Question: To assess the robustness of the method, how do the authors perform classification experiments?
Evidence: In this work we formulate our classification problem as follows: given two classes of news articles, respectively $D$ (disinformation) and $M$ (mainstream), a set of news articles $A_i$ and associated class labels $C_i \in \lbrace D,M\rbrace $, and a set of tweets $\Pi _i=\lbrace T_i^1, T_i^2, ...\rbrace $ each of which contains an Uniform Resource Locator (URL) pointing explicitly to article $A_i$, predict the class $C_i$ of each article $A_i$. There is huge debate and controversy on a proper taxonomy of malicious and deceptive information BIBREF1BIBREF2BIBREF15BIBREF16BIBREF17BIBREF3BIBREF11. In this work we prefer the term disinformation to the more specific fake news to refer to a variety of misleading and harmful information. Therefore, we follow a source-based approach, a consolidated strategy also adopted by BIBREF6BIBREF16BIBREF2BIBREF1, in order to obtain relevant data for our analysis. We collected:
Disinformation articles, published by websites which are well-known for producing low-credibility content, false and misleading news reports as well as extreme propaganda and hoaxes and flagged as such by reputable journalists and fact-checkers;
Mainstream news, referring to traditional news outlets which deliver factual and credible information.
We believe that this is currently the most reliable classification approach, but it entails obvious limitations, as disinformation outlets may also publish true stories and likewise misinformation is sometimes reported on mainstream media. Also, given the choice of news sources, we cannot test whether our methodology is able to classify disinformation vs factual but not mainstream news which are published on niche, non-disinformation outlets.
We collected tweets associated to a dozen US mainstream news websites, i.e. most trusted sources described in BIBREF18, with the Streaming API, and we referred to Hoaxy API BIBREF16 for what concerns tweets containing links to 100+ US disinformation outlets. We filtered out articles associated to less than 50 tweets. The resulting dataset contains overall $\sim $1.7 million tweets for mainstream news, collected in a period of three weeks (February 25th, 2019-March 18th, 2019), which are associated to 6,978 news articles, and $\sim $1.6 million tweets for disinformation, collected in a period of three months (January 1st, 2019-March 18th, 2019) for sake of balance of the two classes, which hold 5,775 distinct articles. Diffusion censoring effects BIBREF14 were correctly taken into account in both collection procedures. We provide in Figure FIGREF4 the distribution of articles by source and political bias for both news domains.
As it is reported that conservatives and liberals exhibit different behaviors on online social platforms BIBREF19BIBREF20BIBREF21, we further assigned a political bias label to different US outlets (and therefore news articles) following the procedure described in BIBREF2. In order to assess the robustness of our method, we performed classification experiments by training only on left-biased (or right-biased) outlets of both disinformation and mainstream domains and testing on the entire set of sources, as well as excluding particular sources that outweigh the others in terms of samples to avoid over-fitting.
For what concerns the Italian scenario we first collected tweets with the Streaming API in a 3-week period (April 19th, 2019-May 5th, 2019), filtering those containing URLs pointing to Italian official newspapers websites as described in BIBREF22; these correspond to the list provided by the association for the verification of newspaper circulation in Italy (Accertamenti Diffusione Stampa). We instead referred to the dataset provided by BIBREF23 to obtain a set of tweets, collected continuously since January 2019 using the same Twitter endpoint, which contain URLs to 60+ Italian disinformation websites. In order to get balanced classes (April 5th, 2019-May 5th, 2019), we retained data collected in a longer period w.r.t to mainstream news. In both cases we filtered out articles with less than 50 tweets; overall this dataset contains $\sim $160k mainstream tweets, corresponding to 227 news articles, and $\sim $100k disinformation tweets, corresponding to 237 news articles. We provide in Figure FIGREF5 the distribution of articles according to distinct sources for both news domains. As in the US dataset, we took into account censoring effects BIBREF14 by excluding tweets published before (left-censoring) or after two weeks (right-censoring) from the beginning of the collection process.
The different volumes of news shared on Twitter in the two countries are due both to the different population size of US and Italy (320 vs 60 millions) but also to the different usage of Twitter platform (and social media in general) for news consumption BIBREF24. Both datasets analyzed in this work are available from the authors on request.
A crucial aspect in our approach is the capability to fully capturing sharing cascades on Twitter associated to news articles. It has been reported BIBREF25 that the Twitter streaming endpoint filters out tweets matching a given query if they exceed 1% of the global daily volume of shared tweets, which nowadays is approximately $5\cdot 10^8$; however, as we always collected less than $10^6$ tweets per day, we did not incur in this issue and we thus gathered 100% of tweets matching our query.
We built Twitter diffusion networks following an approach widely adopted in the literature BIBREF6BIBREF17BIBREF2. We remark that there is an unavoidable limitation in Twitter Streaming API, which does not allow to retrieve true re-tweeting cascades because re-tweets always point to the original source and not to intermediate re-tweeting users BIBREF8BIBREF14; thus we adopt the only viable approach based on Twitter's public availability of data. Besides, by disentangling different interactions with multiple layers we potentially reduce the impact of this limitation on the global network properties compared to the single-layer approach used in our baseline.
Using the notation described in BIBREF26. we employ a multi-layer representation for Twitter diffusion networks. Sociologists have indeed recognized decades ago that it is crucial to study social systems by constructing multiple social networks where different types of ties among same individuals are used BIBREF27. Therefore, for each news article we built a multi-layer diffusion network composed of four different layers, one for each type of social interaction on Twitter platform, namely retweet (RT), reply (R), quote (Q) and mention (M), as shown in Figure FIGREF11. These networks are not necessarily node-aligned, i.e. users might be missing in some layers. We do not insert "dummy" nodes to represent all users as it would have severe impact on the global network properties (e.g. number of weakly connected components). Alternatively one may look at each multi-layer diffusion network as an ensemble of individual graphs BIBREF26; since global network properties are computed separately for each layer, they are not affected by the presence of any inter-layer edges.
In our multi-layer representation, each layer is a directed graph where we add edges and nodes for each tweet of the layer type, e.g. for the RT layer: whenever user $a$ retweets account $b$ we first add nodes $a$ and $b$ if not already present in the RT layer, then we build an edge that goes from $b$ to $a$ if it does not exists or we increment the weight by 1. Similarly for the other layers: for the R layer edges go from user $a$ (who replies) to user $b$, for the Q layer edges go from user $b$ (who is quoted by) to user $a$ and for the M layer edges go from user $a$ (who mentions) to user $b$.
Note that, by construction, our layers do not include isolated nodes; they correspond to "pure tweets", i.e. tweets which have not originated any interactions with other users. However, they are present in our dataset, and their number is exploited for classification, as described below.
We used a set of global network indicators which allow us to encode each network layer by a tuple of features. Then we simply concatenated tuples as to represent each multi-layer network with a single feature vector. We used the following global network properties:
Number of Strongly Connected Components (SCC): a Strongly Connected Component of a directed graph is a maximal (sub)graph where for each pair of vertices $u,v$ there is a path in each direction ($u\rightarrow v$, $v\rightarrow u$).
Size of the Largest Strongly Connected Component (LSCC): the number of nodes in the largest strongly connected component of a given graph.
Number of Weakly Connected Components (WCC): a Weakly Connected Component of a directed graph is a maximal (sub)graph where for each pair of vertices $(u, v)$ there is a path $u \leftrightarrow v$ ignoring edge directions.
Size of the Largest Weakly Connected Component (LWCC): the number of nodes in the largest weakly connected component of a given graph.
Diameter of the Largest Weakly Connected Component (DWCC): the largest distance (length of the shortest path) between two nodes in the (undirected version of) largest weakly connected component of a graph.
Average Clustering Coefficient (CC): the average of the local clustering coefficients of all nodes in a graph; the local clustering coefficient of a node quantifies how close its neighbours are to being a complete graph (or a clique). It is computed according to BIBREF28.
Main K-core Number (KC): a K-core BIBREF13 of a graph is a maximal sub-graph that contains nodes of internal degree $k$ or more; the main K-core number is the highest value of $k$ (in directed graphs the total degree is considered).
Density (d): the density for directed graphs is $d=\frac{|E|}{|V||V-1|}$, where $|E|$ is the number of edges and $|N|$ is the number of vertices in the graph; the density equals 0 for a graph without edges and 1 for a complete graph.
Structural virality of the largest weakly connected component (SV): this measure is defined in BIBREF14 as the average distance between all pairs of nodes in a cascade tree or, equivalently, as the average depth of nodes, averaged over all nodes in turn acting as a root; for $|V| > 1$ vertices, $SV=\frac{1}{|V||V-1|}\sum _i\sum _j d_{ij}$ where $d_{ij}$ denotes the length of the shortest path between nodes $i$ and $j$. This is equivalent to compute the Wiener's index BIBREF29 of the graph and multiply it by a factor $\frac{1}{|V||V-1|}$. In our case we computed it for the undirected equivalent graph of the largest weakly connected component, setting it to 0 whenever $V=1$.
We used networkx Python package BIBREF30 to compute all features. Whenever a layer is empty. we simply set to 0 all its features. In addition to computing the above nine features for each layer, we added two indicators for encoding information about pure tweets, namely the number T of pure tweets (containing URLs to a given news article) and the number U of unique users authoring those tweets. Therefore, a single diffusion network is represented by a vector with $9\cdot 4+2=38$ entries.
Aforementioned network properties can be qualitatively explained in terms of social footprints as follows: SCC correlates with the size of the diffusion network, as the propagation of news occurs in a broadcast manner most of the time, i.e. re-tweets dominate on other interactions, while LSCC allows to distinguish cases where such mono-directionality is somehow broken. WCC equals (approximately) the number of distinct diffusion cascades pertaining to each news article, with exceptions corresponding to those cases where some cascades merge together via Twitter interactions such as mentions, quotes and replies, and accordingly LWCC and DWCC equals the size and the depth of the largest cascade. CC corresponds to the level of connectedness of neighboring users in a given diffusion network whereas KC identifies the set of most influential users in a network and describes the efficiency of information spreading BIBREF17. Finally, d describes the proportions of potential connections between users which are actually activated and SV indicates whether a news item has gained popularity with a single and large broadcast or in a more viral fashion through multiple generations.
For what concerns different Twitter actions, users primarily interact with each other using retweets and mentions BIBREF20.
The former are the main engagement activity and act as a form of endorsement, allowing users to rebroadcast content generated by other users BIBREF31. Besides, when node B retweets node A we have an implicit confirmation that information from A appeared in B's Twitter feed BIBREF12. Quotes are simply a special case of retweets with comments.
Mentions usually include personal conversations as they allow someone to address a specific user or to refer to an individual in the third person; in the first case they are located at the beginning of a tweet and they are known as replies, otherwise they are put in the body of a tweet BIBREF20. The network of mentions is usually seen as a stronger version of interactions between Twitter users, compared to the traditional graph of follower/following relationships BIBREF32.
In order to assess the robustness of our method, we performed classification experiments by training only on left-biased (or right-biased) outlets of both disinformation and mainstream domains and testing on the entire set of sources, as well as excluding particular sources that outweigh the others in terms of samples to avoid over-fitting.
Answer: The authors performed classification experiments by training only on left-biased (or right-biased) outlets of both disinformation and mainstream domains and testing on the entire set of sources, as well as excluding particular sources that outweigh the others in terms of samples to avoid over-fitting.