# Language-Independent Fake News Detection: English, Portuguese, and Spanish Mutual Features
## 4 Analysis and Discussions
For example, for the upper_case feature, the order of \(legitimate>fake>satire\) is maintained on all three corpora being analyzed. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**EN**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PT**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ES**} \\ \hline  & **Fake** & **Legitimate** & **Satire** & **Fake** & **Legitimate** & **Satire** & **Fake** & **Legitimate** & **Satire** \\ \hline avg\_word\_size & 4.40 & 4.30 & 4.18 & 4.14 & 4.28 & 4.38 & 4.30 & 4.35 & 4.40 \\ \hline entities\_ratio & 0.007 & 0.008 & 0.009 & 0.013 & 0.011 & 0.009 & 0.008 & 0.009 & 0.005 \\ \hline oov\_ratio & 0.100 & 0.094 & 0.009 & 0.062 & 0.050 & 0.079 & 0.023 & 0.019 & 0.036 \\ \hline polarity & 0.011 & \(-\)0.075 & 0.010 & \(-\)0.262 & \(-\)0.303 & \(-\)0.245 & \(-\)0.411 & \(-\)0.388 & \(-\)0.299 \\ \hline pos\_diversity\_ratio & 0.09 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 0.44 & 0.22 & 0.50 & 0.21 & 0.15 & 0.20 \\ \hline quotes\_count & 8.14 & 23.43 & 7.26 & 5.00 & 6.80 & 6.06 & 5.29 & 8.90 & 0.01 \\ \hline quotes\_ratio & 0.002 & 0.004 & 0.003 & 0.003 & 0.002 & 0.003 & 0.005 & 0.001 & 0.000 \\ \hline ratio\_ADJ & 0.078 & 0.082 & 0.081 & 0.055 & 0.057 & 0.065 & 0.041 & 0.044 & 0.045 \\ \hline ratio\_ADP & 0.101 & 0.112 & 0.110 & 0.121 & 0.140 & 0.128 & 0.144 & 0.155 & 0.153 \\ \hline ratio\_ADV & 0.042 & 0.045 & 0.049 & 0.039 & 0.028 & 0.036 & 0.038 & 0.037 & 0.051 \\ \hline ratio\_DET & 0.078 & 0.082 & 0.089 & 0.101 & 0.105 & 0.111 & 0.123 & 0.125 & 0.130 \\ \hline ratio\_NOUN & 0.185 & 0.178 & 0.175 & 0.168 & 0.174 & 0.193 & 0.164 & 0.180 & 0.173 \\ \hline ratio\_PRON & 0.028 & 0.029 & 0.031 & 0.053 & 0.039 & 0.053 & 0.034 & 0.034 & 0.041 \\ \hline ratio\_PROPN & 0.11 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.11 & 0.10 & 0.09 & 0.08 & 0.11 & 0.06 \\ \hline ratio\_PUNCT & 0.124 & 0.128 & 0.109 & 0.102 & 0.101 & 0.103 & 0.149 & 0.137 & 0.132 \\ \hline ratio\_SYM & 0.003 & 0.001 & 0.004 & 0.011 & 0.012 & 0.011 & 0.012 & 0.026 & 0.001 \\ \hline ratio\_VERB & 0.149 & 0.152 & 0.160 & 0.095 & 0.078 & 0.088 & 0.126 & 0.117 & 0.139 \\ \hline sentences & 34.0 & 49.9 & 25.1 & 10.3 & 17.2 & 12.0 & 13.2 & 67.3 & 8.1 \\ \hline trr & 0.522 & 0.439 & 0.491 & 0.596 & 0.412 & 0.669 & 0.532 & 0.457 & 0.562 \\ \hline upper\_case & 132 & 199 & 90 & 66 & 126 & 31 & 41 & 212 & 28 \\ \hline words\_per\_sents & 19.7 & 25.1 & 22.7 & 17.9 & 20.6 & 27.5 & 37.9 & 36.6 & 31.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Average values of all features grouped by class and by language corpus, in alphabetical order. The Type-Token Ratio (TTR) values on all three corpora are lower for legitimate news, followed by fake or satirical. Since TTR measures the lexical diversity of text vocabulary, this may lead to the belief that legitimate news has a poorer vocabulary. However, we must consider that morphological complexity may change depending on the language, where languages with greater complexity may affect the result obtained in TTR. Nonetheless, in this case, this is probably due to the size of the text, because fake and satirical news tends to be smaller on all corpora. For all three corpora, the same behavior was observed in all types of news, meaning that language complexity did not affect analysis. An analogous phenomenon was observed in both Reference [22; 24]. Some other features are noteworthy due to the pattern found in PT and ES corpora, which may be explained by similarities between these languages [57]. The average word size (avg_word_size) is an example of this pattern. On EN the highest values are from the fake class, followed by legitimate and satirical classes, but the behavior is reversed on PT and ES. The ratio of OOV words (oov_ratio) follows the order \(fake>legitimate>satire\) on EN, but \(satire>fake>legitimate\) on PT and ES. Similar patterns are also found on ratio_ADJ and ratio_SYM features. Finally, regarding the proposed features, i.e., pos_diversity_ratio, quotes_ratio, oov_ratio, and entities_ratio, it is important to mention their importance ranking as 1 st, 6 th, 9 th, and 11 th positions, respectively, as Figure 7 shows.