skip to main content
10.1145/2983323.2983661acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Credibility Assessment of Textual Claims on the Web

Authors Info & Claims
Published:24 October 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

There is an increasing amount of false claims in news, social media, and other web sources. While prior work on truth discovery has focused on the case of checking factual statements, this paper addresses the novel task of assessing the credibility of arbitrary claims made in natural-language text - in an open-domain setting without any assumptions about the structure of the claim, or the community where it is made. Our solution is based on automatically finding sources in news and social media, and feeding these into a distantly supervised classifier for assessing the credibility of a claim (i.e., true or fake). For inference, our method leverages the joint interaction between the language of articles about the claim and the reliability of the underlying web sources. Experiments with claims from the popular website snopes.com and from reported cases of Wikipedia hoaxes demonstrate the viability of our methods and their superior accuracy over various baselines.

References

  1. C. Castillo, M. Mendoza, and B. Poblete. Information credibility on twitter. In WWW 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. X. L. Dong, L. Berti-Equille, and D. Srivastava. Integrating conflicting data: The role of source dependence. Proc. VLDB Endow., 2(1):550--561, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Galland, S. Abiteboul, A. Marian, and P. Senellart. Corroborating information from disagreeing views. In WSDM 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Gupta, H. Lamba, P. Kumaraguru, and A. Joshi. Faking sandy: characterizing and identifying fake images on twitter during hurricane sandy. In WWW Companion 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Kumar, R. West, and J. Leskovec. Disinformation on the web: Impact, characteristics, and detection of wikipedia hoaxes. In WWW 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Kwon, M. Cha, K. Jung, W. Chen, and Y. Wang. Prominent features of rumor propagation in online social media. In ICDM 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. X. Li, X. L. Dong, K. Lyons, W. Meng, and D. Srivastava. Truth finding on the deep web: Is the problem solved? PVLDB, 6(2):97--108, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. X. Li, W. Meng, and C. Yu. T-verifier: Verifying truthfulness of fact statements. In ICDE 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Y. Li, J. Gao, C. Meng, Q. Li, L. Su, B. Zhao, W. Fan, and J. Han. A survey on truth discovery. SIGKDD Explorations, 17(2):1--16, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Y. Li, Q. Li, J. Gao, L. Su, B. Zhao, W. Fan, and J. Han. On the discovery of evolving truth. In KDD 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. Mukherjee and G. Weikum. Leveraging joint interactions for credibility analysis in news communities. In CIKM 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Mukherjee, G. Weikum, and C. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. People on drugs: Credibility of user statements in health communities. In KDD 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. N. Nakashole and T. M. Mitchell. Language-aware truth assessment of fact candidates. In ACL 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. J. Pasternack and D. Roth. Knowing what to believe (when you already know something). In COLING 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Pogue. At snopes.com, rumors are held up to the light. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/technology/personaltech/15pogue-email.html, July 15, 2010. {Online; accessed 26-Apr-2016}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. V. Qazvinian, E. Rosengren, D. R. Radev, and Q. Mei. Rumor has it: Identifying misinformation in microblogs. In EMNLP 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Recasens, C. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and D. Jurafsky. Linguistic models for analyzing and detecting biased language. In ACL 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Q. Xu and H. Zhao. Using deep linguistic features for finding deceptive opinion spam. In COLING 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. X. Yin, J. Han, and P. S. Yu. Truth discovery with multiple conflicting information providers on the web. IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng., 20(6):796--808, June 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Credibility Assessment of Textual Claims on the Web

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CIKM '16: Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
          October 2016
          2566 pages
          ISBN:9781450340731
          DOI:10.1145/2983323

          Copyright © 2016 ACM

          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 ACM 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]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 24 October 2016

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CIKM '16 Paper Acceptance Rate160of701submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

          Upcoming Conference

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader