prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What experiments are conducted?
Context 1: Introduction
The irony is a kind of figurative language, which is widely used on social media BIBREF0   The irony is defined as a clash between the intended meaning of a sentence and its literal meaning BIBREF1   As an important aspect of language, irony plays an essential role in sentiment analysis BIBREF2 , BIBREF0 and opinion mining BIBREF3 , BIBREF4  
Although some previous studies focus on irony detection, little attention is paid to irony generation  As ironies can strengthen sentiments and express stronger emotions, we mainly focus on generating ironic sentences  Given a non-ironic sentence, we implement a neural network to transfer it to an ironic sentence and constrain the sentiment polarity of the two sentences to be the same  For example, the input is “I hate it when my plans get ruined" which is negative in sentiment polarity and the output should be ironic and negative in sentiment as well, such as “I like it when my plans get ruined"  The speaker uses “like" to be ironic and express his or her negative sentiment  At the same time, our model can preserve contents which are irrelevant to sentiment polarity and irony  According to the categories mentioned in BIBREF5 , irony can be classified into 3 classes: verbal irony by means of a polarity contrast, the sentences containing expression whose polarity is inverted between the intended and the literal evaluation; other types of verbal irony, the sentences that show no polarity contrast between the literal and intended meaning but are still ironic; and situational irony, the sentences that describe situations that fail to meet some expectations  As ironies in the latter two categories are obscure and hard to understand, we decide to only focus on ironies in the first category in this work  For example, our work can be specifically described as: given a sentence “I hate to be ignored", we train our model to generate an ironic sentence such as “I love to be ignored"  Although there is “love" in the generated sentence, the speaker still expresses his or her negative sentiment by irony  We also make some explorations in the transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences at the end of our work  Because of the lack of previous work and baselines on irony generation, we implement our model based on style transfer  Our work will not only provide the first large-scale irony dataset but also make our model as a benchmark for the irony generation 
Recently, unsupervised style transfer becomes a very popular topic  Many state-of-the-art studies try to solve the task with sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) framework  There are three main ways to build up models  The first is to learn a latent style-independent content representation and generate sentences with the content representation and another style BIBREF6 , BIBREF7   The second is to directly transfer sentences from one style to another under the control of classifiers and reinforcement learning BIBREF8   The third is to remove style attribute words from the input sentence and combine the remaining content with new style attribute words BIBREF9 , BIBREF10   The first method usually obtains better performances via adversarial training with discriminators  The style-independent content representation, nevertheless, is not easily obtained BIBREF11 , which results in poor performances  The second method is suitable for complex styles which are difficult to model and describe  The model can learn the deep semantic features by itself but sometimes the model is sensitive to parameters and hard to train  The third method succeeds to preserve content but cannot work for some complex styles such as democratic and republican  Sentences with those styles usually do not have specific style attribute words  Unfortunately, due to the lack of large irony dataset and difficulties of modeling ironies, there has been little work trying to generate ironies based on seq2seq framework as far as we know  Inspired by methods for style transfer, we decide to implement a specifically designed model based on unsupervised style transfer to explore irony generation 
In this paper, in order to address the lack of irony data, we first crawl over 2M tweets from twitter to build a dataset with 262,755 ironic and 112,330 non-ironic tweets  Then, due to the lack of parallel data, we propose a novel model to transfer non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences in an unsupervised way  As ironic style is hard to model and describe, we implement our model with the control of classifiers and reinforcement learning  Different from other studies in style transfer, the transformation from non-ironic to ironic sentences has to preserve sentiment polarity as mentioned above  Therefore, we not only design an irony reward to control the irony accuracy and implement denoising auto-encoder and back-translation to control content preservation but also design a sentiment reward to control sentiment preservation 
Experimental results demonstrate that our model achieves a high irony accuracy with well-preserved sentiment and content  The contributions of our work are as follows:
Related Work
Style Transfer: As irony is a complicated style and hard to model with some specific style attribute words, we mainly focus on studies without editing style attribute words 
Some studies are trying to disentangle style representation from content representation  In BIBREF12 , authors leverage adversarial networks to learn separate content representations and style representations  In BIBREF13 and BIBREF6 , researchers combine variational auto-encoders (VAEs) with style discriminators 
However, some recent studies BIBREF11 reveal that the disentanglement of content and style representations may not be achieved in practice  Therefore, some other research studies BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 strive to separate content and style by removing stylistic words  Nonetheless, many non-ironic sentences do not have specific stylistic words and as a result, we find it difficult to transfer non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences through this way in practice 
Besides, some other research studies do not disentangle style from content but directly learn representations of sentences  In BIBREF8 , authors propose a dual reinforcement learning framework without separating content and style representations  In BIBREF7 , researchers utilize a machine translation model to learn a sentence representation preserving the meaning of the sentence but reducing stylistic properties  In this method, the quality of generated sentences relies on the performance of classifiers to a large extent  Meanwhile, such models are usually sensitive to parameters and difficult to train  In contrast, we combine a pre-training process with reinforcement learning to build up a stable language model and design special rewards for our task 
Irony Detection: With the development of social media, irony detection becomes a more important task  Methods for irony detection can be mainly divided into two categories: methods based on feature engineering and methods based on neural networks 
As for methods based on feature engineering, In BIBREF1 , authors investigate pragmatic phenomena and various irony markers  In BIBREF14 , researchers leverage a combination of sentiment, distributional semantic and text surface features  Those models rely on hand-crafted features and are hard to implement 
When it comes to methods based on neural networks, long short-term memory (LSTM) BIBREF15 network is widely used and is very efficient for irony detection  In BIBREF16 , a tweet is divided into two segments and a subtract layer is implemented to calculate the difference between two segments in order to determine whether the tweet is ironic  In BIBREF17 , authors utilize a recurrent neural network with Bi-LSTM and self-attention without hand-crafted features  In BIBREF18 , researchers propose a system based on a densely connected LSTM network 
Our Dataset
In this section, we describe how we build our dataset with tweets  First, we crawl over 2M tweets from twitter using GetOldTweets-python  We crawl English tweets from 04/09/2012 to /12/18/2018  We first remove all re-tweets and use langdetect to remove all non-English sentences  Then, we remove hashtags attached at the end of the tweets because they are usually not parts of sentences and will confuse our language model  After that, we utilize Ekphrasis to process tweets  We remove URLs and restore remaining hashtags, elongated words, repeated words, and all-capitalized words  To simplify our dataset, We replace all “ INLINEFORM0 money INLINEFORM1 " and “ INLINEFORM2 time INLINEFORM3 " tokens with “ INLINEFORM4 number INLINEFORM5 " token when using Ekphrasis  And we delete sentences whose lengths are less than 10 or greater than 40  In order to restore abbreviations, we download an abbreviation dictionary from webopedia and restore abbreviations to normal words or phrases according to the dictionary  Finally, we remove sentences which have more than two rare words (appearing less than three times) in order to constrain the size of vocabulary  Finally, we get 662,530 sentences after pre-processing 
As neural networks are proved effective in irony detection, we decide to implement a neural classifier in order to classify the sentences into ironic and non-ironic sentences  However, the only high-quality irony dataset we can obtain is the dataset of Semeval-2018 Task 3 and the dataset is pretty small, which will cause overfitting to complex models  Therefore, we just implement a simple one-layer RNN with LSTM cell to classify pre-processed sentences into ironic sentences and non-ironic sentences because LSTM networks are widely used in irony detection  We train the model with the dataset of Semeval-2018 Task 3  After classification, we get 262,755 ironic sentences and 399,775 non-ironic sentences  According to our observation, not all non-ironic sentences are suitable to be transferred into ironic sentences  For example, “just hanging out   watching   is it monday yet" is hard to transfer because it does not have an explicit sentiment polarity  So we remove all interrogative sentences from the non-ironic sentences and only obtain the sentences which have words expressing strong sentiments  We evaluate the sentiment polarity of each word with TextBlob and we view those words with sentiment scores greater than 0 5 or less than -0 5 as words expressing strong sentiments  Finally, we build our irony dataset with 262,755 ironic sentences and 102,330 non-ironic sentences 
[t] Irony Generation Algorithm
INLINEFORM0 pre-train with auto-encoder Pre-train INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 with INLINEFORM3 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF16 Pre-train INLINEFORM4 , INLINEFORM5 with INLINEFORM6 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF17 INLINEFORM7 pre-train with back-translation Pre-train INLINEFORM8 , INLINEFORM9 , INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 with INLINEFORM12 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF19 Pre-train INLINEFORM13 , INLINEFORM14 , INLINEFORM15 , INLINEFORM16 with INLINEFORM17 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF20
INLINEFORM0 train with RL each epoch e = 1, 2,    , INLINEFORM1 INLINEFORM2 train non-irony2irony with RL INLINEFORM3 in N INLINEFORM4 update INLINEFORM5 , INLINEFORM6 , using INLINEFORM7 based on Eq  EQREF29 INLINEFORM8 back-translation INLINEFORM9 INLINEFORM10 INLINEFORM11 update INLINEFORM12 , INLINEFORM13 , INLINEFORM14 , INLINEFORM15 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF19 INLINEFORM16 train irony2non-irony with RL INLINEFORM17 in I INLINEFORM18 update INLINEFORM19 , INLINEFORM20 , using INLINEFORM21 similar to Eq  EQREF29 INLINEFORM22 back-translation INLINEFORM23 INLINEFORM24 INLINEFORM25 update INLINEFORM26 , INLINEFORM27 , INLINEFORM28 , INLINEFORM29 using MLE based on Eq  EQREF20
Our Method
Given two non-parallel corpora: non-ironic corpus N={ INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 ,    , INLINEFORM2 } and ironic corpus I={ INLINEFORM3 , INLINEFORM4 ,    , INLINEFORM5 }, the goal of our irony generation model is to generate an ironic sentence from a non-ironic sentence while preserving the content and sentiment polarity of the source input sentence  We implement an encoder-decoder framework where two encoders are utilized to encode ironic sentences and non-ironic sentences respectively and two decoders are utilized to decode ironic sentences and non-ironic sentences from latent representations respectively  In order to enforce a shared latent space, we share two layers on both the encoder side and the decoder side  Our model architecture is illustrated in Figure FIGREF13   We denote irony encoder as INLINEFORM6 , irony decoder as INLINEFORM7 and non-irony encoder as INLINEFORM8 , non-irony decoder as INLINEFORM9   Their parameters are INLINEFORM10 , INLINEFORM11 , INLINEFORM12 and INLINEFORM13  
Our irony generation algorithm is shown in Algorithm SECREF3   We first pre-train our model using denoising auto-encoder and back-translation to build up language models for both styles (section SECREF14 )  Then we implement reinforcement learning to train the model to transfer sentences from one style to another (section SECREF21 )  Meanwhile, to achieve content preservation, we utilize back-translation for one time in every INLINEFORM0 time steps 
Pretraining
In order to build up our language model and preserve the content, we apply the auto-encoder model  To prevent the model from simply copying the input sentence, we randomly add some noises in the input sentence  Specifically, for every word in the input sentence, there is 10% chance that we delete it, 10 % chance that we duplicate it, 10% chance that we swap it with the next word, or it remains unchanged  We first encode the input sentence INLINEFORM0 or INLINEFORM1 with respective encoder INLINEFORM2 or INLINEFORM3 to obtain its latent representation INLINEFORM4 or INLINEFORM5 and reconstruct the input sentence with the latent representation and respective decoder  So we can get the reconstruction loss for auto-encoder INLINEFORM6 : DISPLAYFORM0 DISPLAYFORM1
In addition to denoising auto-encoder, we implement back-translation BIBREF19 to generate a pseudo-parallel corpus  Suppose our model takes non-ironic sentence INLINEFORM0 as input  We first encode INLINEFORM1 with INLINEFORM2 to obtain its latent representation INLINEFORM3 and decode the latent representation with INLINEFORM4 to get a transferred sentence INLINEFORM5   Then we encode INLINEFORM6 with INLINEFORM7 and decode its latent representation with INLINEFORM8 to reconstruct the original input sentence INLINEFORM9   Therefore, our reconstruction loss for back-translation INLINEFORM10 : DISPLAYFORM0
And if our model takes ironic sentence INLINEFORM0 as input, we can get the reconstruction loss for back-translation as: DISPLAYFORM0
Reinforcement Learning
Since the gold transferred result of input is unavailable, we cannot evaluate the quality of the generated sentence directly  Therefore, we implement reinforcement learning and elaborately design two rewards to describe the irony accuracy and sentiment preservation, respectively 
A pre-trained binary irony classifier based on CNN BIBREF20 is used to evaluate how ironic a sentence is  We denote the parameter of the classifier as INLINEFORM0 and it is fixed during the training process 
In order to facilitate the transformation, we design the irony reward as the difference between the irony score of the input sentence and that of the output sentence  Formally, when we input a non-ironic sentence INLINEFORM0 and transfer it to an ironic sentence INLINEFORM1 , our irony reward is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes ironic style and INLINEFORM1 is the probability of that a sentence INLINEFORM2 is ironic 
To preserve the sentiment polarity of the input sentence, we also need to use classifiers to evaluate the sentiment polarity of the sentences  However, the sentiment analysis of ironic sentences and non-ironic sentences are different  In the case of figurative languages such as irony, sarcasm or metaphor, the sentiment polarity of the literal meaning may differ significantly from that of the intended figurative meaning BIBREF0   As we aim to train our model to transfer sentences from non-ironic to ironic, using only one classifier is not enough  As a result, we implement two pre-trained sentiment classifiers for non-ironic sentences and ironic sentences respectively  We denote the parameter of the sentiment classifier for ironic sentences as INLINEFORM0 and that of the sentiment classifier for non-ironic sentences as INLINEFORM1  
A challenge, when we implement two classifiers to evaluate the sentiment polarity, is that the two classifiers trained with different datasets may have different distributions of scores  That means we cannot directly calculate the sentiment reward with scores applied by two classifiers  To alleviate this problem and standardize the prediction results of two classifiers, we set a threshold for each classifier and subtract the respective threshold from scores applied by the classifier to obtain the comparative sentiment polarity score  We get the optimal threshold by maximizing the ability of the classifier according to the distribution of our training data 
We denote the threshold of ironic sentiment classifier as INLINEFORM0 and the threshold of non-ironic sentiment classifier as INLINEFORM1   The standardized sentiment score is defined as INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 where INLINEFORM4 denotes the positive sentiment polarity and INLINEFORM5 is the probability of that a sentence is positive in sentiment polarity 
As mentioned above, the input sentence and the generated sentence should express the same sentiment  For example, if we input a non-ironic sentence “I hate to be ignored" which is negative in sentiment polarity, the generated ironic sentence should be also negative, such as “I love to be ignored"  To achieve sentiment preservation, we design the sentiment reward as that one minus the absolute value of the difference between the standardized sentiment score of the input sentence and that of the generated sentence  Formally, when we input a non-ironic sentence INLINEFORM0 and transfer it to an ironic sentence INLINEFORM1 , our sentiment reward is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
To encourage our model to focus on both the irony accuracy and the sentiment preservation, we apply the harmonic mean of irony reward and sentiment reward: DISPLAYFORM0
Policy Gradient
The policy gradient algorithm BIBREF21 is a simple but widely-used algorithm in reinforcement learning  It is used to maximize the expected reward INLINEFORM0   The objective function to minimize is defined as: DISPLAYFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 is the reward of INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 is the input size 
Training Details
INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 and INLINEFORM3 in our model are Transformers BIBREF22 with 4 layers and 2 shared layers  The word embeddings of 128 dimensions are learned during the training process  Our maximum sentence length is set as 40  The optimizer is Adam BIBREF23 and the learning rate is INLINEFORM4   The batch size is 32 and harmonic weight INLINEFORM5 in Eq 9 is 0 5  We set the interval INLINEFORM6 as 200  The model is pre-trained for 6 epochs and trained for 15 epochs for reinforcement learning 
Irony Classifier: We implement a CNN classifier trained with our irony dataset  All the CNN classifiers we utilize in this paper use the same parameters as BIBREF20  
Sentiment Classifier for Irony: We first implement a one-layer LSTM network to classify ironic sentences in our dataset into positive and negative ironies  The LSTM network is trained with the dataset of Semeval 2015 Task 11 BIBREF0 which is used for the sentiment analysis of figurative language in twitter  Then, we use the positive ironies and negative ironies to train the CNN sentiment classifier for irony 
Sentiment Classifier for Non-irony: Similar to the training process of the sentiment classifier for irony, we first implement a one-layer LSTM network trained with the dataset for the sentiment analysis of common twitters to classify the non-ironies into positive and negative non-ironies  Then we use the positive and negative non-ironies to train the sentiment classifier for non-irony 
Baselines
We compare our model with the following state-of-art generative models:
BackTrans BIBREF7 : In BIBREF7 , authors propose a model using machine translation in order to preserve the meaning of the sentence while reducing stylistic properties 
Unpaired BIBREF10 : In BIBREF10 , researchers implement a method to remove emotional words and add desired sentiment controlled by reinforcement learning 
CrossAlign BIBREF6 : In BIBREF6 , authors leverage refined alignment of latent representations to perform style transfer and a cross-aligned auto-encoder is implemented 
CPTG BIBREF24 : An interpolated reconstruction loss is introduced in BIBREF24 and a discriminator is implemented to control attributes in this work 
DualRL BIBREF8 : In BIBREF8 , researchers use two reinforcement rewards simultaneously to control style accuracy and content preservation 
Evaluation Metrics
In order to evaluate sentiment preservation, we use the absolute value of the difference between the standardized sentiment score of the input sentence and that of the generated sentence  We call the value as sentiment delta (senti delta)  Besides, we report the sentiment accuracy (Senti ACC) which measures whether the output sentence has the same sentiment polarity as the input sentence based on our standardized sentiment classifiers  The BLEU score BIBREF25 between the input sentences and the output sentences is calculated to evaluate the content preservation performance  In order to evaluate the overall performance of different models, we also report the geometric mean (G2) and harmonic mean (H2) of the sentiment accuracy and the BLEU score  As for the irony accuracy, we only report it in human evaluation results because it is more accurate for the human to evaluate the quality of irony as it is very complicated 
We first sample 50 non-ironic input sentences and their corresponding output sentences of different models  Then, we ask four annotators who are proficient in English to evaluate the qualities of the generated sentences of different models  They are required to rank the output sentences of our model and baselines from the best to the worst in terms of irony accuracy (Irony), Sentiment preservation (Senti) and content preservation (Content)  The best output is ranked with 1 and the worst output is ranked with 6  That means that the smaller our human evaluation value is, the better the corresponding model is 
Results and Discussions
Table TABREF35 shows the automatic evaluation results of the models in the transformation from non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences  From the results, our model obtains the best result in sentiment delta  The DualRL model achieves the highest result in other metrics, but most of its outputs are the almost same as the input sentences  So it is reasonable that DualRL system outperforms ours in these metrics but it actually does not transfer the non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences at all  From this perspective, we cannot view DualRL as an effective model for irony generation  In contrast, our model gets results close to those of DualRL and obtains a balance between irony accuracy, sentiment preservation, and content preservation if we also consider the irony accuracy discussed below 
And from human evaluation results shown in Table TABREF36 , our model gets the best average rank in irony accuracy  And as mentioned above, the DualRL model usually does not change the input sentence and outputs the same sentence  Therefore, it is reasonable that it obtains the best rank in sentiment and content preservation and ours is the second  However, it still demonstrates that our model, instead of changing nothing, transfers the style of the input sentence with content and sentiment preservation at the same time 
Case Study
In the section, we present some example outputs of different models  Table TABREF37 shows the results of the transformation from non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences  We can observe that: (1) The BackTrans system, the Unpaired system, the CrossAlign system and the CPTG system tends to generate sentences which are towards irony but do not preserve content  (2) The DualRL system preserves content and sentiment very well but even does not change the input sentence  (3) Our model considers both aspects and achieves a better balance among irony accuracy, sentiment and content preservation 
Error Analysis
Although our model outperforms other style transfer baselines according to automatic and human evaluation results, there are still some failure cases because irony generation is still a very challenging task  We would like to share the issues we meet during our experiments and our solutions to some of them in this section 
No Change: As mentioned above, many style transfer models, such as DualRL, tend to make few changes to the input sentence and output the same sentence  Actually, this is a common issue for unsupervised style transfer systems and we also meet it during our experiments  The main reason for the issue is that rewards for content preservation are too prominent and rewards for style accuracy cannot work well  In contrast, in order to guarantee the readability and fluency of the output sentence, we also cannot emphasize too much on rewards for style accuracy because it may cause some other issues such as word repetition mentioned below  A method to solve the problem is tuning hyperparameters and this is also the method we implement in this work  As for content preservation, maybe MLE methods such as back-translation are not enough because they tend to force models to generate specific words  In the future, we should further design some more suitable methods to control content preservation for models without disentangling style and content representations, such as DualRL and ours 
Word Repetition: During our experiments, we observe that some of the outputs prefer to repeat the same word as shown in Table TABREF38   This is because reinforcement learning rewards encourage the model to generate words which can get high scores from classifiers and even back-translation cannot stop it  Our solution is that we can lower the probability of decoding a word in decoders if the word has been generated in the previous time steps during testing  We also try to implement this method during training time but obtain worse performances because it may limit the effects of training  Some previous studies utilize language models to control the fluency of the output sentence and we also try this method  Nonetheless, pre-training a language model with tweets and using it to generate rewards is difficult because tweets are more casual and have more noise  Rewards from that kind of language model are usually not accurate and may confuse the model  In the future, we should come up with better methods to model language fluency with the consideration of irony accuracy, sentiment and content preservation, especially for tweets 
Improper Words: As ironic style is hard for our model to learn, it may generate some improper words which make the sentence strange  As the example shown in the Table TABREF38 , the sentiment word in the input sentence is “wonderful" and the model should change it into a negative word such as “sad" to make the output sentence ironic  However, the model changes “friday" and “fifa" which are not related to ironic styles  We have not found a very effective method to address this issue and maybe we should further explore stronger models to learn ironic styles better 
Additional Experiments
In this section, we describe some additional experiments on the transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences  Sometimes ironies are hard to understand and may cause misunderstanding, for which our task also explores the transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences 
As shown in Table TABREF46 , we also conduct automatic evaluations and the conclusions are similar to those of the transformation from non-ironic sentences to ironic sentences  As for human evaluation results in Table TABREF47 , our model still can achieve the second-best results in sentiment and content preservation  Nevertheless, DualRL system and ours get poor performances in irony accuracy  The reason may be that the other four baselines tend to generate common and even not fluent sentences which are irrelevant to the input sentences and are hard to be identified as ironies  So annotators usually mark these output sentences as non-ironic sentences, which causes these models to obtain better performances than DualRL and ours but much poorer results in sentiment and content preservation  Some examples are shown in Table TABREF52  
Conclusion and Future Work
In this paper, we first systematically define irony generation based on style transfer  Because of the lack of irony data, we make use of twitter and build a large-scale dataset  In order to control irony accuracy, sentiment preservation and content preservation at the same time, we also design a combination of rewards for reinforcement learning and incorporate reinforcement learning with a pre-training process  Experimental results demonstrate that our model outperforms other generative models and our rewards are effective  Although our model design is effective, there are still many errors and we systematically analyze them  In the future, we are interested in exploring these directions and our work may extend to other kinds of ironies which are more difficult to model 
Context 2: Introduction
Sarcasm is an intensive, indirect and complex construct that is often intended to express contempt or ridicule   Sarcasm, in speech, is multi-modal, involving tone, body-language and gestures along with linguistic artifacts used in speech  Sarcasm in text, on the other hand, is more restrictive when it comes to such non-linguistic modalities  This makes recognizing textual sarcasm more challenging for both humans and machines 
Sarcasm detection plays an indispensable role in applications like online review summarizers, dialog systems, recommendation systems and sentiment analyzers  This makes automatic detection of sarcasm an important problem  However, it has been quite difficult to solve such a problem with traditional NLP tools and techniques  This is apparent from the results reported by the survey from DBLP:journals/corr/JoshiBC16  The following discussion brings more insights into this 
Consider a scenario where an online reviewer gives a negative opinion about a movie through sarcasm: “This is the kind of movie you see because the theater has air conditioning”  It is difficult for an automatic sentiment analyzer to assign a rating to the movie and, in the absence of any other information, such a system may not be able to comprehend that prioritizing the air-conditioning facilities of the theater over the movie experience indicates a negative sentiment towards the movie  This gives an intuition to why, for sarcasm detection, it is necessary to go beyond textual analysis 
We aim to address this problem by exploiting the psycholinguistic side of sarcasm detection, using cognitive features extracted with the help of eye-tracking  A motivation to consider cognitive features comes from analyzing human eye-movement trajectories that supports the conjecture: Reading sarcastic texts induces distinctive eye movement patterns, compared to literal texts  The cognitive features, derived from human eye movement patterns observed during reading, include two primary feature types:
The cognitive features, along with textual features used in best available sarcasm detectors, are used to train binary classifiers against given sarcasm labels  Our experiments show significant improvement in classification accuracy over the state of the art, by performing such augmentation 
Related Work
Sarcasm, in general, has been the focus of research for quite some time  In one of the pioneering works jorgensen1984test explained how sarcasm arises when a figurative meaning is used opposite to the literal meaning of the utterance  In the word of clark1984pretense, sarcasm processing involves canceling the indirectly negated message and replacing it with the implicated one  giora1995irony, on the other hand, define sarcasm as a mode of indirect negation that requires processing of both negated and implicated messages  ivanko2003context define sarcasm as a six tuple entity consisting of a speaker, a listener, Context, Utterance, Literal Proposition and Intended Proposition and study the cognitive aspects of sarcasm processing 
Computational linguists have previously addressed this problem using rule based and statistical techniques, that make use of : (a) Unigrams and Pragmatic features BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , BIBREF3 (b) Stylistic patterns BIBREF4 and patterns related to situational disparity BIBREF5 and (c) Hastag interpretations BIBREF6 , BIBREF7  
Most of the previously done work on sarcasm detection uses distant supervision based techniques (ex: leveraging hashtags) and stylistic/pragmatic features (emoticons, laughter expressions such as “lol” etc)  But, detecting sarcasm in linguistically well-formed structures, in absence of explicit cues or information (like emoticons), proves to be hard using such linguistic/stylistic features alone 
With the advent of sophisticated eye-trackers and electro/magneto-encephalographic (EEG/MEG) devices, it has been possible to delve deep into the cognitive underpinnings of sarcasm understanding  Filik2014, using a series of eye-tracking and EEG experiments try to show that for unfamiliar ironies, the literal interpretation would be computed first  They also show that a mismatch with context would lead to a re-interpretation of the statement, as being ironic  Camblin2007103 show that in multi-sentence passages, discourse congruence has robust effects on eye movements  This also implies that disrupted processing occurs for discourse incongruent words, even though they are perfectly congruous at the sentence level  In our previous work BIBREF8 , we augment cognitive features, derived from eye-movement patterns of readers, with textual features to detect whether a human reader has realized the presence of sarcasm in text or not 
The recent advancements in the literature discussed above, motivate us to explore gaze-based cognition for sarcasm detection  As far as we know, our work is the first of its kind 
Eye-tracking Database for Sarcasm Analysis
Sarcasm often emanates from incongruity BIBREF9 , which enforces the brain to reanalyze it BIBREF10   This, in turn, affects the way eyes move through the text  Hence, distinctive eye-movement patterns may be observed in the case of successful processing of sarcasm in text in contrast to literal texts  This hypothesis forms the crux of our method for sarcasm detection and we validate this using our previously released freely available sarcasm dataset BIBREF8 enriched with gaze information 
Document Description
The database consists of 1,000 short texts, each having 10-40 words  Out of these, 350 are sarcastic and are collected as follows: (a) 103 sentences are from two popular sarcastic quote websites, (b) 76 sarcastic short movie reviews are manually extracted from the Amazon Movie Corpus BIBREF11 by two linguists  (c) 171 tweets are downloaded using the hashtag #sarcasm from Twitter  The 650 non-sarcastic texts are either downloaded from Twitter or extracted from the Amazon Movie Review corpus  The sentences do not contain words/phrases that are highly topic or culture specific  The tweets were normalized to make them linguistically well formed to avoid difficulty in interpreting social media lingo  Every sentence in our dataset carries positive or negative opinion about specific “aspects”  For example, the sentence “The movie is extremely well cast” has positive sentiment about the aspect “cast” 
The annotators were seven graduate students with science and engineering background, and possess good English proficiency  They were given a set of instructions beforehand and are advised to seek clarifications before they proceed  The instructions mention the nature of the task, annotation input method, and necessity of head movement minimization during the experiment 
Task Description
The task assigned to annotators was to read sentences one at a time and label them with with binary labels indicating the polarity (i e , positive/negative)  Note that, the participants were not instructed to annotate whether a sentence is sarcastic or not , to rule out the Priming Effect (i e , if sarcasm is expected beforehand, processing incongruity becomes relatively easier BIBREF12 )  The setup ensures its “ecological validity” in two ways: (1) Readers are not given any clue that they have to treat sarcasm with special attention  This is done by setting the task to polarity annotation (instead of sarcasm detection)  (2) Sarcastic sentences are mixed with non sarcastic text, which does not give prior knowledge about whether the forthcoming text will be sarcastic or not 
The eye-tracking experiment is conducted by following the standard norms in eye-movement research BIBREF13   At a time, one sentence is displayed to the reader along with the “aspect” with respect to which the annotation has to be provided  While reading, an SR-Research Eyelink-1000 eye-tracker (monocular remote mode, sampling rate 500Hz) records several eye-movement parameters like fixations (a long stay of gaze) and saccade (quick jumping of gaze between two positions of rest) and pupil size 
The accuracy of polarity annotation varies between 72%-91% for sarcastic texts and 75%-91% for non-sarcastic text, showing the inherent difficulty of sentiment annotation, when sarcasm is present in the text under consideration  Annotation errors may be attributed to: (a) lack of patience/attention while reading, (b) issues related to text comprehension, and (c) confusion/indecisiveness caused due to lack of context 
For our analysis, we do not discard the incorrect annotations present in the database  Since our system eventually aims to involve online readers for sarcasm detection, it will be hard to segregate readers who misinterpret the text  We make a rational assumption that, for a particular text, most of the readers, from a fairly large population, will be able to identify sarcasm  Under this assumption, the eye-movement parameters, averaged across all readers in our setting, may not be significantly distorted by a few readers who would have failed to identify sarcasm  This assumption is applicable for both regular and multi-instance based classifiers explained in section SECREF6  
Analysis of Eye-movement Data
We observe distinct behavior during sarcasm reading, by analyzing the “fixation duration on the text” (also referred to as “dwell time” in the literature) and “scanpaths” of the readers 
Variation in the Average Fixation Duration per Word
Since sarcasm in text can be expected to induce cognitive load, it is reasonable to believe that it would require more processing time BIBREF14   Hence, fixation duration normalized over total word count should usually be higher for a sarcastic text than for a non-sarcastic one  We observe this for all participants in our dataset, with the average fixation duration per word for sarcastic texts being at least 1 5 times more than that of non-sarcastic texts  To test the statistical significance, we conduct a two-tailed t-test (assuming unequal variance) to compare the average fixation duration per word for sarcastic and non-sarcastic texts  The hypothesized mean difference is set to 0 and the error tolerance limit ( INLINEFORM0 ) is set to 0 05  The t-test analysis, presented in Table TABREF11 , shows that for all participants, a statistically significant difference exists between the average fixation duration per word for sarcasm (higher average fixation duration) and non-sarcasm (lower average fixation duration)  This affirms that the presence of sarcasm affects the duration of fixation on words 
It is important to note that longer fixations may also be caused by other linguistic subtleties (such as difficult words, ambiguity and syntactically complex structures) causing delay in comprehension, or occulomotor control problems forcing readers to spend time adjusting eye-muscles  So, an elevated average fixation duration per word may not sufficiently indicate the presence of sarcasm  But we would also like to share that, for our dataset, when we considered readability (Flesch readability ease-score BIBREF15 ), number of words in a sentence and average character per word along with the sarcasm label as the predictors of average fixation duration following a linear mixed effect model BIBREF16 , sarcasm label turned out to be the most significant predictor with a maximum slope  This indicates that average fixation duration per word has a strong connection with the text being sarcastic, at least in our dataset 
We now analyze scanpaths to gain more insights into the sarcasm comprehension process 
Analysis of Scanpaths
Scanpaths are line-graphs that contain fixations as nodes and saccades as edges; the radii of the nodes represent the fixation duration  A scanpath corresponds to a participant's eye-movement pattern while reading a particular sentence

ground_truth: Irony Classifier, Sentiment Classifier for Irony, Sentiment Classifier for Non-irony, transformation from ironic sentences to non-ironic sentences

prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What traditional linguistics features did they use?
Context 2:  Figure FIGREF14 presents scanpaths of three participants for the sarcastic sentence S1 and the non-sarcastic sentence S2  The x-axis of the graph represents the sequence of words a reader reads, and the y-axis represents a temporal sequence in milliseconds 
Consider a sarcastic text containing incongruous phrases A and B  Our qualitative scanpath-analysis reveals that scanpaths with respect to sarcasm processing have two typical characteristics  Often, a long regression - a saccade that goes to a previously visited segment - is observed when a reader starts reading B after skimming through A  In a few cases, the fixation duration on A and B are significantly higher than the average fixation duration per word  In sentence S1, we see long and multiple regressions from the two incongruous phrases “misconception” and “cherish”, and a few instances where phrases “always cherish” and “original misconception” are fixated longer than usual  Such eye-movement behaviors are not seen for S2 
Though sarcasm induces distinctive scanpaths like the ones depicted in Figure FIGREF14 in the observed examples, presence of such patterns is not sufficient to guarantee sarcasm; such patterns may also possibly arise from literal texts  We believe that a combination of linguistic features, readability of text and features derived from scanpaths would help discriminative machine learning models learn sarcasm better 
Features for Sarcasm Detection
We describe the features used for sarcasm detection in Table   The features enlisted under lexical,implicit incongruity and explicit incongruity are borrowed from various literature (predominantly from joshi2015harnessing)  These features are essential to separate sarcasm from other forms semantic incongruity in text (for example ambiguity arising from semantic ambiguity or from metaphors)  Two additional textual features viz  readability and word count of the text are also taken under consideration  These features are used to reduce the effect of text hardness and text length on the eye-movement patterns 
Simple Gaze Based Features
Readers' eye-movement behavior, characterized by fixations, forward saccades, skips and regressions, can be directly quantified by simple statistical aggregation (i e , either computing features for individual participants and then averaging or performing a multi-instance based learning as explained in section SECREF6 )  Since these eye-movement attributes relate to the cognitive process in reading BIBREF17 , we consider these as features in our model  Some of these features have been reported by sarcasmunderstandability for modeling sarcasm understandability of readers  However, as far as we know, these features are being introduced in NLP tasks like textual sarcasm detection for the first time  The values of these features are believed to increase with the increase in the degree of surprisal caused by incongruity in text (except skip count, which will decrease) 
Complex Gaze Based Features
For these features, we rely on a graph structure, namely “saliency graphs", derived from eye-gaze information and word sequences in the text 
For each reader and each sentence, we construct a “saliency graph”, representing the reader's attention characteristics  A saliency graph for a sentence INLINEFORM0 for a reader INLINEFORM1 , represented as INLINEFORM2 , is a graph with vertices ( INLINEFORM3 ) and edges ( INLINEFORM4 ) where each vertex INLINEFORM5 corresponds to a word in INLINEFORM6 (may not be unique) and there exists an edge INLINEFORM7 between vertices INLINEFORM8 and INLINEFORM9 if R performs at least one saccade between the words corresponding to INLINEFORM10 and INLINEFORM11  
Figure FIGREF15 shows an example of a saliency graph A saliency graph may be weighted, but not necessarily connected, for a given text (as there may be words in the given text with no fixation on them)  The “complex” gaze features derived from saliency graphs are also motivated by the theory of incongruity  For instance, Edge Density of a saliency graph increases with the number of distinct saccades, which could arise from the complexity caused by presence of sarcasm  Similarly, the highest weighted degree of a graph is expected to be higher, if the node corresponds to a phrase, incongruous to some other phrase in the text 
The Sarcasm Classifier
We interpret sarcasm detection as a binary classification problem  The training data constitutes 994 examples created using our eye-movement database for sarcasm detection  To check the effectiveness of our feature set, we observe the performance of multiple classification techniques on our dataset through a stratified 10-fold cross validation  We also compare the classification accuracy of our system and the best available systems proposed by riloff2013sarcasm and joshi2015harnessing on our dataset  Using Weka BIBREF18 and LibSVM BIBREF19 APIs, we implement the following classifiers:
Results
Table TABREF17 shows the classification results considering various feature combinations for different classifiers and other systems  These are:
Unigram (with principal components of unigram feature vectors),
Sarcasm (the feature-set reported by joshi2015harnessing subsuming unigram features and features from other reported systems)
Gaze (the simple and complex cognitive features we introduce, along with readability and word count features), and
Gaze+Sarcasm (the complete set of features) 
For all regular classifiers, the gaze features are averaged across participants and augmented with linguistic and sarcasm related features  For the MILR classifier, the gaze features derived from each participant are augmented with linguistic features and thus, a multi instance “bag” of features is formed for each sentence in the training data  This multi-instance dataset is given to an MILR classifier, which follows the standard multi instance assumption to derive class-labels for each bag 
For all the classifiers, our feature combination outperforms the baselines (considering only unigram features) as well as BIBREF3 , with the MILR classifier getting an F-score improvement of 3 7% and Kappa difference of 0 08  We also achieve an improvement of 2% over the baseline, using SVM classifier, when we employ our feature set  We also observe that the gaze features alone, also capture the differences between sarcasm and non-sarcasm classes with a high-precision but a low recall 
To see if the improvement obtained is statistically significant over the state-of-the art system with textual sarcasm features alone, we perform McNemar test  The output of the SVM classifier using only linguistic features used for sarcasm detection by joshi2015harnessing and the output of the MILR classifier with the complete set of features are compared, setting threshold INLINEFORM0   There was a significant difference in the classifier's accuracy with p(two-tailed) = 0 02 with an odds-ratio of 1 43, showing that the classification accuracy improvement is unlikely to be observed by chance in 95% confidence interval 
Considering Reading Time as a Cognitive Feature along with Sarcasm Features
One may argue that, considering simple measures of reading effort like “reading time” as cognitive feature instead of the expensive eye-tracking features for sarcasm detection may be a cost-effective solution  To examine this, we repeated our experiments with “reading time” considered as the only cognitive feature, augmented with the textual features  The F-scores of all the classifiers turn out to be close to that of the classifiers considering sarcasm feature alone and the difference in the improvement is not statistically significant ( INLINEFORM0 )  One the other hand, F-scores with gaze features are superior to the F-scores when reading time is considered as a cognitive feature 
How Effective are the Cognitive Features
We examine the effectiveness of cognitive features on the classification accuracy by varying the input training data size  To examine this, we create a stratified (keeping the class ratio constant) random train-test split of 80%:20%  We train our classifier with 100%, 90%, 80% and 70% of the training data with our whole feature set, and the feature combination from joshi2015harnessing  The goodness of our system is demonstrated by improvements in F-score and Kappa statistics, shown in Figure FIGREF22  
We further analyze the importance of features by ranking the features based on (a) Chi squared test, and (b) Information Gain test, using Weka's attribute selection module  Figure FIGREF23 shows the top 20 ranked features produced by both the tests  For both the cases, we observe 16 out of top 20 features to be gaze features  Further, in each of the cases, Average Fixation Duration per Word and Largest Regression Position are seen to be the two most significant features 
Example Cases
Table TABREF21 shows a few example cases from the experiment with stratified 80%-20% train-test split 
Example sentence 1 is sarcastic, and requires extra-linguistic knowledge (about poor living conditions at Manchester)  Hence, the sarcasm detector relying only on textual features is unable to detect the underlying incongruity  However, our system predicts the label successfully, possibly helped by the gaze features 
Similarly, for sentence 2, the false sense of presence of incongruity (due to phrases like “Helped me” and “Can't stop”) affects the system with only linguistic features  Our system, though, performs well in this case also 
Sentence 3 presents a false-negative case where it was hard for even humans to get the sarcasm  This is why our gaze features (and subsequently the complete set of features) account for erroneous prediction 
In sentence 4, gaze features alone false-indicate presence of incongruity, whereas the system predicts correctly when gaze and linguistic features are taken together 
From these examples, it can be inferred that, only gaze features would not have sufficed to rule out the possibility of detecting other forms of incongruity that do not result in sarcasm 
Error Analysis
Errors committed by our system arise from multiple factors, starting from limitations of the eye-tracker hardware to errors committed by linguistic tools and resources  Also, aggregating various eye-tracking parameters to extract the cognitive features may have caused information loss in the regular classification setting 
Conclusion
In the current work, we created a novel framework to detect sarcasm, that derives insights from human cognition, that manifests over eye movement patterns  We hypothesized that distinctive eye-movement patterns, associated with reading sarcastic text, enables improved detection of sarcasm  We augmented traditional linguistic features with cognitive features obtained from readers' eye-movement data in the form of simple gaze-based features and complex features derived from a graph structure  This extended feature-set improved the success rate of the sarcasm detector by 3 7%, over the best available system  Using cognitive features in an NLP Processing system like ours is the first proposal of its kind 
Our general approach may be useful in other NLP sub-areas like sentiment and emotion analysis, text summarization and question answering, where considering textual clues alone does not prove to be sufficient  We propose to augment this work in future by exploring deeper graph and gaze features  We also propose to develop models for the purpose of learning complex gaze feature representation, that accounts for the power of individual eye movement patterns along with the aggregated patterns of eye movements 
Acknowledgments
We thank the members of CFILT Lab, especially Jaya Jha and Meghna Singh, and the students of IIT Bombay for their help and support 
Context 3: Introduction and related work
In recent years there has been increasing interest on the issue of disinformation spreading on online social media  Global concern over false (or "fake") news as a threat to modern democracies has been frequently raised–ever since 2016 US Presidential elections–in correspondence of events of political relevance, where the proliferation of manipulated and low-credibility content attempts to drive and influence people opinions BIBREF0BIBREF1BIBREF2BIBREF3 
Researchers have highlighted several drivers for the diffusion of such malicious phenomenon, which include human factors (confirmation bias BIBREF4, naive realism BIBREF5), algorithmic biases (filter bubble effect BIBREF0), the presence of deceptive agents on social platforms (bots and trolls BIBREF6) and, lastly, the formation of echo chambers BIBREF7 where people polarize their opinions as they are insulated from contrary perspectives 
The problem of automatically detecting online disinformation news has been typically formulated as a binary classification task (i e  credible vs non-credible articles), and tackled with a variety of different techniques, based on traditional machine learning and/or deep learning, which mainly differ in the dataset and the features they employ to perform the classification  We may distinguish three approaches: those built on content-based features, those based on features extracted from the social context, and those which combine both aspects  A few main challenges hinder the task, namely the impossibility to manually verify all news items, the lack of gold-standard datasets and the adversarial setting in which malicious content is created BIBREF3BIBREF6 
In this work we follow the direction pointed out in a few recent contributions on the diffusion of disinformation compared to traditional and objective information  These have shown that false news spread faster and deeper than true news BIBREF8, and that social bots and echo chambers play an important role in the diffusion of malicious content BIBREF6, BIBREF7  Therefore we focus on the analysis of spreading patterns which naturally arise on social platforms as a consequence of multiple interactions between users, due to the increasing trend in online sharing of news BIBREF0 
A deep learning framework for detection of fake news cascades is provided in BIBREF9, where the authors refer to BIBREF8 in order to collect Twitter cascades pertaining to verified false and true rumors  They employ geometric deep learning, a novel paradigm for graph-based structures, to classify cascades based on four categories of features, such as user profile, user activity, network and spreading, and content  They also observe that a few hours of propagation are sufficient to distinguish false news from true news with high accuracy  Diffusion cascades on Weibo and Twitter are analyzed in BIBREF10, where authors focus on highlighting different topological properties, such as the number of hops from the source or the heterogeneity of the network, to show that fake news shape diffusion networks which are highly different from credible news, even at early stages of propagation 
In this work, we consider the results of BIBREF11 as our baseline  The authors use off-the-shelf machine learning classifiers to accurately classify news articles leveraging Twitter diffusion networks  To this aim, they consider a set of basic features which can be qualitatively interpreted w r t to the social behavior of users sharing credible vs non-credible information  Their methodology is overall in accordance with BIBREF12, where authors successfully detect Twitter astroturfing content, i e  political campaigns disguised as spontaneous grassroots, with a machine learning framework based on network features 
In this paper, we propose a classification framework based on a multi-layer formulation of Twitter diffusion networks  For each article we disentangle different social interactions on Twitter, namely tweets, retweets, mentions, replies and quotes, to accordingly build a diffusion network composed of multiple layers (on for each type of interaction), and we compute structural features separately for each layer  We pick a set of global network properties from the network science toolbox which can be qualitatively explained in terms of social dimensions and allow us to encode different networks with a tuple of features  These include traditional indicators, e g  network density, number of strong/weak connected components and diameter, and more elaborated ones such as main K-core number BIBREF13 and structural virality BIBREF14  Our main research question is whether the use of a multi-layer, disentangled network yields a significant advance in terms of classification accuracy over a conventional single-layer diffusion network  Additionally, we are interested in understanding which of the above features, and in which layer, are most effective in the classification task 
We perform classification experiments with an off-the-shelf Logistic Regression model on two different datasets of mainstream and disinformation news shared on Twitter respectively in the United States and in Italy during 2019  In the former case we also account for political biases inherent to different news sources, referring to the procedure proposed in BIBREF2 to label different outlets  Overall we show that we are able to classify credible vs non-credible diffusion networks (and consequently news articles) with high accuracy (AUROC up to 94%), even when accounting for the political bias of sources (and training only on left-biased or right-biased articles)  We observe that the layer of mentions alone conveys useful information for the classification, denoting a different usage of this functionality when sharing news belonging to the two news domains  We also show that most discriminative features, which are relative to the breadth and depth of largest cascades in different layers, are the same across the two countries 
The outline of this paper is the following: we first formulate the problem and describe data collection, network representation and structural properties employed for the classification; then we provide experimental results–classification performances, layer and feature importance analyses and a temporal classification evaluation–and finally we draw conclusions and future directions 
Methodology ::: Disinformation and mainstream news
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 
Methodology ::: US dataset
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 
Methodology ::: Italian dataset
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 
Methodology ::: Building diffusion networks
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 
Methodology ::: Global network properties
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

ground_truth: Unanswerable

prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. How is the political bias of different sources included in the model?
Context 3:  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 
Methodology ::: Interpretation of network features and layers
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 
Experiments ::: Setup
We performed classification experiments using a basic off-the-shelf classifier, namely Logistic Regression (LR) with L2 penalty; this also allows us to compare results with our baseline  We applied a standardization of the features and we used the default configuration for parameters as described in scikit-learn package BIBREF33  We also tested other classifiers (such as K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machines and Random Forest) but we omit results as they give comparable performances  We remark that our goal is to show that a very simple machine learning framework, with no parameter tuning and optimization, allows for accurate results with our network-based approach 
We used the following evaluation metrics to assess the performances of different classifiers (TP=true positives, FP=false positives, FN=false negatives):
Precision = $\frac{TP}{TP+FP}$, the ability of a classifier not to label as positive a negative sample 
Recall = $\frac{TP}{TP+FN}$, the ability of a classifier to retrieve all positive samples 
F1-score = $2 \frac{\mbox{Precision} \cdot \mbox{Recall}}{\mbox{Precision} + \mbox{Recall}}$, the harmonic average of Precision and Recall 
Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC); the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve BIBREF34, which plots the TP rate versus the FP rate, shows the ability of a classifier to discriminate positive samples from negative ones as its threshold is varied; the AUROC value is in the range $[0, 1]$, with the random baseline classifier holding AUROC$=0 5$ and the ideal perfect classifier AUROC$=1$; thus larger AUROC values (and steeper ROCs) correspond to better classifiers 
In particular we computed so-called macro average–simple unweighted mean–of these metrics evaluated considering both labels (disinformation and mainstream)  We employed stratified shuffle split cross validation (with 10 folds) to evaluate performances 
Finally, we partitioned networks according to the total number of unique users involved in the sharing, i e  the number of nodes in the aggregated network represented with a single-layer representation considering together all layers and also pure tweets  A breakdown of both datasets according to size class (and political biases for the US scenario) is provided in Table 1 and Table 2 
Experiments ::: Classification performances
In Table 3 we first provide classification performances on the US dataset for the LR classifier evaluated on the size class described in Table 1  We can observe that in all instances our methodology performs better than a random classifier (50% AUROC), with AUROC values above 85% in all cases 
For what concerns political biases, as the classes of mainstream and disinformation networks are not balanced (e g , 1,292 mainstream and 4,149 disinformation networks with right bias) we employ a Balanced Random Forest with default parameters (as provided in imblearn Python package BIBREF35)  In order to test the robustness of our methodology, we trained only on left-biased networks or right-biased networks and tested on the entire set of sources (relative to the US dataset); we provide a comparison of AUROC values for both biases in Figure 4  We can notice that our multi-layer approach still entails significant results, thus showing that it can accurately distinguish mainstream news from disinformation regardless of the political bias  We further corroborated this result with additional classification experiments, that show similar performances, in which we excluded from the training/test set two specific sources (one at a time and both at the same time) that outweigh the others in terms of data samples–respectively "breitbart com" for right-biased sources and "politicususa com" for left-biased ones 
We performed classification experiments on the Italian dataset using the LR classifier and different size classes (we excluded $[1000, +\infty )$ which is empty); we show results for different evaluation metrics in Table 3  We can see that despite the limited number of samples (one order of magnitude smaller than the US dataset) the performances are overall in accordance with the US scenario  As shown in Table 4, we obtain results which are much better than our baseline in all size classes (see Table 4):
In the US dataset our multi-layer methodology performs much better in all size classes except for large networks ($[1000, +\infty )$ size class), reaching up to 13% improvement on smaller networks ($[0, 100)$ size class);
In the IT dataset our multi-layer methodology outperforms the baseline in all size classes, with the maximum performance gain (20%) on medium networks ($[100, 1000)$ size class); the baseline generally reaches bad performances compared to the US scenario 
Overall, our performances are comparable with those achieved by two state-of-the-art deep learning models for "fake news" detection BIBREF9BIBREF36 
Experiments ::: Layer importance analysis
In order to understand the impact of each layer on the performances of classifiers, we performed additional experiments considering separately each layer (we ignored T and U features relative to pure tweets)  In Table 5 we show metrics for each layer and all size classes, computed with a 10-fold stratified shuffle split cross validation, evaluated on the US dataset; in Figure 5 we show AUROC values for each layer compared with the general multi-layer approach  We can notice that both Q and M layers alone capture adequately the discrepancies of the two distinct news domains in the United States as they obtain good results with AUROC values in the range 75%-86%; these are comparable with those of the multi-layer approach which, nevertheless, outperforms them across all size classes 
We obtained similar performances for the Italian dataset, as the M layer obtains comparable performances w r t multi-layer approach with AUROC values in the range 72%-82%  We do not show these results for sake of conciseness 
Experiments ::: Feature importance analysis
We further investigated the importance of each feature by performing a $\chi ^2$ test, with 10-fold stratified shuffle split cross validation, considering the entire range of network sizes $[0, +\infty )$  We show the Top-5 most discriminative features for each country in Table 6 
We can notice the exact same set of features (with different relative orderings in the Top-3) in both countries; these correspond to two global network propertie–LWCC, which indicates the size of the largest cascade in the layer, and SCC, which correlates with the size of the network–associated to the same set of layers (Quotes, Retweets and Mentions) 
We further performed a $\chi ^2$ test to highlight the most discriminative features in the M layer of both countries, which performed equally well in the classification task as previously highlighted; also in this case we focused on the entire range of network sizes $[0, +\infty )$  Interestingly, we discovered exactly the same set of Top-3 features in both countries, namely LWCC, SCC and DWCC (which indicates the depth of the largest cascade in the layer) 
An inspection of the distributions of all aforementioned features revealed that disinformation news exhibit on average larger values than mainstream news 
We can qualitatively sum up these results as follows:
Sharing patterns in the two news domains exhibit discrepancies which might be country-independent and due to the content that is being shared 
Interactions in disinformation sharing cascades tends to be broader and deeper than in mainstream news, as widely reported in the literature BIBREF8BIBREF2BIBREF7 
Users likely make a different usage of mentions when sharing news belonging to the two domains, consequently shaping different sharing patterns 
Experiments ::: Temporal analysis
Similar to BIBREF9, we carried out additional experiments to answer the following question: how long do we need to observe a news spreading on Twitter in order to accurately classify it as disinformation or mainstream?
With this goal, we built several versions of our original dataset of multi-layer networks by considering in turn the following lifetimes: 1 hour, 6 hours, 12 hours, 1 day, 2 days, 3 days and 7 days; for each case, we computed the global network properties of the corresponding network and evaluated the LR classifier with 10-fold cross validation, separately for each lifetime (and considering always the entire set of networks)  We show corresponding AUROC values for both US and IT datasets in Figure 6 
We can see that in both countries news diffusion networks can be accurately classified after just a few hours of spreading, with AUROC values which are larger than 80% after only 6 hours of diffusion  These results are very promising and suggest that articles pertaining to the two news domains exhibit discrepancies in their sharing patterns that can be timely exploited in order to rapidly detect misleading items from factual information 
Conclusions
In this work we tackled the problem of the automatic classification of news articles in two domains, namely mainstream and disinformation news, with a language-independent approach which is based solely on the diffusion of news items on Twitter social platform  We disentangled different types of interactions on Twitter to accordingly build a multi-layer representation of news diffusion networks, and we computed a set of global network properties–separately for each layer–in order to encode each network with a tuple of features  Our goal was to investigate whether a multi-layer representation performs better than one layer BIBREF11, and to understand which of the features, observed at given layers, are most effective in the classification task 
Experiments with an off-the-shelf classifier such as Logistic Regression on datasets pertaining to two different media landscapes (US and Italy) yield very accurate classification results (AUROC up to 94%), even when accounting for the different political bias of news sources, which are far better than our baseline BIBREF11 with improvements up to 20%  Classification performances using single layers show that the layer of mentions alone entails better performance w r t other layers in both countries 
We also highlighted the most discriminative features across different layers in both countries; the results suggest that differences between the two news domains might be country-independent but rather due only to the typology of content shared, and that disinformation news shape broader and deeper cascades 
Additional experiments involving the temporal evolution of Twitter diffusion networks show that our methodology can accurate classify mainstream and disinformation news after a few hours of propagation on the platform 
Overall, our results prove that the topological features of multi-layer diffusion networks might be effectively exploited to detect online disinformation  We do not deny the presence of deceptive efforts to orchestrate the regular spread of information on social media via content amplification and manipulation BIBREF37BIBREF38  On the contrary, we postulate that such hidden forces might play to accentuate the discrepancies between the diffusion patterns of disinformation and mainstream news (and thus to make our methodology effective) 
In the future we aim to further investigate three directions: (1) employ temporal networks to represent news diffusion and apply classification techniques that take into account the sequential aspect of data (e g  recurrent neural networks); (2) carry out an extensive comparison of the diffusion of disinformation and mainstream news across countries to investigate deeper the presence of differences and similarities in sharing patterns; (3) leverage our network-based features in addition to state-of-the-art text-based approaches for "fake news" dete ction in order to deliver a real-world system to detect misleading and harmful information spreading on social media 

ground_truth: By assigning a political bias label to each news article and training only on left-biased or right-biased outlets of both disinformation and mainstream domains

we also account for political biases inherent to different news sources, referring to the procedure proposed in BIBREF2 to label different outlets. Overall we show that we are able to classify credible vs non-credible diffusion networks (and consequently news articles) with high accuracy (AUROC up to 94%), even when accounting for the political bias of sources (and training only on left-biased or right-biased articles). We observe that the layer of mentions alone conveys useful information for the classification, denoting a different usage of this functionality when sharing news belonging to the two news domains. We also show that most discriminative features, which are relative to the breadth and depth of largest cascades in different layers, are the same across the two countries.