Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

GETAE: Graph information Enhanced deep neural NeTwork ensemble ArchitecturE for fake news detection

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fake news detector that reads tweet text and the social graph hits 89% F1.

desk verdict Solid ablation study, but the SOTA claim rests on a binary-vs-4-class comparison and possible transductive leakage; the headline does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01825 v1 pith:ZDWCECRG submitted 2024-12-02 cs.AI cs.CL

Ciprian-Octavian Truică , Elena-Simona Apostol , Marius Marogel , Adrian Paschke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords fakenewsdetectioninformationdiffusionnodeembeddingsensemblearchitecturewordpropagationtreesocialnetworkanalysis
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

GETAE is an ensemble architecture for detecting fake news as a binary true/false problem on Twitter. The paper's central claim is that detection improves when the classifier sees both the tweet's text and the social-network position of the tweet's author, rather than text alone. The Text Branch turns word or Transformer embeddings into a Text Content Embedding via recurrent layers; the Propagation Branch turns Node2Vec or DeepWalk author embeddings into a Propagation Embedding via a dense layer; the two are concatenated into a Propagation-Enhanced Content Embedding used for classification. On Twitter15 the best configuration (BERT, Node2Vec, BiLSTM) reaches 82.7% F1, and on Twitter16 the best configuration (BERT, Node2Vec, RNN) reaches 89.5-89.6% F1, which the paper reports as outperforming the state-of-the-art models it compares against. The paper also concludes, in a qualified way, that no single architecture is a definitive solution and that mixtures of models are needed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Propagation-Enhanced Content Embedding: the concatenation of two branch outputs — a Text Content Embedding produced by a recurrent layer (RNN, LSTM, or GRU, unidirectional or bidirectional) over word or Transformer embeddings, and a Propagation Embedding produced by a dense ReLU layer over a Node2Vec or DeepWalk node embedding of the source tweet's author. The node embedding methods are the machinery that turns the social graph into vectors: Node2Vec uses biased second-order random walks with return/in-out parameters (p, q), and DeepWalk uses uniform random walks, both trained with Skip-Gram objectives. The concatenated vector is passed through a ReLU dense layer and then a softmax output layer, so the classification decision depends jointly on lexical content and the author's structural position in the network.

What would settle it

Train GETAE on Twitter16 twice, once with node embeddings learned only from the training fold's subgraph and once with node embeddings learned from the full graph; if the F1 gap over the text-only baseline disappears in the first setting, the reported propagation gain is an artifact of graph leakage, not of diffusion information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, GETAE claims that fusing textual content with information-diffusion structure yields better fake news detection than text-only or graph-only models. The novel object is the Propagation-Enhanced Content Embedding, built by concatenating a recurrent Text Content Embedding with a dense-network Propagation Embedding and passing the result through a ReLU dense layer before softmax classification. The paper reports that this combination, with BERT as the text encoder and Node2Vec as the graph encoder, achieves 82.7% F1 on Twitter15 and 89.5-89.6% F1 on Twitter16, and that on F1, Precision, and Recall these scores exceed the compared state-of-the-art models, while GCAN retains the higher Accuracy on both datasets. The authors further conclude that the best recurrent layer differs by dataset (BiLSTM on Twitter15, RNN on Twitter16), that balanced Node2Vec random walks with 100-dimensional embeddings worked best, and that no single model is a definitive answer to fake news detection.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the source author's Node2Vec or DeepWalk embedding, learned from the full user graph before the train/test split, actually represents the diffusion pattern of each individual tweet rather than just a user-level constant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold, adding author-level graph embeddings to a text classifier is enough to lift F1 from roughly 85% (text-only BERT on Twitter16) to about 89.6% on the same dataset.
  • The best configuration differs by dataset, so the paper's conclusion is that embedding models and recurrent layers must be selected per dataset rather than assumed to transfer.
  • Balanced Node2Vec random walks (p=1, q=1) with 100-dimensional node embeddings gave the strongest results, indicating that neither pure breadth-first nor pure depth-first bias was best.
  • Because the architecture is modular, any word embedding and any node embedding can be substituted without restructuring the ensemble, so the same pipeline can be pointed at other social platforms or other content encoders.
  • The paper explicitly concludes that no single architecture is a definitive solution and that a mixture of models (e.g., Mixture of Experts) is the likely route to robust fake news detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The claimed 'diffusion' signal is carried only by the source author's node embedding, so the graph branch is really testing whether an author-level structural feature predicts veracity; a per-tweet propagation-subgraph embedding would be a stricter test of the information-diffusion story.
  • Node embeddings are trained on the full graph before the train/test split, so some transductive leakage is possible; evaluating with a temporal or user-disjoint split would show whether the gains persist for unseen users.
  • The Twitter16 advantage over GCAN is large, but the comparison is on a binary true/false subset; re-running on the original four-class labels would show whether the advantage is specific to binary veracity classification.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GETAE, an ensemble architecture for fake news detection that combines a Text Branch (word/transformer embeddings followed by recurrent layers) with a Propagation Branch (author node embeddings from Node2Vec or DeepWalk followed by a dense layer), concatenating the two into a Propagation-Enhanced Content Embedding for binary classification. The authors evaluate GETAE on Twitter15 and Twitter16 using only the true and false labeled tweets, perform ablation and hyperparameter studies, and compare the best configurations against previously published state-of-the-art results, reporting F1 scores of 0.827 on Twitter15 and 0.895-0.896 on Twitter16. The paper claims that GETAE outperforms state-of-the-art models on these datasets.

Significance. Fake news detection that jointly models textual content and social propagation is a relevant research direction, and the GETAE architecture is a reasonable combination of established components. The paper's strengths include a clearly described architecture, publicly available code, extensive ablation over word embeddings, node embeddings, and recurrent cell types, and the use of standard Twitter15/Twitter16 datasets. If the state-of-the-art comparison were valid, the reported improvements would be of interest to the community. However, as written, the evaluation protocol does not establish the headline claim, so the paper's main contribution is not yet verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Section 4.5, Tables 10-11] The central claim that GETAE outperforms state-of-the-art models is not supported because the comparison is not apples-to-apples. Section 4.1 states that only source tweets labeled true and false are used for training and evaluation, so GETAE is trained and tested on a binary subset of Twitter15/Twitter16. However, the baseline results in Tables 10 and 11 (DTC, SVM-TS, mGRU, RFC, tCNN, CRNN, CSI, dEFEND, DANES, GCAN, GCAN-G, HiMaP, SSGE) are quoted from papers that evaluate on the full four-class rumor detection task (false, true, non-rumor, unverified). No baseline is re-run on the same binary subset. A binary macro-F1 of 0.827 on Twitter15 is not comparable to a four-class macro-F1 of 0.825, since the class priors, task difficulty, and metric definitions differ. The abstract and Section 5 therefore overstate the findings. The authors must either re-run all baselines on the same binary subsets or substantially weaken the claims to 'competitive on a binary true/false subset'.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 10] The Propagation Branch may exploit transductive information from the test set. Algorithm 1 trains node embeddings on the full graph G (line 10) before any train/test split is applied, and the dataset's graph includes the propagation edges for all tweets, including those in the test fold. Because each test tweet's author node embedding is learned from the full graph, the embedding can carry information derived from the test tweet's own propagation structure. This can inflate the apparent contribution of the Propagation Branch. The authors should train node embeddings on the training subgraph only, or explicitly adopt a transductive setting and compare with baselines that also have access to transductive graph information.
  3. [Section 4.3, Tables 4-5] The ablation results do not consistently support the claim that the Propagation Branch improves detection. For example, on Twitter15 with BERT embeddings and BiLSTM, adding Node2Vec raises F1 from 0.794 to 0.825, but with RNN it lowers F1 from 0.784 to 0.755, and with Word2Vec and BiRNN it lowers F1 from 0.751 to 0.656. Similar reversals appear throughout Table 4 and Table 5 (e.g., Word2Vec+Node2Vec on Twitter15 reduces F1 relative to text-only for nearly every recurrent layer). The paper's conclusion in Section 5 that the Propagation-Enhanced Content Embedding 'performs better' is therefore only true for a subset of configurations. The authors should report significance tests (e.g., paired tests across folds) and discuss the conditions under which the Propagation Branch helps or hurts.
  4. [Section 4.4, Tables 6-9] The hyperparameter selection procedure appears to use the test set repeatedly, which can produce optimistic results. Sections 4.3 and 4.4 state that the same 80-20 train-test split and 10-fold cross-validation are used, and the best configurations (e.g., p=1, q=1, d=100 on both datasets) are chosen by comparing test-set metrics across many settings. No separate validation set or nested cross-validation is described, so the reported best numbers are likely subject to selection bias. The paper should either introduce a proper validation split for model selection or explicitly acknowledge and correct for the multiple-testing problem.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistent notations: 'Algortihm 1' (Algorithm 1), 'reccurent' (recurrent), 'ensamble' (ensemble), 'Wor2Vec' (Word2Vec), and 'ber-base-uncased' should be 'bert-base-uncased'.
  2. [Table 10] The GETAE row in Table 10 does not match the values reported in Tables 4-6: Table 10 lists Twitter15 Precision/Recall/F1 as 0.827/0.831/0.827, while Table 4 reports F1 of 0.825 for the best BERT+Node2Vec+BiLSTM configuration and Section 5 reports an F1 of 82.7% for a different configuration. The discrepancies should be reconciled.
  3. [Section 3.1.2] The description of DeepWalk's objective function is imprecise: Equation (3) writes a softmax over f(u) and f(v), but DeepWalk's objective is typically a hierarchical softmax over context nodes; the equation as written is not the standard DeepWalk objective and should be corrected or clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GETAE's claims are empirical and supported by within-paper ablations; self-citations are baselines, not load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation whose conclusion is assumed in its inputs. GETAE is an empirical ensemble of standard, externally defined components: Word2Vec/BERT/BERTweet embeddings, a recurrent text encoder, Node2Vec/DeepWalk node embeddings, a dense propagation encoder, and a concatenation layer. The central ablation—comparing the full ensemble against the text-only branch (Tables 4–5)—is an honest within-paper check of whether the Propagation Branch contributes, and it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The node embeddings are unsupervised and are not fit to the target labels; the propagation branch input is the source author's node embedding, which may be an invalid or leaky operationalization of per-tweet diffusion, but that is a construct-validity or data-leakage concern, not a circular reduction. The DANES baseline and other references to the authors' prior work are used for comparison and preprocessing context, not as a substitute for evidence; no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise is imported from self-citations. The most serious issues—comparing binary true/false results to 4-class baselines and training node embeddings on the full graph before the split—are correctness and soundness problems, not circularity. Thus the derivation chain is not circular; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two unverified pillars: that author node embeddings encode per-tweet information diffusion, and that binary results are comparable to published four-class baselines. Hyperparameters are tuned on the test set, and the graph is used transductively. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Node2Vec return parameter p = 1.0
    Tuned on the test set (Tables 6-7); p=1 gives balanced random walks and the best reported scores.
  • Node2Vec in-out parameter q = 1.0
    Tuned on the test set; q=1 chosen for best Twitter15/16 results.
  • Node2Vec embedding dimension d = 100
    Best dimension on both datasets in Tables 6-7; d=100 beats d=32.
  • DeepWalk embedding dimension d = 100 (Twitter15) / 32 (Twitter16)
    Selected per dataset in Tables 8-9; Twitter15 prefers 100, Twitter16 prefers 32.
  • Recurrent layer type = BiLSTM (Twitter15) / RNN (Twitter16)
    Discrete model choice made by comparing test-set metrics across Tables 4-5.
  • Training epochs = 30 (transformers), 8 (Word2Vec)
    Set in Section 4.3, Word2Vec shortened to avoid overfitting.
  • Learning rate = 0.001
    Fixed in Section 4.3; not tuned.
  • Dense layer units (Text/Graph) = 32
    Fixed in Table 3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The user graph built from retweet/mention interactions represents information diffusion.
    Invoked in Section 3.1.2 to justify node embeddings as diffusion encoders.
  • domain assumption The node2vec/DeepWalk embedding of the source tweet author encodes the per-tweet propagation structure.
    The Propagation Branch receives only the author node embedding (Algorithm 1 lines 28-31), so the whole diffusion claim depends on this.
  • domain assumption Node embeddings trained on the full graph before the train/test split do not leak label information.
    Algorithm 1 line 10 trains N on G before splitting; with test tweets' trees inside G, transductive leakage is possible and unaddressed.
  • ad hoc to paper Binary true/false accuracy and F1 are comparable to published four-class results.
    Section 4.1.1 discards non-rumor and unverified classes, yet Table 10 compares to published baselines without re-running them on the same subset.
  • domain assumption Twitter15/Twitter16 labels are reliable ground truth.
    Standard benchmark assumption used throughout Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GETAE: Graph information Enhanced deep neural NeTwork ensemble ArchitecturE for fake news detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZDWCECRG

@misc{pith2026241201825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GETAE: Graph information Enhanced deep neural NeTwork ensemble ArchitecturE for fake news detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZDWCECRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01825}
}
read the original abstract

In today's digital age, fake news has become a major problem that has serious consequences, ranging from social unrest to political upheaval. To address this issue, new methods for detecting and mitigating fake news are required. In this work, we propose to incorporate contextual and network-aware features into the detection process. This involves analyzing not only the content of a news article but also the context in which it was shared and the network of users who shared it, i.e., the information diffusion. Thus, we propose GETAE, \underline{G}raph Information \underline{E}nhanced Deep Neural Ne\underline{t}work Ensemble \underline{A}rchitectur\underline{E} for Fake News Detection, a novel ensemble architecture that uses textual content together with the social interactions to improve fake news detection. GETAE contains two Branches: the Text Branch and the Propagation Branch. The Text Branch uses Word and Transformer Embeddings and a Deep Neural Network based on feed-forward and bidirectional Recurrent Neural Networks (\textsc{[Bi]RNN}) for learning novel contextual features and creating a novel Text Content Embedding. The Propagation Branch considers the information propagation within the graph network and proposes a Deep Learning architecture that employs Node Embeddings to create novel Propagation Embedding. GETAE Ensemble combines the two novel embeddings, i.e., Text Content Embedding and Propagation Embedding, to create a novel \textit{Propagation-Enhanced Content Embedding} which is afterward used for classification. The experimental results obtained on two real-world publicly available datasets, i.e., Twitter15 and Twitter16, prove that using this approach improves fake news detection and outperforms state-of-the-art models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01825 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GETAE Architecture system and uses a GCN (Graph Convolutional Network) to learn representations for rumor detection. Using a retweet order sorted based on the retweet time, they create GCN, GRU, and CNN embeddings for the tweet and social encodings, which are then passed through a dual co-attention mechanism. This approach uses features from patterns in response time, source tweet content, and user characteristics o… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Examples of propagation trees The graphs are directed with the orientation specified in the dataset. Every row in the edge file is a connection from a parent node to a child node. Nodes are represented as tuples with three components: the userid of the Twitter account, the tweetid of the tweet post, and the time in minutes passed since the first node posted (source node). Equation (4) shows the edge information from… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. represents the length distribution of tweets in both datasets. We observe that the most probable length is around 80-100 characters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: presents the graphs’ Degree Distributions using histograms with a logarithmic scale. For the Twitter15 dataset, the total number of graphs is 742 and we compute the average degree for each of these graphs. We observe that most graphs have a degree distribution around 2…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Degree Centrality preprocessing for training word embeddings consists of removing 1) URLs, 2) double spaces, and 3) punctuations. To vectorize the text, we train a Wor2Vec Skip-Gram model. For BERT and BERTweet, we use the pre-trained models from HuggingFace: ’ber-base…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Robustness Evaluation of Graph-based News Detection Using Network Structural Information

    cs.SI 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SI2AF attacks GNN fake news detectors by using structural entropy to find post communities and coordinating bot, cyborg, and worker agents to connect malicious accounts to related posts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Mustafaraj, P

    E. Mustafaraj, P. T. Metaxas, The fake news spreading plague, in: ACM on Web Science Conference, 2017, pp. 235–239. doi: 10.1145/ 3091478.3091523

    work page arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Ruths, The misinformation machine, Science 363 (2019) 348–348

    D. Ruths, The misinformation machine, Science 363 (2019) 348–348. doi:10.1126/science.aaw1315

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaw1315 2019

  3. [3]

    M. T. Bastos, D. Mercea, The brexit botnet and user-generated hyperpartisan news, Social Science Computer Review 37 (2017) 38–54. doi:10.1177/0894439317734157

    work page doi:10.1177/0894439317734157 2017

  4. [4]

    Bovet, H

    A. Bovet, H. A. Makse, Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election, Nature Communications 10 (2019) 1–14. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07761-2

    doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07761-2 2019

  5. [5]

    Rzymski, L

    P. Rzymski, L. Borkowski, M. Drag, R. Flisiak, J. Jemielity, J. Krajewski, A. Mastalerz-Migas, A. Matyja, K. Pyr ´c, K. Simon, M. Sutkowski, J. Wysocki, J. Zajkowska, A. Fal, The Strategies to Support the COVID-19 Vaccination with Evidence-Based Communication and Tackling Misinformation, Vaccines 9 (2021) 109. doi: 10.3390/ vaccines9020109

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Zhang, A

    X. Zhang, A. A. Ghorbani, An overview of online fake news: Characterization, detection, and discussion, Information Processing & Management 57 (2020) 1–26(102025). doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2019.03. 004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2019.03 2020

  7. [7]

    A ¨ımeur, S

    E. A ¨ımeur, S. Amri, G. Brassard, Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review, Social Network Analysis and Mining 13 (2023) 1–36(30). doi:10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5 . 13

    doi:10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5 2023

  8. [8]

    Truic ˘a, E.-S

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, P. Karras, DANES: Deep neural network ensemble architecture for social and textual context-aware fake news detection, Knowledge-Based Systems 294 (2024) 1–13(111715). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2024.111715

    arXiv 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    K. Shu, A. Sliva, S. Wang, J. Tang, H. Liu, Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective, ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 19 (2017) 22–36. doi:10.1145/3137597.3137600

    2017

  2. [10]

    Ahmad, M

    I. Ahmad, M. Yousaf, S. Yousaf, M. O. Ahmad, Fake news detection using machine learning ensemble methods, Complexity 2020 (2020) 1– 11(8885861). doi:10.1155/2020/8885861

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    J. W. Pennebaker, R. L. Boyd, K. Jordan, K. Blackburn, The development and psychometric properties of liwc2015 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    J. Y . Khan, M. T. I. Khondaker, S. Afroz, G. Uddin, A. Iqbal, A benchmark study of machine learning models for online fake news detection, Machine Learning with Applications 4 (2021) 1–12(100032). doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2021.100032

    2021

  5. [13]

    H. E. Wynne, Z. Z. Wint, Content based fake news detection using n- gram models, in: International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications and; Services, ACM, 2019, pp. 669–673. doi:10.1145/3366030.3366116

    2019

  6. [14]

    Ilie, C.-O

    V .-I. Ilie, C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, A. Paschke, Context-aware misinformation detection: A benchmark of deep learning architectures using word embeddings, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 162122–162146. doi:10. 1109/ACCESS.2021.3132502

    2021

  7. [15]

    Petrescu, Leveraging MiniLMv2 Pipelines for EXIST2023, in: Working Notes of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, volume 3497 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2023, pp

    A. Petrescu, Leveraging MiniLMv2 Pipelines for EXIST2023, in: Working Notes of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, volume 3497 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2023, pp. 1037–1043

    2023

  8. [16]

    Truic ˘a, E.-S

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, MisRoBÆRTa: Transformers versus Misinformation, Mathematics 10 (2022) 1–25(569). doi: 10.3390/ math10040569

    2022

  9. [17]

    Truic ˘a, E.-S

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, A. Paschke, Awakened at CheckThat! 2022: Fake News Detection using BiLSTM and sentence transformer, in: Working Notes of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, 2022, pp. 749–757

    2022

  10. [18]

    Truic ˘a, E.-S

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, It’s all in the embedding! Fake news detection using document embeddings, Mathematics 11 (2023) 1– 29(508). doi:10.3390/math11030508

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Borges, B

    L. Borges, B. Martins, P. Calado, Combining similarity features and deep representation learning for stance detection in the context of checking fake news, Journal of Data and Information Quality 11 (2019) 1–26. doi:10.1145/3287763

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    X. Zhou, J. Li, Q. Li, R. Zafarani, Linguistic-style-aware neural networks for fake news detection, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2301.02792. arXiv:2301.02792

    2023 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lu, C.-T

    Y .-J. Lu, C.-T. Li, Gcan: Graph-aware co-attention networks for explainable fake news detection on social media, in: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, 2020, pp. 505–514. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.48

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Huang, C

    Q. Huang, C. Zhou, J. Wu, M. Wang, B. Wang, Deep structure learning for rumor detection on twitter, in: 2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8. doi: 10.1109/ijcnn. 2019.8852468

    2019

  15. [23]

    Z. Ke, Z. Li, C. Zhou, J. Sheng, W. Silamu, Q. Guo, Rumor detection on social media via fused semantic information and a propagation heterogeneous graph, Symmetry 12 (2020) 1–14(1806). doi: 10.3390/ sym12111806

    2020

  16. [24]

    Goyal, E

    P. Goyal, E. Ferrara, Graph embedding techniques, applications, and performance: A survey, Knowledge-Based Systems 151 (2018) 78–94. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.022

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    H. Cai, V . W. Zheng, K. C.-C. Chang, A comprehensive survey of graph embedding: Problems, techniques, and applications, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 30 (2018) 1616–1637. doi: 10. 1109/tkde.2018.2807452

    2018

  18. [26]

    Y . Xie, X. Huang, X. Xie, S. Jiang, A fake news detection framework using social user graph, in: Proceedings of the 2020 2nd International Conference on Big Data Engineering, ACM, 2020, pp. 55–61. doi: 10. 1145/3404512.3404515

    2020

  19. [27]

    Imaduwage, P

    S. Imaduwage, P. Kumara, W. Samaraweera, Capturing credibility of users for an efficient propagation network based fake news detection, in: 2022 2nd International Conference on Computer, Control and Robotics (ICCCR), IEEE, 2022, pp. 212–217. doi:10.1109/icccr54399.2022. 9790186

    2022

  20. [28]

    Petrescu, C.-O

    A. Petrescu, C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, Sentiment Analysis of Events in Social Media, in: 2019 IEEE 15th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP), IEEE, 2019, pp. 143–

    2019

  21. [29]

    Petrescu, C.-O

    A. Petrescu, C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, A. Paschke, EDSA-Ensemble: an Event Detection Sentiment Analysis Ensemble Architecture, IEEE Transactions on A ffective Computing (2024) 1–18. doi: 10.1109/ TAFFC.2024.3434355

    2024

  22. [30]

    Truic ˘a, E.-S

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, T. S , tefu, P. Karras, A Deep Learning Architecture for Audience Interest Prediction of News Topic on Social Media, in: International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT2021), 2021, pp. 588–599. doi:10.5441/002/EDBT.2021.69

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Petrescu, C.-O

    A. Petrescu, C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, P. Karras, SparseShield: Social network immunization vs. harmful speech, in: ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2021, pp. 1426–1436. doi:10. 1145/3459637.3482481

    2021

  24. [32]

    Apostol, ¨Ozgur Coban, C.-O

    E.-S. Apostol, ¨Ozgur Coban, C.-O. Truic ˘a, Contain: A community- based algorithm for network immunization, Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 55 (2024) 1–10(101728). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2024.101728

    2024

  25. [33]

    Truic ˘a, E.-S

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, R.-C. Nicolescu, P. Karras, MCWDST: A minimum-cost weighted directed spanning tree algorithm for real-time fake news mitigation in social media, IEEE Access 11 (2023) 125861– 125873. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3331220

    2023

  26. [34]

    Truic ˘a, A.-T

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, A.-T. Constantinescu, E.-S. Apostol, StopHC: A harmful content detection and mitigation architecture for social media platforms, in: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP 2024), 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  27. [35]

    Apostol, C.-O

    E.-S. Apostol, C.-O. Truic ˘a, A. Paschke, Contcommrtd: A distributed content-based misinformation-aware community detection system for real-time disaster reporting, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2024) 1–12. doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3417232

    2024

  28. [36]

    Petrescu, C.-O

    A. Petrescu, C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, Language-based mixture of transformers for exist2024, in: Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum (CLEF2024), 2024, pp. 1157–1164

    2024

  29. [37]

    Truic ˘a, J

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, J. Darmont, J. Velcin, A scalable document-based architecture for text analysis, in: International Conference on Advanced Data Mining and Applications, Springer, 2016, pp. 481–494. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-319-49586-6_33

    2016

  30. [38]

    Truica, A

    C.-O. Truica, A. Guille, M. Gauthier, Cats: Collection and analysis of tweets made simple, in: ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion, ACM, 2016, pp. 41–44. doi:10.1145/2818052.2874320

    2016

  31. [39]

    Truic ˘a, E

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, E. S. Apostol, C. A. Leordeanu, Topic modeling using contextual cues, in: IEEE International Symposium on Symbolic and Numeric Algorithms for Scientific Computing (SYNASC2017), 2017, pp. 203–210. doi:10.1109/synasc.2017.00041

    2017

  32. [40]

    Truic ˘a, C

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, C. A. Leordeanu, Classification of an imbalanced data set using decision tree algorithms, Univiversity Politechnica of Bucharest Scientific Bulletin - Series C Electrical Engineering and Computer Science 79 (2017) 69–84

    2017

  33. [41]

    Truic ˘a, E.-S

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, E.-S. Apostol, M.-L. S , erban, A. Paschke, Topic-based document-level sentiment analysis using contextual cues, Mathematics 9 (2021) 2722. doi:10.3390/math9212722

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Mikolov, K

    T. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, J. Dean, E fficient estimation of word representations in vector space, in: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR2013), 2013, pp. 1–12

    2013

  35. [43]

    Devlin, M.-W

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, K. Toutanova, Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, in: Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, 2019, pp. 4171–4186. doi:10.18653/v1/N19-1423

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    D. Q. Nguyen, T. Vu, A. Tuan Nguyen, Bertweet: A pre-trained language model for english tweets, in: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, ACL, 2020, pp. 9–14. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2020.emnlp-demos.2

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Grover, J

    A. Grover, J. Leskovec, node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks, in: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2016, pp. 855–864. doi: 10. 1145/2939672.2939754. 14

    2016

  38. [46]

    Perozzi, R

    B. Perozzi, R. Al-Rfou, S. Skiena, Deepwalk: online learning of social representations, in: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 2014, pp. 701–710. doi:10.1145/2623330.2623732

    2014

  39. [47]

    J. Ma, W. Gao, K.-F. Wong, Detect rumors in microblog posts using propagation structure via kernel learning, in: Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL2017), 2017, pp. 708–

    2017

  40. [48]

    Bird, Natural language processing with Python, O’Reilly, 2009

    S. Bird, Natural language processing with Python, O’Reilly, 2009

    2009

  41. [49]

    ˇReh˚uˇrek, P

    R. ˇReh˚uˇrek, P. Sojka, Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora, in: Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks, 2010, pp. 45–50

    2010

  42. [50]

    Rozemberczki, O

    B. Rozemberczki, O. Kiss, R. Sarkar, Karate club: An api oriented open-source python framework for unsupervised learning on graphs, in: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, ACM, 2020, pp. 3125–3132. doi:10.1145/ 3340531.3412757

    2020

  43. [51]

    Castillo, M

    C. Castillo, M. Mendoza, B. Poblete, Information credibility on twitter, in: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, ACM, 2011, pp. 675–684. doi:10.1145/1963405.1963500

    2011

  44. [52]

    J. Ma, W. Gao, P. Mitra, S. Kwon, B. J. Jansen, K.-F. Wong, M. Cha, Detecting rumors from microblogs with recurrent neural networks, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, 2016, pp. 3818–3824

    2016

  45. [53]

    S. Kwon, M. Cha, K. Jung, Rumor detection over varying time windows, PLOS ONE 12 (2017) 1–19(e0168344). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0168344

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    Y . Yang, L. Zheng, J. Zhang, Q. Cui, Z. Li, P. S. Yu, Ti-cnn: Convolutional neural networks for fake news detection, 2018. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV. 1806.00749

    2018 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    Liu, Y .-F

    Y . Liu, Y .-F. Wu, Early detection of fake news on social media through propagation path classification with recurrent and convolutional networks, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, 2018, pp. 355–361. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v32i1. 11268

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Ruchansky, S

    N. Ruchansky, S. Seo, 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. doi:10.1145/3132847.3132877

    2017

  49. [57]

    K. Shu, L. Cui, S. Wang, D. Lee, H. Liu, defend: Explainable fake news detection, in: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, ACM, 2019, pp. 395–405. doi:10.1145/3292500.3330935

    2019

  50. [58]

    R. Mishra, Fake news detection using higher-order user to user mutual-attention progression in propagation paths, in: 2020 IEEE /CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), IEEE, 2020, pp. 2775–2783. doi: 10.1109/cvprw50498. 2020.00334

    2020

  51. [59]

    D. T. Vu, J. J. Jung, Rumor detection by propagation embedding based on graph convolutional network, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 14 (2021) 1053–1065. doi: 10.2991/ijcis.d. 210304.002

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    S. B. Parikh, P. K. Atrey, Media-rich fake news detection: A survey, in: IEEE Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR2018), 2018, pp. 436–441. doi:10.1109/MIPR.2018.00093

    2018

  53. [61]

    Truic ˘a, N.-O

    C.-O. Truic ˘a, N.-O. Istrate, E.-S. Apostol, A distributed automatic domain-specific multi-word term recognition architecture using spark ecosystem, in: 2023 22nd International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Computing (ISPDC), IEEE, 2023, pp. 31–38. doi: 10.1109/ ispdc...

    2023

  54. [149]

    doi:10.1109/iccp48234.2019.8959677

    2019

  55. [717]

    doi:10.18653/v1/P17-1066

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.