization and combined by a veto vote, outperforms existing models on the Fakeddit and Yang benchmarks.

desk verdict Genuine architectural novelty, but the Yang comparison mixes splits and the headline accuracy gains are not yet controlled. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12164 v2 pith:YFVSPBI5 submitted 2024-12-11 cs.LG cs.AI

Lingzhi Shen , Yunfei Long , Xiaohao Cai , Imran Razzak , Guanming Chen , Kang Liu , Shoaib Jameel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords multimodalfakenewsdetectionmodaldecouplingmixtureofexpertsAdaINvetovotingknowledge-enhancedlanguagemodelFakedditYangdataset
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

GAMED is an architecture for deciding whether a text-image post is fake news. Its core design is modal decoupling: instead of fusing text and image features early, it runs separate expert networks on each modality and only later adapts and combines them. The pipeline uses a knowledge-enhanced text encoder, a mixture-of-experts refiner, an adaptive normalization step, and a veto voting rule that lets a confident single modality override the fused decision. The paper reports accuracy of 93.93% on Fakeddit and 98.46% on Yang, ahead of recent baselines such as MTTV, BMR, MCNN, and a fine-tuned CLIP+LLaVA system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a three-stage pipeline. The MMoE-Pro layer takes a modality's token features, scores each token's importance with a shared MLP, aggregates them, and mixes expert outputs with weights allowed to be negative or greater than one, giving a flexible feature selection. The AdaIN stage normalizes each refined representation with mean and standard deviation produced by MLPs from the coarse prediction, so the distribution is adjusted by the experts' opinion rather than by the data itself. The veto voting stage converts each module's output to a confidence, compares it to high and low thresholds, and lets a high-confidence module replace the fused prediction or a low-confidence majority module be disregarded. Semantic knowledge enters through the ERNIE 2.0 text encoder, which was pre-trained with knowledge-graph structure and is kept frozen.

What would settle it

Run GAMED and the strongest baselines (MTTV, BMR, MCNN) multiple times with identical splits on Fakeddit and Yang, and check whether the accuracy gap remains larger than the run-to-run standard deviation; alternatively, hold the encoders fixed across all methods to see whether the decoupling architecture itself, rather than the choice of ERNIE and MAE-ViT, produces the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that modal decoupling - keeping each modality's discriminative features intact rather than merging them early - is what drives strong fake news detection. GAMED extracts image pattern and semantic features with Inception-ResNet-v2 and a masked autoencoder, and text features with ERNIE 2.0. Each branch is refined by MMoE-Pro, an upgraded mixture-of-experts layer with token-level attention and unconstrained expert weights. AdaIN then re-centers each modality's representation using statistics predicted from coarse classifier outputs, and a three-rule veto voting stage decides the final label. Over the Fakeddit and Yang datasets, the authors report that GAMED achieves the highest accuracy and F1 among the compared methods, with the fusion module alone contributing only 61.4% accuracy while the full system reaches 93.9% and 98.5%.

Load-bearing premise

The reported superiority rests on the assumption that single-run accuracy differences, such as 93.93% versus 91.88% on Fakeddit, represent genuine model quality and not random variation, because the paper provides no repeated runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If GAMED's reported numbers are reproducible, modal decoupling with per-modality expert refinement is a more effective design than early fusion or consistency-only modelling for text-image fake news.
  • The veto voting rule provides an audit trail: each prediction can be attributed either to the fused output or to one high-confidence modality, a transparency property the paper argues for.
  • The large gap between the fusion module alone (61.4%) and the full model (93.9%) implies that within GAMED, cross-modal synergy delivers its benefit only after unimodal features are made discriminative.
  • The success of the ERNIE text encoder over BERT in the ablation suggests that injecting structured knowledge into the text branch, rather than into the fusion layer, is a workable route for knowledge-enhanced detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: Because all baselines use their own encoders, part of GAMED's margin may come from the frozen ERNIE and MAE-ViT backbones rather than from the decoupling and voting machinery; matching encoders across methods would isolate the architectural contribution.
  • Editorial: The veto-threshold idea could apply beyond fake news to any decision system with a primary fusion model and several specialist models; the same three rules give a transparent way to let the most confident specialist override the aggregate.
  • Editorial: The reported margins over baselines are small on Fakeddit (1.39% over CLIP+LLaVA), and without repeated runs or confidence intervals these gaps may not be stable; a public benchmark with standard errors would settle the superiority claim.
  • Editorial: The cosine-similarity heatmaps suggest a quantitative test of the decoupling hypothesis: measure the inter-class separation of the per-modality features and check whether it predicts detection accuracy on new samples.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. GAMED proposes a multimodal fake news detection architecture that decouples text and image features, refines them through a mixture-of-experts network (MMoE-Pro), adjusts feature distributions with AdaIN, and combines module predictions via a confidence-based veto voting mechanism. The paper claims state-of-the-art results on Fakeddit (93.93% accuracy) and Yang (98.46% accuracy), outperforming baselines such as MTTV, MCNN, and BMR, and it backs this with ablations, learning curves, and qualitative interpretability examples. The source code is publicly available.

Significance. If the experimental claims are reproducible and the comparisons are controlled, GAMED offers a competitive and more explainable alternative to fusion-based multimodal detectors, with a distinctive voting scheme that is a plausible contribution. The paper ships source code, includes Algorithm 1 pseudocode, and provides a fairly comprehensive ablation study that gives credit to the individual components. The practical significance, however, depends on the reliability of the benchmark comparisons and on the reproducibility of the reported numbers, neither of which is fully established by the manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1 Settings; Table 1] The Yang evaluation uses 4,655 training, 582 validation, and 583 test samples, but the paper states that the Yang dataset contains 20,015 articles. The manuscript does not explain how this subset was created, nor does it state that all baselines in Table 1 were run on this exact split. Because MCNN, SAFE, and MVNN were originally evaluated on different datasets (e.g., Twitter/Weibo) or on the full Yang split, the 2.16% accuracy advantage over MCNN claimed in §4.2 is not demonstrably a controlled comparison. Please specify the subsetting procedure and re-run or explicitly cite a common protocol for every baseline, or revise the SOTA claim accordingly.
  2. [§4.2; Table 1] All results are single-point accuracy/precision/recall/F1 values, with no repeated runs, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several margins are very small (e.g., Fakeddit F1: BMR 93.61 vs. GAMED 93.63), so the headline claim that GAMED is 'quantitatively superior' is not statistically supported. Report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds and, where feasible, paired significance tests.
  3. [§3 Veto Voting; §4.1] The veto thresholds θhigh and θlow are load-bearing hyperparameters of the proposed decision mechanism, but their values are never reported or analyzed. Likewise, the number of experts in MMoE-Pro and the expert hidden size are omitted. Provide these values, the tuning procedure, and ideally a sensitivity study, because without them the reported accuracy cannot be reproduced and the robustness of the mechanism is unknown.
  4. [§4.1 Comparative Models; §4.2] The manuscript states that BMR was re-tested on both datasets, but no configuration is given for that re-implementation (training schedule, loss, backbones, or whether the original BMR code was used). This omission makes the BMR row in Table 1 unverifiable and weakens the comparison in which GAMED beats BMR by only 0.02 F1 on Fakeddit. Please describe the BMR reproduction protocol or remove/qualify this baseline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] The sentence that GAMED 'ranks first in Precision, Recall, and F1 on both Fakeddit and Yang' is contradicted by Table 1, where BMR has higher Precision on Fakeddit (94.34 vs. 93.55), and by the same paragraph's later admission that GAMED does not beat BMR in Fakeddit Precision. Please correct this internal inconsistency.
  2. [§4.1 Datasets] The paper gives Fakeddit as 563,612 training, 58,798 validation, and 59,271 test samples (total 681,681), while the preceding paragraph says Fakeddit contains 628,501 fake and 527,049 real instances (total 1,155,550). Please clarify whether a filtered subset of Fakeddit was used and, if so, how it was created.
  3. [Algorithm 1; §3] The pseudocode's loss line 'L = ComputeLoss(O0, O1, ..., On)' does not specify whether the final veto output participates in the loss or only the coarse predictions are supervised; the main text should state this explicitly for reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 5; §4.2] Figure 5 is described as showing 'GAMED and its four modules' over 11 epochs, but the four modules are not named in the caption; please label IP, IS, T, and MM in the figure or caption.
  5. [Equation (2)] In Equation (2), the symbols μ and σ denote both the AdaIN target statistics and the MLP-generated parameters; renaming one set (e.g., α and β for the MLP outputs) would avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GAMED's claims are empirical evaluations against external public benchmarks, not derivations from its inputs.

full rationale

GAMED is an empirical systems paper. The central claim—that GAMED outperforms prior models on Fakeddit and Yang—is supported by comparisons in Tables 1 and 2 against externally published methods and public datasets (Fakeddit, Yang). No component of the architecture is defined in terms of the target accuracy, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The MMoE-Pro gating weights, AdaIN statistics, and veto thresholds are trained or preset components of the model; they are not presented as independent predictions of the benchmark results. The cited works by co-authors [13], [38], [41] appear only as background on knowledge graphs and multimodal sentiment analysis and are not load-bearing for GAMED's design or evaluation. The paper's Yang-subset size (5,820 samples versus the 20,015-article original) raises a possible experimental-control concern, but that is a validity or reproducibility issue, not a circularity: the reported margin over MCNN is not shown to be forced by construction or by self-citation. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidence standard of this analysis.

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

The performance claim rests on the quality of the benchmark labels and frozen encoders, plus several design choices (expert count, thresholds, hidden sizes) that are not fully disclosed. The most load-bearing undisclosed choices are the veto threshold values, without which the decision rule is underspecified.

free parameters (3)
  • Veto voting thresholds = Not reported
    θ_high and θ_low define when a modality's prediction overrides or is excluded from the final decision. The paper never gives their values, so they are free parameters tuned on data.
  • Number of experts in MMoE-Pro = Not reported
    The expert count is not specified in Section 3 or the experiments, so the capacity of the expert network is an undisclosed design choice.
  • Expert hidden size = Not reported
    The hidden dimension of the expert MLPs is not given, affecting the capacity and behavior of the refined features.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Fakeddit and Yang labels are accurate ground truth for fake news.
    The entire evaluation rests on the correctness of the benchmark labels; the paper does not audit them.
  • domain assumption Pre-trained features (ERNIE2.0, MAE-ViT, Inception-ResNet-v2) carry useful and complementary signals for this task.
    The model uses these frozen encoders without fine-tuning (except the MLP adapters); the gains depend on their quality.
  • ad hoc to paper The MMoE-Pro gating weights, allowed to be negative or exceed one, still yield stable feature transformations.
    Removing the softmax constraint is a design choice specific to GAMED; no analysis of stability or regularization is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GAMED: Knowledge Adaptive Multi-Experts Decoupling for Multimodal Fake News Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFVSPBI5

@misc{pith2026241212164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GAMED: Knowledge Adaptive Multi-Experts Decoupling for Multimodal Fake News Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFVSPBI5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12164}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal fake news detection often involves modelling heterogeneous data sources, such as vision and language. Existing detection methods typically rely on fusion effectiveness and cross-modal consistency to model the content, complicating understanding how each modality affects prediction accuracy. Additionally, these methods are primarily based on static feature modelling, making it difficult to adapt to the dynamic changes and relationships between different data modalities. This paper develops a significantly novel approach, GAMED, for multimodal modelling, which focuses on generating distinctive and discriminative features through modal decoupling to enhance cross-modal synergies, thereby optimizing overall performance in the detection process. GAMED leverages multiple parallel expert networks to refine features and pre-embed semantic knowledge to improve the experts' ability in information selection and viewpoint sharing. Subsequently, the feature distribution of each modality is adaptively adjusted based on the respective experts' opinions. GAMED also introduces a novel classification technique to dynamically manage contributions from different modalities, while improving the explainability of decisions. Experimental results on the Fakeddit and Yang datasets demonstrate that GAMED performs better than recently developed state-of-the-art models. The source code can be accessed at https://github.com/slz0925/GAMED.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Starting from raw data, the GAMED’s modality-specific pipeline performs feature extraction and progressive re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: The configuration of MMoE-Pro and the flow of processing representations. Right: The pipeline of four modules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our novel veto model. Here, 𝜇𝑟 and 𝜎𝑟 are respectively the mean and standard deviation of the input feature 𝑟, and e is the adjusted feature. The process of combining information from each modality in AdaIN can be simpli￾fied as e = AdaIN(r, 𝜇, 𝜎). At this stage, for the mean and standard deviation calculation of the prediction output from consistency learning, we use (1 − sigmoid(O)) to invert it so that adjust the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heatmaps of cosine similarity on Fakeddit and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The comparison of accuracy (first row) and loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The interpretability of GAMED is illustrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Floren- cia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Ahmed Aleroud and George Karabatis. 2020. Bypassing Detection of URL-based Phishing Attacks Using Generative Adversarial Deep Neural Networks. Pro- ceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Security and Privacy Analytics (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Jawaher Alghamdi, Yuqing Lin, and Suhuai Luo. 2023. Towards COVID-19 fake news detection using transformer-based models. Knowledge-Based Systems 274 (2023), 110642

    2023

  4. [4]

    Sabrine Amri, Dorsaf Sallami, and Esma Aïmeur. 2021. Exmulf: an explainable multimodal content-based fake news detection system. In International Sympo- sium on Foundations and Practice of Security . Springer, 177–187

    2021

  5. [5]

    K Anirudh, Meghana Srikanth, and A Shahina. 2023. Multilingual Fake News Detection in Low-Resource Languages: A Comparative Study Using BERT and GPT-3.5. In International Conference on Speech and Language Technologies for Low-resource Languages. Springer, 387–397

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    C. V. Asha, Akash Yadav, Dr. A. P Nirmala, Abhijit Sen, A Arvind Raj, and Abhinav Rajan. 2024. An Effective Assessment of Machine Learning Approaches for Fake News Detection. 2024 International Conference on Inventive Computation Technologies (ICICT) (2024), 169–174

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Belhassen Bayar and Matthew C Stamm. 2018. Constrained convolutional neural networks: A new approach towards general purpose image manipulation de- tection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 13, 11 (2018), 2691–2706

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Yixuan Chen, Dongsheng Li, Peng Zhang, Jie Sui, Qin Lv, Lu Tun, and Li Shang

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    I Chern, Steffi Chern, Shiqi Chen, Weizhe Yuan, Kehua Feng, Chunting Zhou, Junxian He, Graham Neubig, Pengfei Liu, et al . 2023. FacTool: Factuality De- tection in Generative AI–A Tool Augmented Framework for Multi-Task and Multi-Domain Scenarios. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.135...

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Carmela Comito, Luciano Caroprese, and Ester Zumpano. 2023. Multimodal fake news detection on social media: a survey of deep learning techniques. Social Network Analysis and Mining 13, 1 (2023), 101

    2023

  3. [11]

    Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Albert Li, Pascale Fung, and Steven C. H. Hoi. 2023. In- structBLIP: Towards General-purpose Vision-Language Models with Instruction Tuning. ArXiv abs/2305.06500 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    2019

  5. [13]

    Hui Fang, Chongcheng Chen, Yunfei Long, Ge Xu, and Yongqiang Xiao. 2022. DTCRSKG: A deep travel conversational recommender system incorporating knowledge graph. Mathematics 10, 9 (2022), 1402

    2022

  6. [14]

    Lifang Fu, Huanxin Peng, and Shuai Liu. 2023. KG-MFEND: an efficient knowl- edge graph-based model for multi-domain fake news detection. The Journal of Supercomputing 79, 16 (2023), 18417–18444

    2023

  7. [15]

    Siva Charan Reddy Gangireddy, Deepak P, Cheng Long, and Tanmoy Chakraborty

  8. [16]

    Xingyu Gao, Xi Wang, Zhenyu Chen, Wei Zhou, and Steven CH Hoi. 2024. Knowledge enhanced vision and language model for multi-modal fake news detection. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Ankit Gautam, S Vijayakumar Bharathi, Dhanya Pramod, and Kanchan Patil

  10. [18]

    Hao Guo, Weixin Zeng, Jiuyang Tang, and Xiang Zhao. 2023. Interpretable Fake News Detection with Graph Evidence. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 659–668

    2023

  11. [19]

    Agrim Gupta, Jiajun Wu, Jia Deng, and Fei-Fei Li. 2024. Siamese masked autoen- coders. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Mostafa Haghir Chehreghani. 2024. A Review on the Impact of Data Representa- tion on Model Explainability. Comput. Surveys (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Saqib Hakak, Mamoun Alazab, Suleman Khan, Thippa Reddy Gadekallu, Praveen Kumar Reddy Maddikunta, and Wazir Zada Khan. 2021. An ensemble machine learning approach through effective feature extraction to classify fake news. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 117 (2021), 47–58

    2021

  14. [22]

    Beizhe Hu, Qiang Sheng, Juan Cao, Yuhui Shi, Yang Li, Danding Wang, and Peng Qi. 2024. Bad actor, good advisor: Exploring the role of large language models in fake news detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. 22105–22113

    2024

  15. [23]

    Linmei Hu, Siqi Wei, Ziwang Zhao, and Bin Wu. 2022. Deep learning for fake news detection: A comprehensive survey. AI Open 3 (2022), 133–155

    2022

  16. [24]

    Linmei Hu, Tianchi Yang, Luhao Zhang, Wanjun Zhong, Duyu Tang, Chuan Shi, Nan Duan, and Ming Zhou. 2021. Compare to the knowledge: Graph neural fake news detection with external knowledge. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguisti...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Jiaheng Hua, Xiaodong Cui, Xianghua Li, Keke Tang, and Peican Zhu. 2023. Multimodal fake news detection through data augmentation-based contrastive learning. Applied Soft Computing 136 (2023), 110125

    2023

  18. [26]

    Xun Huang and Serge Belongie. 2017. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . 1501–1510

    2017

  19. [27]

    Vivek Rai

    Saurabh Jaiswal and Mr. Vivek Rai. 2024. Enhancing Generalisation In Fake News Detection: A Comparative Evaluation of Naïve Bayes and Random Forest Approaches. International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer Science and Technology (IJIRCST) (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Mingyue Jiang, Chang Jing, Liming Chen, Yang Wang, and Shouqiang Liu

  21. [29]

    Jing Jing, Hongchen Wu, Jie Sun, Xiaochang Fang, and Huaxiang Zhang. 2023. Multimodal fake news detection via progressive fusion networks. Information processing & management 60, 1 (2023), 103120

    2023

  22. [30]

    Dhruv Khattar, Jaipal Singh Goud, Manish Gupta, and Vasudeva Varma. 2019. Mvae: Multimodal variational autoencoder for fake news detection. In The world wide web conference. 2915–2921

    2019

  23. [31]

    Douwe Kiela, Suvrat Bhooshan, Hamed Firooz, Ethan Perez, and Davide Testug- gine. 2019. Supervised multimodal bitransformers for classifying images and text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.02950 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Rina Kumari, Nischal Ashok, Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Tirthankar Ghosal, and Asif Ekbal. 2023. Identifying multimodal misinformation leveraging novelty detection and emotion recognition. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 61, 3 (2023), 673–694

    2023

  25. [33]

    Batool Lakzaei, Mostafa Haghir Chehreghani, and Alireza Bagheri. 2024. Disin- formation detection using graph neural networks: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Review 57, 3 (2024), 52

    2024

  26. [34]

    Jaeyoung Lee, Ximing Lu, Jack Hessel, Faeze Brahman, Youngjae Yu, Yonatan Bisk, Yejin Choi, and Saadia Gabriel. 2024. How to Train Your Fact Verifier: Knowledge Transfer with Multimodal Open Models. ArXiv abs/2407.00369 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Chunyuan Li, Cliff Wong, Sheng Zhang, Naoto Usuyama, Haotian Liu, Jianwei Yang, Tristan Naumann, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao. 2024. Llava-med: Train- ing a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Gang Li, Heliang Zheng, Daqing Liu, Chaoyue Wang, Bing Su, and Changwen Zheng. 2022. Semmae: Semantic-guided masking for learning masked autoen- coders. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35 (2022), 14290–14302

    2022

  29. [37]

    Jia Li and Minglong Lei. 2022. A Brief Survey for Fake News Detection via Deep Learning Models. In International Conference on Information Technology and Quantitative Management

    2022

  30. [38]

    Zijie Lin, Bin Liang, Yunfei Long, Yixue Dang, Min Yang, Min Zhang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022. Modeling intra-and inter-modal relations: Hierarchical graph con- trastive learning for multimodal sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational...

    2022

  31. [39]

    Qi Liu, Yuanyuan Jin, Xuefei Cao, Xiaodong Liu, Xiaokang Zhou, Yonghong Zhang, Xiaolong Xu, and Lianyong Qi. 2024. An Entity Ontology-Based Knowl- edge Graph Embedding Approach to News Credibility Assessment. IEEE Trans- actions on Computational Social Systems (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Qiang Lu, Yunfei Long, Xia Sun, Jun Feng, and Hao Zhang. 2024. Fact-sentiment incongruity combination network for multimodal sarcasm detection. Information Fusion 104 (2024), 102203

    2024

  33. [41]

    Qiang Lu, Xia Sun, Zhizezhang Gao, Yunfei Long, Jun Feng, and Hao Zhang

  34. [42]

    Muhammad Luqman, Muhammad Faheem, Waheed Yousuf Ramay, Malik Khizar Saeed, and Majid Bashir Ahmad. 2024. Utilizing ensemble learning for detecting multi-modal fake news. IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Alex Munyole Luvembe, Weimin Li, Shaohau Li, Fangfang Liu, and Xing Wu. 2024. CAF-ODNN: Complementary attention fusion with optimized deep neural net- work for multimodal fake news detection. Information Processing & Management 61, 3 (2024), 103653

    2024

  36. [44]

    Jing Ma, Chen Chen, Chunyan Hou, and Xiaojie Yuan. 2023. Kapalm: Knowledge graph enhanced language models for fake news detection. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 . 3999–4009

    2023

  37. [45]

    Jiaqi Ma, Zhe Zhao, Xinyang Yi, Jilin Chen, Lichan Hong, and Ed H Chi. 2018. Modeling task relationships in multi-task learning with multi-gate mixture-of- experts. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 1930–1939

    2018

  38. [46]

    Information Processing & Management 61, 1 (2024), 103538

    Coordinated-joint translation fusion framework with sentiment-interactive graph convolutional networks for multimodal sentiment analysis. Information Processing & Management 61, 1 (2024), 103538

    2024

  39. [47]

    Amit Praseed, Jelwin Rodrigues, and P Santhi Thilagam. 2023. Hindi fake news detection using transformer ensembles. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 119 (2023), 105731

    2023

  40. [48]

    Peng Qi, Juan Cao, Tianyun Yang, Junbo Guo, and Jintao Li. 2019. Exploiting multi- domain visual information for fake news detection. In 2019 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 518–527

    2019

  41. [49]

    Yu Qiao, Daniel Wiechmann, and Elma Kerz. 2020. A language-based approach to fake news detection through interpretable features and BRNN. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on rumours and deception in social media (RDSM) . 14–31

    2020

  42. [50]

    Anne Schulz, Richard Fletcher, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2024. The role of news media knowledge for how people use social media for news in five countries. new media & society 26, 7 (2024), 4056–4077

    2024

  43. [51]

    Priyanka Meel and Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma. 2021. HAN, image captioning, and forensics ensemble multimodal fake news detection. Inf. Sci. 567 (2021), 23–41

    2021

  44. [52]

    Kai Shu, Limeng Cui, Suhang Wang, Dongwon Lee, and Huan Liu. 2019. de- fend: Explainable fake news detection. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 395–405

    2019

  45. [53]

    Amila Silva, Ling Luo, Shanika Karunasekera, and Christopher Leckie. 2021. Em- bracing domain differences in fake news: Cross-domain fake news detection using multi-modal data. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 35. 557–565

    2021

  46. [54]

    Chenguang Song, Yiyang Teng, Yangfu Zhu, Siqi Wei, and Bin Wu. 2022. Dynamic graph neural network for fake news detection. Neurocomputing 505 (2022), 362– 374

    2022

  47. [55]

    Mengzhu Sun, Xi Zhang, Jianqiang Ma, Sihong Xie, Yazheng Liu, and S Yu Philip. 2023. Inconsistent matters: A knowledge-guided dual-consistency network for multi-modal rumor detection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35, 12 (2023), 12736–12749

    2023

  48. [56]

    Jae-Seung Shim, Yunju Lee, and Hyunchul Ahn. 2021. A link2vec-based fake news detection model using web search results. Expert Systems with Applications 184 (2021), 115491

    2021

  49. [57]

    Christian Szegedy, Sergey Ioffe, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Alexander Alemi. 2017. Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 31

    2017

  50. [58]

    Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. 2019. Lxmert: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07490 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Shivani Tufchi, Ashima Yadav, and Tanveer Ahmed. 2023. A comprehensive survey of multimodal fake news detection techniques: advances, challenges, and opportunities. International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval 12, 2 (2023), 28

    2023

  52. [60]

    Pawan Kumar Verma, Prateek Agrawal, Vishu Madaan, and Radu Prodan. 2023. MCred: multi-modal message credibility for fake news detection using BERT and CNN. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 14, 8 (2023), 10617–10629

    2023

  53. [61]

    Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Yukun Li, Shikun Feng, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2020. Ernie 2.0: A continual pre-training framework for language under- standing. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 34. 8968–8975

    2020

  54. [62]

    Yaqing Wang, Fenglong Ma, Zhiwei Jin, Ye Yuan, Guangxu Xun, Kishlay Jha, Lu Su, and Jing Gao. 2018. Eann: Event adversarial neural networks for multi-modal fake news detection. In Proceedings of the 24th acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining ...

    2018

  55. [63]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  56. [64]

    Yang Wu, Pengwei Zhan, Yunjian Zhang, Liming Wang, and Zhen Xu. 2021. Mul- timodal fusion with co-attention networks for fake news detection. In Findings of the association for computational linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 . 2560–2569

    2021

  57. [65]

    Keyang Xuan, Li Yi, Fan Yang, Ruochen Wu, Yi R Fung, and Heng Ji. 2024. LEMMA: Towards LVLM-Enhanced Multimodal Misinformation Detection with External Knowledge Augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11943 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Bin Wang, Yong Feng, Xian-cai Xiong, Yong-heng Wang, and Bao-hua Qiang

  59. [67]

    Applied Intelligence 53, 9 (2023), 10429–10443

    Multi-modal transformer using two-level visual features for fake news detection. Applied Intelligence 53, 9 (2023), 10429–10443

    2023

  60. [68]

    Yang Yang, Lei Zheng, Jiawei Zhang, Qingcai Cui, Zhoujun Li, and Philip S Yu

  61. [69]

    Qichao Ying, Xiaoxiao Hu, Yangming Zhou, Zhenxing Qian, Dan Zeng, and Shiming Ge. 2023. Bootstrapping multi-view representations for fake news detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 37. 5384–5392

    2023

  62. [70]

    Jihai Zhang, Xiang Lan, Xiaoye Qu, Yu Cheng, Mengling Feng, and Bryan Hooi

  63. [71]

    Haiyan Zhao, Hanjie Chen, Fan Yang, Ninghao Liu, Huiqi Deng, Hengyi Cai, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, and Mengnan Du. 2024. Explainability for large lan- guage models: A survey. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 15, 2 (2024), 1–38

    2024

  64. [72]

    Junxiao Xue, Yabo Wang, Yichen Tian, Yafei Li, Lei Shi, and Lin Wei. 2021. De- tecting fake news by exploring the consistency of multimodal data. Information Processing & Management 58, 5 (2021), 102610

    2021

  65. [73]

    Hongyu Yang, Jinjiao Zhang, Liang Zhang, Xiang Cheng, and Ze Hu. 2024. MRAN: Multimodal relationship-aware attention network for fake news detection. Com- puter Standards & Interfaces 89 (2024), 103822

    2024

  66. [74]

    Melissa Zimdars and Kembrew McLeod. 2020. Fake news: Understanding media and misinformation in the digital age . MIT Press

    2020

  67. [80]

    Xinyi Zhou, Jindi Wu, and Reza Zafarani. 2020. SAFE: Similarity-aware multi- modal fake news detection. In Pacific-Asia Conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. Springer, 354–367

    2020

  68. [81]

    Yangming Zhou, Yuzhou Yang, Qichao Ying, Zhenxing Qian, and Xinpeng Zhang

  69. [82]

    In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME)

    Multimodal fake news detection via clip-guided learning. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, 2825–2830

    2023

  70. [2018]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00749 (2018)

    TI-CNN: Convolutional neural networks for fake news detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00749 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  71. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 31st ACM conference on hypertext and social media

    Unsupervised fake news detection: A graph-based approach. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM conference on hypertext and social media . 75–83

  72. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022

    Cross-modal ambiguity learning for multimodal fake news detection. In Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022 . 2897–2905

    2022

  73. [2023]

    In 2023 International Conference on Advanced Computing Technologies and Applications (ICACTA)

    Fake textual and image news detection on social media using natural language processing. In 2023 International Conference on Advanced Computing Technologies and Applications (ICACTA). IEEE, 1–6

    2023

  74. [2024]

    Multimedia Tools and Applications 83, 3 (2024), 8689–8706

    An application study on multimodal fake news detection based on Albert- ResNet50 Model. Multimedia Tools and Applications 83, 3 (2024), 8689–8706

    2024

  75. [2025]

    In European Conference on Computer Vision

    Learning the Unlearned: Mitigating Feature Suppression in Contrastive Learning. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 35–52

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.