skip to main content
10.1145/3488560.3498457acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Identifying Cost-effective Debunkers for Multi-stage Fake News Mitigation Campaigns

Published: 15 February 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Online social networks have become a fertile ground for spreading fake news. Methods to automatically mitigate fake news propagation have been proposed. Some studies focus on selecting top k influential users on social networks as debunkers, but the social influence of debunkers may not translate to wide mitigation information propagation as expected. Other studies assume a given set of debunkers and focus on optimizing intensity for debunkers to publish true news, but as debunkers are fixed, even if with high social influence and/or high intensity to post true news, the true news may not reach users exposed to fake news and therefore mitigation effect may be limited. In this paper, we propose the multi-stage fake news mitigation campaign where debunkers are dynamically selected within budget at each stage. We formulate it as a reinforcement learning problem and propose a greedy algorithm optimized by predicting future states so that the debunkers can be selected in a way that maximizes the overall mitigation effect. We conducted extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world social networks and show that our solution outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in terms of mitigation effect.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (WSDM22-fp447.mp4)
Presentation video

References

[1]
Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives, Vol. 31, 2 (2017), 211--36.
[2]
Emmanuel Bacry, Martin Bompaire, Stéphane Ga"iffas, and Soren Poulsen. 2017. Tick: a Python library for statistical learning, with a particular emphasis on time-dependent modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.03003 (2017).
[3]
Adrien Benamira, Benjamin Devillers, Etienne Lesot, Ayush K Ray, Manal Saadi, and Fragkiskos D Malliaros. 2019. Semi-supervised learning and graph neural networks for fake news detection. In 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). IEEE, 568--569.
[4]
Nan Du, Hanjun Dai, Rakshit Trivedi, Utkarsh Upadhyay, Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez, and Le Song. 2016. Recurrent marked temporal point processes: Embedding event history to vector. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 1555--1564.
[5]
Mehrdad Farajtabar, Jiachen Yang, Xiaojing Ye, Huan Xu, Rakshit Trivedi, Elias Khalil, Shuang Li, Le Song, and Hongyuan Zha. 2017. Fake news mitigation via point process based intervention. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 1097--1106.
[6]
Mehrdad Farajtabar, Xiaojing Ye, Sahar Harati, Le Song, and Hongyuan Zha. 2016. Multistage campaigning in social networks. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 4725--4733.
[7]
Mahak Goindani and Jennifer Neville. 2020 a. Cluster-Based Social Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00627 (2020).
[8]
Mahak Goindani and Jennifer Neville. 2020 b. Social reinforcement learning to combat fake news spread. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. PMLR, 1006--1016.
[9]
Alan G Hawkes. 1971. Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes. Biometrika, Vol. 58, 1 (1971), 83--90.
[10]
Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, Vol. 9, 8 (1997), 1735--1780.
[11]
Remi Lacombe. 2018. Fake News Mitigation in Social Networks.
[12]
Thomas Josef Liniger. 2009. Multivariate hawkes processes . Ph.,D. Dissertation. ETH Zurich.
[13]
Hongyuan Mei and Jason Eisner. 2016. The neural hawkes process: A neurally self-modulating multivariate point process. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.09328 (2016).
[14]
Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Andrei A Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G Bellemare, Alex Graves, Martin Riedmiller, Andreas K Fidjeland, Georg Ostrovski, et al. 2015. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. nature, Vol. 518, 7540 (2015), 529--533.
[15]
Takahiro Omi, Naonori Ueda, and Kazuyuki Aihara. 2019. Fully neural network based model for general temporal point processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09690 (2019).
[16]
Julio Cesar Louzada Pinto and Tijani Chahed. 2014. Modeling multi-topic information diffusion in social networks using latent Dirichlet allocation and Hawkes processes. In 2014 Tenth International Conference on Signal-Image Technology and Internet-Based Systems. IEEE, 339--346.
[17]
Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, Young Lee, Swapnil Mishra, and Lexing Xie. 2017. Hawkes processes for events in social media. In Frontiers of multimedia research . 191--218.
[18]
Akrati Saxena, Wynne Hsu, Mong Li Lee, Hai Leong Chieu, Lynette Ng, and Loo Nin Teow. 2020 a. Mitigating misinformation in online social network with top-k debunkers and evolving user opinions. In Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020 . 363--370.
[19]
Akrati Saxena, Harsh Saxena, and Ralucca Gera. 2020 b. k-TruthScore: Fake News Mitigation in the Presence of Strong User Bias. In International Conference on Computational Data and Social Networks. Springer, 113--126.
[20]
Anu Shrestha, Francesca Spezzano, and Abishai Joy. 2020. Detecting Fake News Spreaders in Social Networks via Linguistic and Personality Features. In CLEF .
[21]
Kai Shu, H Russell Bernard, and Huan Liu. 2019. Studying fake news via network analysis: detection and mitigation. In Emerging Research Challenges and Opportunities in Computational Social Network Analysis and Mining . Springer, 43--65.
[22]
Kai Shu, Amy Sliva, Suhang Wang, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. 2017. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter, Vol. 19, 1 (2017), 22--36.
[23]
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. 849--857.
[24]
Qingyuan Zhao, Murat A Erdogdu, Hera Y He, Anand Rajaraman, and Jure Leskovec. 2015. Seismic: A self-exciting point process model for predicting tweet popularity. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 1513--1522.
[25]
Ke Zhou, Hongyuan Zha, and Le Song. 2013. Learning social infectivity in sparse low-rank networks using multi-dimensional hawkes processes. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 641--649.
[26]
Arkaitz Zubiaga, Maria Liakata, Rob Procter, Geraldine Wong Sak Hoi, and Peter Tolmie. 2016. Analysing how people orient to and spread rumours in social media by looking at conversational threads. PloS one, Vol. 11, 3 (2016), e0150989.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
WSDM '22: Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
February 2022
1690 pages
ISBN:9781450391320
DOI:10.1145/3488560
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 15 February 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. fake news mitigation
  2. multivariate hawkes process
  3. reinforcement learning
  4. social network

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

WSDM '22

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 498 of 2,863 submissions, 17%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)26
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 31 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media