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 does this approach compare to other WSD approaches employing word embeddings?
Context 1: Introduction
Language modelling in its inception had one-hot vector encoding of words  However, it captures only alphabetic ordering but not the word semantic similarity  Vector space models helps to learn word representations in a lower dimensional space and also captures semantic similarity  Learning word embedding aids in natural language processing tasks such as question answering and reasoning BIBREF0, stance detection BIBREF1, claim verification BIBREF2 
Recent models BIBREF3, BIBREF4 work on the basis that words with similar context share semantic similarity  BIBREF4 proposes a neural probabilistic model which models the target word probability conditioned on the previous words using a recurrent neural network  Word2Vec models BIBREF3 such as continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) predict the target word given the context, and skip-gram model works in reverse of predicting the context given the target word  While, GloVe embeddings were based on a Global matrix factorization on local contexts BIBREF5  However, the aforementioned models do not handle words with multiple meanings (polysemies) 
BIBREF6 proposes a neural network approach considering both local and global contexts in learning word embeddings (point estimates)  Their multiple prototype model handles polysemous words by providing apriori heuristics about word senses in the dataset  BIBREF7 proposes an alternative to handle polysemous words by a modified skip-gram model and EM algorithm  BIBREF8 presents a non-parametric based alternative to handle polysemies  However, these approaches fail to consider entailment relations among the words  BIBREF9 learn a Gaussian distribution per word using the expected likelihood kernel  However, for polysemous words, this may lead to word distributions with larger variances as it may have to cover various senses 
BIBREF10 proposes multimodal word distribution approach  It captures polysemy  However, the energy based objective function fails to consider asymmetry and hence entailment  Textual entailment recognition is necessary to capture lexical inference relations such as causality (for example, mosquito $\rightarrow $ malaria), hypernymy (for example, dog $\models $ animal) etc 
In this paper, we propose to obtain multi-sense word embedding distributions by using a variant of max margin objective based on the asymmetric KL divergence energy function to capture textual entailment  Multi-sense distributions are advantageous in capturing polysemous nature of words and in reducing the uncertainty per word by distributing it across senses  However, computing KL divergence between mixtures of Gaussians is intractable, and we use a KL divergence approximation based on stricter upper and lower bounds  While capturing textual entailment (asymmetry), we have also not compromised on capturing symmetrical similarity between words (for example, funny and hilarious) which will be elucidated in Section $3 1$  We also show the effectiveness of the proposed approach on the benchmark word similarity and entailment datasets in the experimental section 
Methodology ::: Word Representation
Probabilistic representation of words helps one model uncertainty in word representation, and polysemy  Given a corpus $V$, containing a list of words each represented as $w$, the probability density for a word $w$ can be represented as a mixture of Gaussians with $C$ components BIBREF10 
Here, $p_{w,j}$ represents the probability of word $w$ belonging to the component $j$, $\operatorname{\mathbf {\mu }}_{w,j}$ represents $D$ dimensional word representation corresponding to the $j^{th}$ component sense of the word $w$, and $\Sigma _{w,j}$ represents the uncertainty in representation for word $w$ belonging to component $j$ 
Objective function
The model parameters (means, covariances and mixture weights) $\theta $ can be learnt using a variant of max-margin objective BIBREF11 
Here $E_\theta (\cdot , \cdot )$ represents an energy function which assigns a score to the pair of words, $w$ is a particular word under consideration, $c$ its positive context (same context), and $c^{\prime }$ the negative context  The objective aims to push the margin of the difference between the energy function of a word $w$ to its positive context $c$ higher than its negative context $c$ by a threshold of $m$  Thus, word pairs in the same context gets a higher energy than the word pairs in the dissimilar context  BIBREF10 consider the energy function to be an expected likelihood kernel which is defined as follows 
This is similar to the cosine similarity metric over vectors and the energy between two words is maximum when they have similar distributions  But, the expected likelihood kernel is a symmetric metric which will not be suitable for capturing ordering among words and hence entailment 
Objective function ::: Proposed Energy function
As each word is represented by a mixture of Gaussian distributions, KL divergence is a better choice of energy function to capture distance between distributions  Since, KL divergence is minimum when the distributions are similar and maximum when they are dissimilar, energy function is taken as exponentiated negative KL divergence 
However, computing KL divergence between Gaussian mixtures is intractable and obtaining exact KL value is not possible  One way of approximating the KL is by Monte-Carlo approximation but it requires large number of samples to get a good approximation and is computationally expensive on high dimensional embedding space 
Alternatively, BIBREF12 presents a KL approximation between Gaussian mixtures where they obtain an upper bound through product of Gaussian approximation method and a lower bound through variational approximation method  In BIBREF13, the authors combine the lower and upper bounds from approximation methods of BIBREF12 to provide a stricter bound on KL between Gaussian mixtures  Lets consider Gaussian mixtures for the words $w$ and $v$ as follows 
The approximate KL divergence between the Gaussian mixture representations over the words $w$ and $v$ is shown in equation DISPLAY_FORM8  More details on approximation is included in the Supplementary Material 
where $EL_{ik}(w,w) = \int f_{w,i} (\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}) f_{w,k} (\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}) d\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}$ and $EL_{ij}(w,v) = \int f_{w,i} (\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}) f_{v,k} (\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}) d\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}$  Note that the expected likelihood kernel appears component wise inside the approximate KL divergence derivation 
One advantage of using KL as energy function is that it enables to capture asymmetry in entailment datasets  For eg , let us consider the words 'chair' with two senses as 'bench' and 'sling', and 'wood' with two senses as 'trees' and 'furniture'  The word chair ($w$) is entailed within wood ($v$), i e  chair $\models $ wood  Now, minimizing the KL divergence necessitates maximizing $\log {\sum _j p_{v,j} \exp ({-KL(f_{w,i} (\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})||f_{v,j}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}))})}$ which in turn minimizes $KL(f_{w,i}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})||f_{v,j}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}}))$  This will result in the support of the $i^{th}$ component of $w$ to be within the $j^{th}$ component of $v$, and holds for all component pairs leading to the entailment of $w$ within $v$  Consequently, we can see that bench $\models $ trees, bench $\models $ furniture, sling $\models $ trees, and sling $\models $ furniture  Thus, it introduces lexical relationship between the senses of child word and that of the parent word  Minimizing the KL also necessitates maximizing $\log {\sum _j {p_{v,j}} EL_{ij}(w,v)}$ term for all component pairs among $w$ and $v$  This is similar to maximizing expected likelihood kernel, which brings the means of $f_{w,i}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})$ and $f_{v,j}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})$ closer (weighted by their co-variances) as discussed in BIBREF10  Hence, the proposed approach captures the best of both worlds, thereby catering to both word similarity and entailment 
We also note that minimizing the KL divergence necessitates minimizing $\log {\sum _k p_{w,k} \exp ({-KL(f_{w,i}||f_{w,k})})}$ which in turn maximizes $KL(f_{w,i}||f_{w,k})$  This prevents the different mixture components of a word converging to single Gaussian and encourages capturing different possible senses of the word  The same is also achieved by minimizing $\sum _k {p_{w,k}} EL_{ik}(w,w)$ term and act as a regularization term which promotes diversity in learning senses of a word 
Experimentation and Results
We train our proposed model GM$\_$KL (Gaussian Mixture using KL Divergence) on the Text8 dataset BIBREF14 which is a pre-processed data of $17M$ words from wikipedia  Of which, 71290 unique and frequent words are chosen using the subsampling trick in BIBREF15  We compare GM$\_$KL with the previous approaches w2g BIBREF9 ( single Gaussian model) and w2gm BIBREF10 (mixture of Gaussian model with expected likelihood kernel)  For all the models used for experimentation, the embedding size ($D$) was set to 50, number of mixtures to 2, context window length to 10, batch size to 128  The word embeddings were initialized using a uniform distribution in the range of $[-\sqrt{\frac{3}{D}}$, $\sqrt{\frac{3}{D}}]$ such that the expectation of variance is 1 and mean 0 BIBREF16  One could also consider initializing the word embeddings using other contextual representations such as BERT BIBREF17 and ELMo BIBREF18 in the proposed approach  In order to purely analyze the performance of $\emph {GM\_KL}$ over the other models, we have chosen initialization using uniform distribution for experiments  For computational benefits, diagonal covariance is used similar to BIBREF10  Each mixture probability is constrained in the range $[0,1]$, summing to 1 by optimizing over unconstrained scores in the range $(-\infty ,\infty )$ and converting scores to probability using softmax function  The mixture scores are initialized to 0 to ensure fairness among all the components  The threshold for negative sampling was set to $10^{-5}$, as recommended in BIBREF3  Mini-batch gradient descent with Adagrad optimizer BIBREF19 was used with initial learning rate set to $0 05$ 
Table TABREF9 shows the qualitative results of GM$\_$KL  Given a query word and component id, the set of nearest neighbours along with their respective component ids are listed  For eg , the word `plane' in its 0th component captures the `geometry' sense and so are its neighbours, and its 1st component captures `vehicle' sense and so are its corresponding neighbours  Other words such as `rock' captures both the `metal' and `music' senses, `star' captures `celebrity' and `astronomical' senses, and `phone' captures `telephony' and `internet' senses 
We quantitatively compare the performance of the GM$\_$KL, w2g, and w2gm approaches on the SCWS dataset BIBREF6  The dataset consists of 2003 word pairs of polysemous and homonymous words with labels obtained by an average of 10 human scores  The Spearman correlation between the human scores and the model scores are computed  To obtain the model score, the following metrics are used:
MaxCos: Maximum cosine similarity among all component pairs of words $w$ and $v$:
AvgCos: Average component-wise cosine similarity between the words $w$ and $v$ 
KL$\_$approx: Formulated as shown in (DISPLAY_FORM8) between the words $w$ and $v$ 
KL$\_$comp: Maximum component-wise negative KL between words $w$ and $v$:
Table TABREF17 compares the performance of the approaches on the SCWS dataset  It is evident from Table TABREF17 that GM$\_$KL achieves better correlation than existing approaches for various metrics on SCWS dataset 
Table TABREF18 shows the Spearman correlation values of GM$\_$KL model evaluated on the benchmark word similarity datasets: SL BIBREF20, WS, WS-R, WS-S BIBREF21, MEN BIBREF22, MC BIBREF23, RG BIBREF24, YP BIBREF25, MTurk-287 and MTurk-771 BIBREF26, BIBREF27, and RW BIBREF28  The metric used for comparison is 'AvgCos'  It can be seen that for most of the datasets, GM$\_$KL achieves significantly better correlation score than w2g and w2gm approaches  Other datasets such as MC and RW consist of only a single sense, and hence w2g model performs better and GM$\_$KL achieves next better performance  The YP dataset have multiple senses but does not contain entailed data and hence could not make use of entailment benefits of GM$\_$KL 
Table TABREF19 shows the evaluation results of GM$\_$KL model on the entailment datasets such as entailment pairs dataset BIBREF29 created from WordNet with both positive and negative labels, a crowdsourced dataset BIBREF30 of 79 semantic relations labelled as entailed or not and annotated distributionally similar nouns dataset BIBREF31  The 'MaxCos' similarity metric is used for evaluation and the best precision and best F1-score is shown, by picking the optimal threshold  Overall, GM$\_$KL performs better than both w2g and w2gm approaches 
Conclusion
We proposed a KL divergence based energy function for learning multi-sense word embedding distributions modelled as Gaussian mixtures  Due to the intractability of the Gaussian mixtures for the KL divergence measure, we use an approximate KL divergence function  We also demonstrated that the proposed GM$\_$KL approaches performed better than other approaches on the benchmark word similarity and entailment datasets 
tocsectionAppendices
Approximation for KL divergence between mixtures of gaussians
KL between gaussian mixtures $f_{w}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})$ and $f_{v}(\operatorname{\mathbf {x}})$ can be decomposed as:
BIBREF12 presents KL approximation between gaussian mixtures using
product of gaussian approximation method where KL is approximated using product of component gaussians and
variational approximation method where KL is approximated by introducing some variational parameters 
The product of component gaussian approximation method using Jensen's inequality provides upper bounds as shown in equations DISPLAY_FORM23 and  
The variational approximation method provides lower bounds as shown in equations DISPLAY_FORM24 and DISPLAY_FORM25 
where $H$ represents the entropy term and the entropy of $i^{th}$ component of word $w$ with dimension $D$ is given as
In BIBREF13, the authors combine the lower and upper bounds from approximation methods of BIBREF12 to formulate a stricter bound on KL between gaussian mixtures 
From equations DISPLAY_FORM23 and DISPLAY_FORM25, a stricter lower bound for KL between gaussian mixtures is obtained as shown in equation DISPLAY_FORM26
From equations and DISPLAY_FORM24, a stricter upper bound for KL between gaussian mixtures is obtained as shown in equation DISPLAY_FORM27
Finally, the KL between gaussian mixtures is taken as the mean of KL upper and lower bounds as shown in equation DISPLAY_FORM28 
Context 2: 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  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: GM$\_$KL achieves better correlation than existing approaches for various metrics on SCWS dataset.

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 4: Introduction
Pre-trained models BIBREF0, BIBREF1 have received much of attention recently thanks to their impressive results in many down stream NLP tasks  Additionally, multilingual pre-trained models enable many NLP applications for other languages via zero-short cross-lingual transfer  Zero-shot cross-lingual transfer has shown promising results for rapidly building applications for low resource languages  BIBREF2 show the potential of multilingual-BERT BIBREF0 in zero-shot transfer for a large number of languages from different language families on five NLP tasks, namely, natural language inference, document classification, named entity recognition, part-of-speech tagging, and dependency parsing 
Although multilingual models are an important ingredient for enhancing language technology in many languages, recent research on improving pre-trained models puts much emphasis on English BIBREF3, BIBREF4, BIBREF5  The current state of affairs makes it difficult to translate advancements in pre-training from English to non-English languages  To our best knowledge, there are only three available multilingual pre-trained models to date: (1) the multilingual-BERT (mBERT) that supports 104 languages, (2) cross-lingual language model BIBREF6 that supports 100 languages, and (3) Language Agnostic SEntence Representations BIBREF7 that supports 93 languages  Among the three models, LASER is based on neural machine translation approach and strictly requires parallel data to train 
Do multilingual models always need to be trained from scratch? Can we transfer linguistic knowledge learned by English pre-trained models to other languages? In this work, we develop a technique to rapidly transfer an existing pre-trained model from English to other languages in an energy efficient way BIBREF8  As the first step, we focus on building a bilingual language model (LM) of English and a target language  Starting from a pre-trained English LM, we learn the target language specific parameters (i e , word embeddings), while keeping the encoder layers of the pre-trained English LM fixed  We then fine-tune both English and target model to obtain the bilingual LM  We apply our approach to autoencoding language models with masked language model objective and show the advantage of the proposed approach in zero-shot transfer  Our main contributions in this work are:
We propose a fast adaptation method for obtaining a bilingual BERT$_{\textsc {base}}$ of English and a target language within a day using one Tesla V100 16GB GPU 
We evaluate our bilingual LMs for six languages on two zero-shot cross-lingual transfer tasks, namely natural language inference BIBREF9 and universal dependency parsing  We show that our models offer competitive performance or even better that mBERT 
We illustrate that our bilingual LMs can serve as an excellent feature extractor in supervised dependency parsing task 
Bilingual Pre-trained LMs
We first provide some background of pre-trained language models  Let $_e$ be English word-embeddings and $\Psi ()$ be the Transformer BIBREF10 encoder with parameters $$  Let $_{w_i}$ denote the embedding of word $w_i$ (i e , $_{w_i} = _e[w_1]$)  We omit positional embeddings and bias for clarity  A pre-trained LM typically performs the following computations: (i) transform a sequence of input tokens to contextualized representations $[_{w_1},\dots ,_{w_n}] = \Psi (_{w_1}, \dots , _{w_n}; )$, and (ii) predict an output word $y_i$ at $i^{\text{th}}$ position $p(y_i | _{w_i}) \propto \exp (_{w_i}^\top _{y_i})$ 
Autoencoding LM BIBREF0 corrupts some input tokens $w_i$ by replacing them with a special token [MASK]  It then predicts the original tokens $y_i = w_i$ from the corrupted tokens  Autoregressive LM BIBREF3 predicts the next token ($y_i = w_{i+1}$) given all the previous tokens  The recently proposed XLNet model BIBREF5 is an autoregressive LM that factorizes output with all possible permutations, which shows empirical performance improvement over GPT-2 due to the ability to capture bidirectional context  Here we assume that the encoder performs necessary masking with respect to each training objective 
Given an English pre-trained LM, we wish to learn a bilingual LM for English and a given target language $f$ under a limited computational resource budget  To quickly build a bilingual LM, we directly adapt the English pre-traind model to the target model  Our approach consists of three steps  First, we initialize target language word-embeddings $_f$ in the English embedding space such that embeddings of a target word and its English equivalents are close together (§SECREF8)  Next, we create a target LM from the target embeddings and the English encoder $\Psi ()$  We then fine-tune target embeddings while keeping $\Psi ()$ fixed (§SECREF14)  Finally, we construct a bilingual LM of $_e$, $_f$, and $\Psi ()$ and fine-tune all the parameters (§SECREF15)  Figure FIGREF7 illustrates the last two steps in our approach 
Bilingual Pre-trained LMs ::: Initializing Target Embeddings
Our approach to learn the initial foreign word embeddings $_f \in ^{|V_f| \times d}$ is based on the idea of mapping the trained English word embeddings $_e \in ^{|V_e| \times d}$ to $_f$ such that if a foreign word and an English word are similar in meaning then their embeddings are similar  Borrowing the idea of universal lexical sharing from BIBREF11, we represent each foreign word embedding $_f[i] \in ^d$ as a linear combination of English word embeddings $_e[j] \in ^d$
where $_i\in ^{|V_e|}$ is a sparse vector and $\sum _j^{|V_e|} \alpha _{ij} = 1$ 
In this step of initializing foreign embeddings, having a good estimation of $$ could speed of the convergence when tuning the foreign model and enable zero-shot transfer (§SECREF5)  In the following, we discuss how to estimate $_i\;\forall i\in \lbrace 1,2, \dots , |V_f|\rbrace $ under two scenarios: (i) we have parallel data of English-foreign, and (ii) we only rely on English and foreign monolingual data 
Bilingual Pre-trained LMs ::: Initializing Target Embeddings ::: Learning from Parallel Corpus
Given an English-foreign parallel corpus, we can estimate word translation probability $p(e\,|\,f)$ for any (English-foreign) pair $(e, f)$ using popular word-alignment BIBREF12 toolkits such as fast-align BIBREF13  We then assign:
Since $_i$ is estimated from word alignment, it is a sparse vector 
Bilingual Pre-trained LMs ::: Initializing Target Embeddings ::: Learning from Monolingual Corpus
For low resource languages, parallel data may not be available  In this case, we rely only on monolingual data (e g , Wikipedias)  We estimate word translation probabilities from word embeddings of the two languages  Word vectors of these languages can be learned using fastText BIBREF14 and then are aligned into a shared space with English BIBREF15, BIBREF16  Unlike learning contextualized representations, learning word vectors is fast and computationally cheap  Given the aligned vectors $\bar{}_f$ of foreign and $\bar{}_e$ of English, we calculate the word translation matrix $\in ^{|V_f|\times |V_e|}$ as
Here, we use $\mathrm {sparsemax}$ BIBREF17 instead of softmax  Sparsemax is a sparse version of softmax and it puts zero probabilities on most of the word in the English vocabulary except few English words that are similar to a given foreign word  This property is desirable in our approach since it leads to a better initialization of the foreign embeddings 
Bilingual Pre-trained LMs ::: Fine-tuning Target Embeddings
After initializing foreign word-embeddings, we replace English word-embeddings in the English pre-trained LM with foreign word-embeddings to obtain the foreign LM  We then fine-tune only foreign word-embeddings on monolingual data  The training objective is the same as the training objective of the English pre-trained LM (i e , masked LM for BERT)  Since the trained encoder $\Psi ()$ is good at capturing association, the purpose of this step is to further optimize target embeddings such that the target LM can utilized the trained encoder for association task  For example, if the words Albert Camus presented in a French input sequence, the self-attention in the encoder more likely attends to words absurde and existentialisme once their embeddings are tuned 
Bilingual Pre-trained LMs ::: Fine-tuning Bilingual LM
We create a bilingual LM by plugging foreign language specific parameters to the pre-trained English LM (Figure FIGREF7)  The new model has two separate embedding layers and output layers, one for English and one for foreign language  The encoder layer in between is shared  We then fine-tune this model using English and foreign monolingual data  Here, we keep tuning the model on English to ensure that it does not forget what it has learned in English and that we can use the resulting model for zero-shot transfer (§SECREF3)  In this step, the encoder parameters are also updated so that in can learn syntactic aspects (i e , word order, morphological agreement) of the target languages 
Zero-shot Experiments
We build our bilingual LMs, named RAMEN, starting from BERT$_{\textsc {base}}$, BERT$_{\textsc {large}}$, RoBERTa$_{\textsc {base}}$, and RoBERTa$_{\textsc {large}}$ pre-trained models  Using BERT$_{\textsc {base}}$ allows us to compare the results with mBERT model  Using BERT$_{\textsc {large}}$ and RoBERTa allows us to investigate whether the performance of the target LM correlates with the performance of the source LM  We evaluate our models on two cross-lingual zero-shot tasks: (1) Cross-lingual Natural Language Inference (XNLI) and (2) dependency parsing 
Zero-shot Experiments ::: Data
We evaluate our approach for six target languages: French (fr), Russian (ru), Arabic (ar), Chinese (zh), Hindi (hi), and Vietnamese (vi)  These languages belong to four different language families  French, Russian, and Hindi are Indo-European languages, similar to English  Arabic, Chinese, and Vietnamese belong to Afro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan, and Austro-Asiatic family respectively  The choice of the six languages also reflects different training conditions depending on the amount of monolingual data  French and Russian, and Arabic can be regarded as high resource languages whereas Hindi has far less data and can be considered as low resource 
For experiments that use parallel data to initialize foreign specific parameters, we use the same datasets in the work of BIBREF6  Specifically, we use United Nations Parallel Corpus BIBREF18 for en-ru, en-ar, en-zh, and en-fr  We collect en-hi parallel data from IIT Bombay corpus BIBREF19 and en-vi data from OpenSubtitles 2018  For experiments that use only monolingual data to initialize foreign parameters, instead of training word-vectors from the scratch, we use the pre-trained word vectors from fastText BIBREF14 to estimate word translation probabilities (Eq  DISPLAY_FORM13)  We align these vectors into a common space using orthogonal Procrustes BIBREF20, BIBREF15, BIBREF16  We only use identical words between the two languages as the supervised signal  We use WikiExtractor to extract extract raw sentences from Wikipedias as monolingual data for fine-tuning target embeddings and bilingual LMs (§SECREF15)  We do not lowercase or remove accents in our data preprocessing pipeline 
We tokenize English using the provided tokenizer from pre-trained models  For target languages, we use fastBPE to learn 30,000 BPE codes and 50,000 codes when transferring from BERT and RoBERTa respectively  We truncate the BPE vocabulary of foreign languages to match the size of the English vocabulary in the source models  Precisely, the size of foreign vocabulary is set to 32,000 when transferring from BERT and 50,000 when transferring from RoBERTa 
We use XNLI dataset BIBREF9 for classification task and Universal Dependencies v2 4 BIBREF21 for parsing task  Since a language might have more than one treebank in Universal Dependencies, we use the following treebanks: en_ewt (English), fr_gsd (French), ru_syntagrus (Russian) ar_padt (Arabic), vi_vtb (Vietnamese), hi_hdtb (Hindi), and zh_gsd (Chinese) 
Zero-shot Experiments ::: Data ::: Remark on BPE
BIBREF22 show that sharing subwords between languages improves alignments between embedding spaces  BIBREF2 observe a strong correlation between the percentage of overlapping subwords and mBERT's performances for cross-lingual zero-shot transfer  However, in our current approach, subwords between source and target are not shared  A subword that is in both English and foreign vocabulary has two different embeddings

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.

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 cyberbulling topics did they address?
Context 3: Introduction
Cyberbullying has been defined by the National Crime Prevention Council as the use of the Internet, cell phones or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person  Various studies have estimated that between to 10% to 40% of internet users are victims of cyberbullying BIBREF0   Effects of cyberbullying can range from temporary anxiety to suicide BIBREF1   Many high profile incidents have emphasized the prevalence of cyberbullying on social media  Most recently in October 2017, a Swedish model Arvida Byström was cyberbullied to the extent of receiving rape threats after she appeared in an advertisement with hairy legs 
Detection of cyberbullying in social media is a challenging task  Definition of what constitutes cyberbullying is quite subjective  For example, frequent use of swear words might be considered as bullying by the general population  However, for teen oriented social media platforms such as Formspring, this does not necessarily mean bullying (Table TABREF9 )  Across multiple SMPs, cyberbullies attack victims on different topics such as race, religion, and gender  Depending on the topic of cyberbullying, vocabulary and perceived meaning of words vary significantly across SMPs  For example, in our experiments we found that for word `fat', the most similar words as per Twitter dataset are `female' and `woman' (Table TABREF23 )  However, other two datasets do not show such particular bias against women  This platform specific semantic similarity between words is a key aspect of cyberbullying detection across SMPs  Style of communication varies significantly across SMPs  For example, Twitter posts are short and lack anonymity  Whereas posts on Q&A oriented SMPs are long and have option of anonymity (Table TABREF7 )  Fast evolving words and hashtags in social media make it difficult to detect cyberbullying using swear word list based simple filtering approaches  The option of anonymity in certain social networks also makes it harder to identify cyberbullying as profile and history of the bully might not be available 
Past works on cyberbullying detection have at least one of the following three bottlenecks  First (Bottleneck B1), they target only one particular social media platform  How these methods perform across other SMPs is unknown  Second (Bottleneck B2), they address only one topic of cyberbullying such as racism, and sexism  Depending on the topic, vocabulary and nature of cyberbullying changes  These models are not flexible in accommodating changes in the definition of cyberbullying  Third (Bottleneck B3), they rely on carefully handcrafted features such as swear word list and POS tagging  However, these handcrafted features are not robust against variations in writing style  In contrast to existing bottlenecks, this work targets three different types of social networks (Formspring: a Q&A forum, Twitter: microblogging, and Wikipedia: collaborative knowledge repository) for three topics of cyberbullying (personal attack, racism, and sexism) without doing any explicit feature engineering by developing deep learning based models along with transfer learning 
We experimented with diverse traditional machine learning models (logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, naive Bayes) and deep neural network models (CNN, LSTM, BLSTM, BLSTM with Attention) using variety of representation methods for words (bag of character n-gram, bag of word unigram, GloVe embeddings, SSWE embeddings)  Summary of our findings and research contributions is as follows 
Datasets
Please refer to Table TABREF7 for summary of datasets used  We performed experiments using large, diverse, manually annotated, and publicly available datasets for cyberbullying detection in social media  We cover three different types of social networks: teen oriented Q&A forum (Formspring), large microblogging platform (Twitter), and collaborative knowledge repository (Wikipedia talk pages)  Each dataset addresses a different topic of cyberbullying  Twitter dataset contains examples of racism and sexism  Wikipedia dataset contains examples of personal attack  However, Formspring dataset is not specifically about any single topic  All three datasets have the problem of class imbalance where posts labeled as cyberbullying are in the minority as compared to neutral posts  Variation in the number of posts across datasets also affects vocabulary size that represents the number of distinct words encountered in the dataset  We measure the size of a post in terms of the number of words in the post  For each dataset, there are only a few posts with large size  We truncate such large posts to the size of post ranked at 95 percentile in that dataset  For example, in Wikipedia dataset, the largest post has 2846 words  However, size of post ranked at 95 percentile in that dataset is only 231  Any post larger than size 231 in Wikipedia dataset will be truncated by considering only first 231 words  This truncation affects only a small minority of posts in each dataset  However, it is required for efficiently training various models in our experiments  Details of each dataset are as follows 
Formspring BIBREF2 : It was a question and answer based website where users could openly invite others to ask and answer questions  The dataset includes 12K annotated question and answer pairs  Each post is manually labeled by three workers  Among these pairs, 825 were labeled as containing cyberbullying content by at least two Amazon Mechanical turk workers 
Twitter BIBREF3 : This dataset includes 16K annotated tweets  The authors bootstrapped the corpus collection, by performing an initial manual search of common slurs and terms used pertaining to religious, sexual, gender, and ethnic minorities  Of the 16K tweets, 3117 are labeled as sexist, 1937 as racist, and the remaining are marked as neither sexist nor racist 
Wikipedia BIBREF4 : For each page in Wikipedia, a corresponding talk page maintains the history of discussion among users who participated in its editing  This data set includes over 100k labeled discussion comments from English Wikipedia's talk pages  Each comment was labeled by 10 annotators via Crowdflower on whether it contains a personal attack  There are total 13590 comments labeled as personal attack 
Use of Swear Words and Anonymity
Please refer to Table TABREF9   We use the following short forms in this section: B=Bullying, S=Swearing, A=Anonymous  Some of the values for Twitter dataset are undefined as Twitter does not allow anonymous postings  Use of swear words has been repeatedly linked to cyberbullying  However, preliminary analysis of datasets reveals that depending on swear word usage can neither lead to high precision nor high recall for cyberbullying detection  Swear word list based methods will have low precision as P(B INLINEFORM0 S) is not close to 1  In fact, for teen oriented social network Formspring, 78% of the swearing posts are non-bullying  Swear words based filtering will be irritating to the users in such SMPs where swear words are used casually  Swear word list based methods will also have a low recall as P(S INLINEFORM1 B) is not close to 1  For Twitter dataset, 82% of bullying posts do not use any swear words  Such passive-aggressive cyberbullying will go undetected with swear word list based methods  Anonymity is another clue that is used for detecting cyberbullying as bully might prefer to hide its identity  Anonymity definitely leads to increased use of swear words (P(S INLINEFORM2 A) INLINEFORM3 P(S)) and cyberbullying (P(B INLINEFORM4 A) INLINEFORM5 P(B), and P(B INLINEFORM6 A&S)) INLINEFORM7 P(B))  However, significant fraction of anonymous posts are non-bullying (P(B INLINEFORM8 A) not close to 1) and many of bullying posts are not anonymous (P(A INLINEFORM9 B) not close to 1)  Further, anonymity might not be allowed by many SMPs such as Twitter 
Related Work
Cyberbullying is recognized as a phenomenon at least since 2003 BIBREF5   Use of social media exploded with launching of multiple platforms such as Wikipedia (2001), MySpace (2003), Orkut (2004), Facebook (2004), and Twitter (2005)  By 2006, researchers had pointed that cyberbullying was as serious phenomenon as offline bullying BIBREF6   However, automatic detection of cyberbullying was addressed only since 2009 BIBREF7   As a research topic, cyberbullying detection is a text classification problem  Most of the existing works fit in the following template: get training dataset from single SMP, engineer variety of features with certain style of cyberbullying as the target, apply a few traditional machine learning methods, and evaluate success in terms of measures such as F1 score and accuracy  These works heavily rely on handcrafted features such as use of swear words  These methods tend to have low precision for cyberbullying detection as handcrafted features are not robust against variations in bullying style across SMPs and bullying topics  Only recently, deep learning has been applied for cyberbullying detection BIBREF8   Table TABREF27 summarizes important related work 
Deep Neural Network (DNN) Based Models
We experimented with four DNN based models for cyberbullying detection: CNN, LSTM, BLSTM, and BLSTM with attention  These models are listed in the increasing complexity of their neural architecture and amount of information used by these models  Please refer to Figure 1 for general architecture that we have used across four models  Various models differ only in the Neural Architecture layer while having identical rest of the layers  CNNs are providing state-of-the-results on extracting contextual feature for classification tasks in images, videos, audios, and text  Recently, CNNs were used for sentiment classification BIBREF9   Long Short Term Memory networks are a special kind of RNN, capable of learning long-term dependencies  Their ability to use their internal memory to process arbitrary sequences of inputs has been found to be effective for text classification BIBREF10   Bidirectional LSTMs BIBREF11 further increase the amount of input information available to the network by encoding information in both forward and backward direction  By using two directions, input information from both the past and future of the current time frame can be used  Attention mechanisms allow for a more direct dependence between the state of the model at different points in time  Importantly, attention mechanism lets the model learn what to attend to based on the input sentence and what it has produced so far 
The embedding layer processes a fixed size sequence of words  Each word is represented as a real-valued vector, also known as word embeddings  We have experimented with three methods for initializing word embeddings: random, GloVe BIBREF12 , and SSWE BIBREF13   During the training, model improves upon the initial word embeddings to learn task specific word embeddings  We have observed that these task specific word embeddings capture the SMP specific and topic specific style of cyberbullying  Using GloVe vectors over random vector initialization has been reported to improve performance for some NLP tasks  Most of the word embedding methods such as GloVe, consider only syntactic context of the word while ignoring the sentiment conveyed by the text  SSWE method overcomes this problem by incorporating the text sentiment as one of the parameters for word embedding generation  We experimented with various dimension size for word embeddings  Experimental results reported here are with dimension size as 50  There was no significant variation in results with dimension size ranging from 30 to 200 
To avoid overfitting, we used two dropout layers, one before the neural architecture layer and one after, with dropout rates of 0 25 and 0 5 respectively  Fully connected layer is a dense output layer with the number of neurons equal to the number of classes, followed by softmax layer that provides softmax activation  All our models are trained using backpropagation  The optimizer used for training is Adam and the loss function is categorical cross-entropy  Besides learning the network weights, these methods also learn task-specific word embeddings tuned towards the bullying labels (See Section SECREF21 )  Our code is available at: https://github com/sweta20/Detecting-Cyberbullying-Across-SMPs 
Experiments
Existing works have heavily relied on traditional machine learning models for cyberbullying detection  However, they do not study the performance of these models across multiple SMPs  We experimented with four models: logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and naive Bayes (NB), as these are used in previous works (Table TABREF27 )  We used two data representation methods: character n-gram and word unigram  Past work in the domain of detecting abusive language have showed that simple n-gram features are more powerful than linguistic and syntactic features, hand-engineered lexicons, and word and paragraph embeddings BIBREF14   As compared to DNN models, performance of all four traditional machine learning models was significantly lower  Please refer to Table TABREF11  
All DNN models reported here were implemented using Keras  We pre-process the data, subjecting it to standard operations of removal of stop words, punctuation marks and lowercasing, before annotating it to assigning respective labels to each comment  For each trained model, we report its performance after doing five-fold cross-validation  We use following short forms 
Effect of Oversampling Bullying Instances
The training datasets had a major problem of class imbalance with posts marked as bullying in the minority  As a result, all models were biased towards labeling the posts as non-bullying  To remove this bias, we oversampled the data from bullying class thrice  That is, we replicated bullying posts thrice in the training data  This significantly improved the performance of all DNN models with major leap in all three evaluation measures  Table TABREF17 shows the effect of oversampling for a variety of word embedding methods with BLSTM Attention as the detection model  Results for other models are similar BIBREF15   We can notice that oversampled datasets (F+, T+, W+) have far better performance than their counterparts (F, T, W respectively)  Oversampling particularly helps the smallest dataset Formspring where number of training instances for bullying class is quite small (825) as compared to other two datasets (about 5K and 13K)  We also experimented with varying the replication rate for bullying posts BIBREF15   However, we observed that for bullying posts, replication rate of three is good enough 
Choice of Initial Word Embeddings and Model
Initial word embeddings decide data representation for DNN models  However during the training, DNN models modify these initial word embeddings to learn task specific word embeddings  We have experimented with three methods to initialize word embeddings  Please refer to Table TABREF19   This table shows the effect of varying initial word embeddings for multiple DNN models across datasets  We can notice that initial word embeddings do not have a significant effect on cyberbullying detection when oversampling of bullying posts is done (rows corresponding to F+, T+, W+)  In the absence of oversampling (rows corresponding to F, T W), there is a gap in performance of simplest (CNN) and most complex (BLSTM with attention) models  However, this gap goes on reducing with the increase in the size of datasets 
Table TABREF20 compares the performance of four DNN models for three evaluation measures while using SSWE as the initial word embeddings  We have noticed that most of the time LSTM performs weaker than other three models  However, performance gap in the other three models is not significant 
Task Specific Word Embeddings
DNN models learn word embeddings over the training data  These learned embeddings across multiple datasets show the difference in nature and style of bullying across cyberbullying topics and SMPs  Here we report results for BLSTM with attention model  Results for other models are similar  We first verify that important words for each topic of cyberbullying form clusters in the learned embeddings  To enable the visualization of grouping, we reduced dimensionality with t-SNE BIBREF16 , a well-known technique for dimensionality reduction particularly well suited for visualization of high dimensional datasets  Please refer to Table TABREF22   This table shows important clusters observed in t-SNE projection of learned word embeddings  Each cluster shows that words most relevant to a particular topic of bullying form cluster 
We also observed changes in the meanings of the words across topics of cyberbullying  Table TABREF23 shows most similar words for a given query word for two datasets  Twitter dataset which is heavy on sexism and racism, considers word slave as similar to targets of racism and sexism  However, Wikipedia dataset that is about personal attacks does not show such bias 
Transfer Learning
We used transfer learning to check if the knowledge gained by DNN models on one dataset can be used to improve cyberbullying detection performance on other datasets  We report results where BLSTM with attention is used as the DNN model  Results for other models are similar BIBREF15   We experimented with following three flavors of transfer learning 
Complete Transfer Learning (TL1): In this flavor, a model trained on one dataset was directly used to detect cyberbullying in other datasets without any extra training  TL1 resulted in significantly low recall indicating that three datasets have different nature of cyberbullying with low overlap (Table TABREF25 )  However precision was relatively higher for TL1, indicating that DNN models are cautious in labeling a post as bully (Table TABREF25 )  TL1 also helps to measure similarity in nature of cyberbullying across three datasets  We can observe that bullying nature in Formspring and Wikipedia datasets is more similar to each other than the Twitter dataset  This can be inferred from the fact that with TL1, cyberbullying detection performance for Formspring dataset is higher when base model is Wikipedia (precision =0 51 and recall=0 66)as compared to Twitter as the base model (precision=0 38 and recall=0 04)  Similarly, for Wikipedia dataset, Formspring acts as a better base model than Twitter while using TL1 flavor of transfer learning  Nature of SMP might be a factor behind this similarity in nature of cyberbullying  Both Formspring and Wikipedia are task oriented social networks (Q&A and collaborative knowledge repository respectively) that allow anonymity and larger posts  Whereas communication on Twitter is short, free of anonymity and not oriented towards a particular task 
Feature Level Transfer Learning (TL2): In this flavor, a model was trained on one dataset and only learned word embeddings were transferred to another dataset for training a new model  As compared to TL1, recall score improved dramatically with TL2 (Table TABREF25 )  Improvement in precision was also significant (Table TABREF25 )  These improvements indicate that learned word embeddings are an essential part of knowledge transfer across datasets for cyberbullying detection 
Model Level Transfer Learning (TL3): In this flavor, a model was trained on one dataset and learned word embeddings, as well as network weights, were transferred to another dataset for training a new model  TL3 does not result in any significant improvement over TL2  This lack of improvement indicates that transfer of network weights is not essential for cyberbullying detection and learned word embeddings is the key knowledge gained by the DNN models 
DNN based models coupled with transfer learning beat the best-known results for all three datasets  Previous best F1 scores for Wikipedia BIBREF4 and Twitter BIBREF8 datasets were 0 68 and 0 93 respectively  We achieve F1 scores of 0 94 for both these datasets using BLSTM with attention and feature level transfer learning (Table TABREF25 )  For Formspring dataset, authors have not reported F1 score  Their method has accuracy score of 78 5% BIBREF2   We achieve F1 score of 0 95 with accuracy score of 98% for the same dataset 
Conclusion and Future Work
We have shown that DNN models can be used for cyberbullying detection on various topics across multiple SMPs using three datasets and four DNN models  These models coupled with transfer learning beat state of the art results for all three datasets  These models can be further improved with extra data such as information about the profile and social graph of users  Most of the current datasets do not provide any information about the severity of bullying  If such fine-grained information is made available, then cyberbullying detection models can be further improved to take a variety of actions depending on the perceived seriousness of the posts 

ground_truth: personal attack, racism, and sexism

racism, sexism, personal attack, not specifically about any single topic