Paper:
Detect Rumors in Microblog Posts Using Propagation Structure via Kernel Learning
How fake news goes viral via social media? How does its propagation pattern differ from real stories? In this paper, we attempt to address the problem of identifying rumors, i.e., fake information, out of microblog posts based on their propagation structure. We firstly model microblog posts diffusion with propagation trees, which provide valuable clues on how an original message is transmitted and developed over time. We then propose a kernel-based method called Propagation Tree Kernel, which captures high-order patterns differentiating different types of rumors by evaluating the similarities between their propagation tree structures. Experimental results on two real-world datasets demonstrate that the proposed kernel-based approach can detect rumors more quickly and accurately than state-ofthe-art rumor detection models.
1 Introduction
On November 9th, 2016, Eric Tucker, a grassroots user who had just about 40 followers on Twitter, tweeted his unverified observations about paid protesters being bused to attend anti-Trump demonstration in Austin, Texas. The tweet, which was proved false later, was shared over 16 thousand times on Twitter and 350 thousand times on Facebook within a couple of days, fueling a nation-wide conspiracy theory1. The diffusion of the story is illustrated as Figure 1 which gives the key spreading points of the story along the time line. We can see that after the initial post, the tweet
1https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/ business/media/how-fake-news-spreads. html
was shared or promoted by some influential online communities and users (including Trump himself), resulting in its wide spread.
A widely accepted definition of rumor is “unverified and instrumentally relevant information statements in circulation” (DiFonzo and Bordia, 2007). This unverified information may eventually turn out to be true, or partly or entirely false. In today’s ever-connected world, rumors can arise and spread at lightening speed thanks to social media platforms, which could not only be wrong, but be misleading and dangerous to the public society. Therefore, it is crucial to track and debunk such rumors in timely manner.
Journalists and fact-checking websites such as snopes.com have made efforts to track and detect rumors. However, such endeavor is manual, thus prone to poor coverage and low speed. Feature-based methods (Castillo et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2012; Ma et al., 2015) achieved certain success by employing large feature sets crafted from message contents, user profiles and holistic statistics of diffusion patterns (e.g., number of retweets, propagation time, etc.). But such an approach was over simplified as they ignored the dynamics of rumor propagation. Existing studies considering propagation characteristics mainly focused on the temporal features (Kwon et al., 2013, 2017) rather than the structure of propagation.
So, can the propagation structure make any difference for differentiating rumors from nonrumors? Recent studies showed that rumor spreaders are persons who want to get attention and popularity (Sunstein, 2014). However, popular users who get more attention on Twitter (e.g., with more followers) are actually less likely to spread rumor in a sense that the high audience size might hinder a user from participating in propagating unverified information (Kwon et al., 2017). Intuitively, for “successful” rumors being propagated as widely
2
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
Figure 1: An illustration of how the rumor about “buses used to ship in paid anti-Trump protesters to Austin, Texas” becomes viral, where ‘*’ indicates the level of influence.
as popular real news, initial spreaders (typically lack of popularity) must attract certain amount of broadcasting power, e.g., attention of influential users or communities that have a lot of audiences joining in promoting the propagation. We refer to this as a constrained mode propagation, relative to the open mode propagation of normal messages that everyone is open to share. Such different modes of propagation may imply some distinct propagation structures between rumors and nonrumors and even among different types of rumors.
Due to the complex nature of information diffusion, explicitly defining discriminant features based on propagation structure is difficult and biased. Figure 2 exemplifies the propagation structures of two Twitter posts, a rumor and a nonrumor, initiated by two users shown as the root nodes (in green color). The information flows here illustrates that the rumorous tweet is first posted by a low-impact user, then some popular users joining in who boost the spreading, but the non-rumorous tweet is initially posted by a popular user and directly spread by many general users; contentbased signal like various users’ stance (Zhao et al., 2015) and edge-based signal such as relative influence (Kwon et al., 2017) can also suggest the different nature of source tweets. Many of such implicit distinctions throughout propagation are hard to hand craft specifically using flat summary of statistics as previous work did. In addition, unlike representation learning for plain text, learning for representation of structures such as networks is not well studied in general. Therefore, traditional and latest text-based models (Castillo et al., 2011;
(a) A rumor (b) A non-rumor
Figure 2: Fragments of the propagation for two source tweets. Node size: denotes the popularity of the user who tweet the post (represented by # of followers); Red, black, blue node: content-wise the user express doubt/denial, support, neutrality in the tweet, respectively; Solid (dotted) edge: information flow from a more (less) popular user to a less (more) popular user; Dashed concentric circles: time stamps.
Ma et al., 2015, 2016) cannot be applied easily on such complex, dynamic structures.
To capture high-order propagation patterns for rumor detection, we firstly represent the propagation of each source tweet with a propagation tree which is formed by harvesting user’s interactions to one another triggered by the source tweet. Then, we propose a kernel-based data-driven method called Propagation Tree Kernel (PTK) to generate relevant features (i.e., subtrees) automatically for estimating the similarity between two propagation trees. Unlike traditional tree kernel (Moschitti, 2006; Zhang et al., 2008) for modeling syntactic structure based on parse tree, our propagation tree consists of nodes corresponding to microblog
3
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
posts, each represented as a continuous vector, and edges representing the direction of propagation and providing the context to individual posts. The basic idea is to find and capture the salient substructures in the propagation trees indicative of rumors. We also extend PTK into a context-enriched PTK (cPTK) to enhance the model by considering different propagation paths from source tweet to the roots of subtrees, which capture the context of transmission. Extensive experiments on two real-world Twitter datasets show that the proposed methods outperform state-of-the-art rumor detection models with large margin.
Moreover, most existing approaches regard rumor detection as a binary classification problem, which predicts a candidate hypothesis as rumor or not. Since a rumor often begins as unverified and later turns out to be confirmed as true or false, or remains unverified (Zubiaga et al., 2016), here we consider a set of more practical, finer-grained classes: false rumor, true rumor, unverified rumor, and non-rumor, which becomes an even more challenging problem.
2 Related Work
Tracking misinformation or debunking rumors has been a hot research topic in multiple disciplines (DiFonzo and Bordia, 2007; Morris et al., 2012; Rosnow, 1991). Castillo et al. (2011) studied information credibility on Twitter using a wide range of hand-crafted features. Following that, various features corresponding to message contents, user profiles and statistics of propagation patterns were proposed in many studies (Yang et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2015). Zhao et al. (2015) focused on early rumor detection by using regular expressions for finding questing and denying tweets as the key for debunking rumor. All such approaches are over simplistic because they ignore the dynamic propagation patterns given the rich structures of social media data.
Some studies focus on finding temporal patterns for understanding rumor diffusion. Kown et al. (2013; 2017) introduced a time-series fitting model based on the temporal properties of tweet volume. Ma et al. (2015) extended the model using time series to capture the variation of features over time. Friggeri et al. (2014) and Hannak et al. (2014) studied the structure of misinformation cascades by analyzing comments linking to
rumor debunking websites. More recently, Ma et al. (2016) used recurrent neural networks to learn the representations of rumor signals from tweet text at different times. Our work will consider temporal, structural and linguistic signals in a unified framework based on propagation tree kernel.
Most previous work formulated the task as classification at event level where an event is comprised of a number of source tweets, each being associated with a group of retweets and replies. Here we focus on classifying a given source tweet regarding a claim which is a finer-grained task. Similar setting was also considered in (Wu et al., 2015; Qazvinian et al., 2011).
Kernel methods are designed to evaluate the similarity between two objects, and tree kernel specifically addresses structured data which has been successfully applied for modeling syntactic information in many natural language tasks such as syntactic parsing (Collins and Duffy, 2001), question-answering (Moschitti, 2006), semantic analysis (Moschitti, 2004), relation extraction (Zhang et al., 2008) and machine translation (Sun et al., 2010). These kernels are not suitable for modeling the social media propagation structures because the nodes are not given as discrete values like part-of-speech tags, but are represented as high dimensional real-valued vectors. Our proposed method is a substantial extension of tree kernel for modeling such structures.
3 Representation of Tweets Propagation
On microblogging platforms, the follower/friend relationship embeds shared interests among the users. Once a user has posted a tweet, all his followers will receive the tweet. Furthermore, Twitter allows a user to retweet or comment another user’s post, so that the information could reach beyond the network of the original creator.
We model the propagation of each source tweet as a tree structure T (r) = 〈V,E〉, where r is the source tweet as well as the root of the tree, V refers to a set of nodes each representing a responsive post (i.e., retweet or reply) of an user at a certain time to the source tweet r which initiates the circulation, and E is a set of directed edges corresponding to the response relation among the nodes in V . If there exists a directed edge from vi to vj , it means vj is a direct response to vi.
More specifically, each node v ∈ V is a tuple v = (uv, wv, tv), which provides the following in-
4
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
formation: uv is the creator of the post, wv represents the text content of the post, and tv is the time lag between the source tweet r and v. In our case, uv contains attributes of the user such as # of followers/friends, verification status, # of history posts, etc., wv is a vector of bag-of-words representing the post’s content.
4 Propagation Tree Kernel Modeling
In this section, we describe our rumor detection model based on propagation trees using kernel method called Propagation Tree Kernel (PTK). Our task is, given a propagation tree T (r) of a source tweet r, to predict the label of r.
4.1 Background of Tree Kernel
Before presenting our proposed algorithm, we briefly present the traditional tree kernel, which our PTK model is based on.
Tree kernel was designed to compute the syntactic and semantic similarity between two natural language sentences by implicitly counting the number of common subtrees between their corresponding parse trees. Given a syntactic parse tree, each node with its children is associated with a grammar production rule. Figure 3 illustrates the syntactic parse tree of “cut a tree” and its subtrees. A subtree is defined as any subgraph which have more than one nodes, with the restriction that entire (not partial) rule productions must be included. For example, the fragment [NP [D a]] is excluded because it contains only part of the production NP→ D N (Collins and Duffy, 2001).
Following Collins and Duffy (2001), given two parse trees T1 and T2, the kernel function K(T1, T2) is defined as:∑
vi∈V1 ∑ vj∈V2 ∆(vi, vj) (1)
where V1 and V2 are the sets of all nodes respectively in T1 and T2, and each node is associated with a production rule, and ∆(vi, vj) evaluates the common subtrees rooted at vi and vj . ∆(vi, vj) can be computed using the following recursive procedure (Collins and Duffy, 2001):
1) if the production rules at vi and vj are different, then ∆(vi, vj) = 0;
2) else if the production rules at vi and vj are same, and vi and vj have only leaf children (i.e., they are pre-terminal symbols), then ∆(vi, vj) = λ;
where nc(v) is the number of children of node v, ch(v, k) is the k-th child of node v, and λ (0 < λ ≤ 1) is a decay factor. λ = 1 yields the number of common subtrees; λ < 1 down weighs the contribution of larger subtrees to make the kernel value less variable with respect to subtree size.
4.2 Our PTK Model
To classify propagation trees, we can calculate the similarity between the trees, which is supposed to reflect the distinction of different types of rumors and non-rumors based on structural, linguistic and temporal properties. However, existing tree kernels cannot be readily applied on propagation trees because 1) unlike parse tree where the node is represented by enumerable nominal value (e.g., part-of-speech tag), the propagation tree node is given as a vector of continuous numerical values representing the basic properties of the node; 2) the similarity of two parse trees is based on the count of common subtrees, for which the commonality of subtrees is evaluated by checking if the same production rules and the same children are associated with the nodes in two subtrees being compared, whereas in our context the similarity function should be defined softly since hardly two nodes from different trees are same.
With the representation of propagation tree, we first define a function f to evaluate the similarity between two nodes vi and vj (we simplify node representation such as vi = (ui, wi, ti)):
f(vi, vj) = e −t (αE(ui, uj) + (1− α)J (ci, cj))
where t = |ti − tj | is the absolute difference between the time lags of vi and vj , E and J are user-based similarity and content-based similarity, respectively, and α is the trade-off parameter. The intuition of using exponential function of t to
5
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
scale down the similarity is to capture the discriminant signals or patterns at the different stages of propagation. For example, a questioning message posted very early may signal a false rumor while the same posted far later from initial post may indicate the rumor is still unverified, despite that the two messages are semantically similar.
The user-based similarity is defined as an Euclidean distance E(ui, uj) = ||ui − uj ||2, where ui and uj are the user vectors of node vi and vj and || • ||2 is the 2-norm of a vector. Here E is used to capture the characteristics of users participating in spreading rumors as discriminant signals, throughout the entire stage of propagation.
Contentwise, we use Jaccard coefficient to measure the similarity of post content:
J (ci, cj) = |Ngram(ci) ∩Ngram(cj)| |Ngram(ci) ∪Ngram(cj)|
where ci and cj are content words in two nodes. For n-grams here, we adopt both uni-grams and bi-grams. It can capture cue terms e.g., ‘false’, ‘debunk’, ‘not true’, etc. commonly occurring in rumors but not in non-rumors.
Given two propagation trees T1 = 〈V1, E1〉 and T2 = 〈V2, E2〉, PTK aims to compute the similarity between T1 and T2 iteratively based on enumerating all pairs of most similar subtrees. First, for each node vi ∈ V1, we obtain v′i ∈ V2, the most similar node of vi from V2:
v′i = arg max vj∈V2 f(vi, vj)
Similarly, for each vj ∈ V2, we obtain v′j ∈ V1:
v′j = arg max vi∈V1 f(vi, vj)
Then, the propagation tree kernel KP (T1, T2) is defined as:∑
vi∈V1
Λ(vi, v ′ i) + ∑ vj∈V2 Λ(v′j , vj) (2)
where Λ(v, v′) evaluates the similarity of two subtrees rooted at v and v′, which is computed recursively as follows:
1) if v or v′ are leaf nodes, then Λ(v, v′) = f(v, v′);
2) else Λ(v, v′) = f(v, v′) ∏min(nc(v),nc(v′)) k=1 (1 +
Λ(ch(v, k), ch(v′, k)))
Note that unlike traditional tree kernel, in PTK the node similarity f ∈ [0, 1] is used for softly counting similar subtrees instead of common subtrees. Also, λ in tree kernel is not needed as subtree size is not an issue here thanks to node similarity f .
PTK aims to capture discriminant patterns from propagation trees inclusive of user, content and temporal traits, which is inspired by prior analyses on rumors spreading, e.g., user information can be a strong clue in the initial broadcast, content features are important throughout entire propagation periods, and structural and temporal patterns help for longitudinal diffusion (Zubiaga et al., 2016; Kwon et al., 2017).
4.3 Context-Sensitive Extension of PTK
One defect of PTK is that it ignores the clues outside the subtrees, e.g., how the information propagates from source post to the current subtree. Intuitively, propagation paths provide further clue for determining the truthfulness of information since they embed the route and context of how the propagation happens. Therefore, we propose contextsensitive TPK (cPTK) by considering the propagation paths from the root of the tree to the roots of subtrees, which shares similar intuition with the context-sensitive tree kernel (Zhou et al., 2007).
For a propagation tree node v ∈ T (r), let Lrv be the length (i.e., # of nodes) of the propagation path from root r to v, and v[x] be the x-th ancestor of v on the path starting from v (0 ≤ x < Lrv, v[0] = v, v[Lrv − 1] = r). cPTK evaluates the similarity between two trees T1(r1) and T2(r2) as follows:
∑ vi∈V1 L r1 vi −1∑ x=0 Λx(vi, v ′ i) + ∑ vj∈V2 L r2 vj −1∑ x=0 Λx(v ′ j , vj)
(3) where Λx(v, v′) measures the similarity of subtrees rooted at v[x] and v′[x] for context-sensitive evaluation, which is computed as follows:
1) if x > 0, Λx(v, v′) = f(v[x], v′[x]), where v[x] and v′[x] are the x-th ancestor nodes of v and v′ on the respective propagation path.
2) else Λx(v, v′) = Λ(v, v′), namely PTK.
Clearly, PTK is a special case of cPTK when x = 0 (see equation 3). cPTK evaluates the occurrence of both context-free (without considering ancestors on propagation paths) and contextsensitive cases.
6
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
4.4 Rumor Detection via Kernel Learning
The advantage of kernel-based method is that we can avoid painstakingly engineering the features. This is possible because the kernel function can explore an implicit feature space when calculating the similarity between two objects (Culotta and Sorensen, 2004).
We incorporate the proposed tree kernel functions, i.e., PTK (equation 2) or cPTK (equation 3), into a supervised learning framework, for which we utilize a kernel-based SVM classifier. We treat each tree as an instance, and its similarity values with all training instances as feature space. Therefore, the kernel matrix of training set is m × m and that of test set is n×m where m and n are the sizes of training and test sets, respectively.
For our multi-class task, we perform a one-vsall classification for each label and then assign the one with the highest likelihood among the four, i.e., non-rumor, false rumor, true rumor or unverified rumor. We choose this method due to interpretability of results, similar to recent work on occupational class classification (Preoţiuc-Pietro et al., 2015; Lukasik et al., 2015).
5 Experiments and Results
5.1 Data Sets
To our knowledge, there is no public dataset available for classifying propagation trees, where we need source tweets, more accurately, tree roots together with propagation structure, to be appropriately annotated.
We constructed our datasets based on a couple of reference datasets, namely Twitter15 (Liu et al., 2015) and Twitter16 (Ma et al., 2016). The original datasets were used for binary classification of rumor and non-rumor with respect to a given event that contain its relevant tweets.
First, we extracted the popular source tweets2 that are highly retweeted or replied. We then collected all the propagation threads (i.e., retweets and replies) for these source tweets. Because Twitter API cannot retrieve the retweets or replies, we gathered the retweet users for a given tweet from Twrench3 and crawled the replies through Twitter’s web interface.
Finally, we annotated the source tweets by referring to the events they are from. We first turned
2Though unpopular tweets could be false, we ignore them as they do not draw much attention and are hardly impactful
3https://twren.ch
the label of each event in Twitter15 and Twitter16 from binary to quaternary according to the veracity tag of the article in rumor debunking websites (e.g., snopes.com, Emergent.info, etc). Then we labeled the source tweets by following these rules: 1) Source tweets from unverified rumor events or non-rumor events are labeled same as event label; 2) For a source tweet in false rumor event, we flip over the label and assign true to the source tweet if it expresses denial type of stance; otherwise, the label is assigned as false; 3) The analogous flipover/not-change rule applies to source tweets from true rumor events.
Table 1 gives statistics on the resulting datasets.
5.2 Experimental Setup
We compare our kernel-based method against the following baselines:
SVM-TS: A linear SVM classification model that uses time-series to model the variation of a set of hand-crafted features (Ma et al., 2015).
DTR: A Decision-Tree-based Ranking method to identify trending rumors (Zhao et al., 2015), which searches for enquiry phrases and clusters disputed factual claims, and ranked the clustered results based on statistical features.
DTC and SVM-RBF: The Twitter information credibility model using Decision Tree Classifier (Castillo et al., 2011) and the SVM-based model with RBF kernel (Yang et al., 2012), respectively, both using hand-crafted features based on the overall statistics of the posts.
RFC: The Random Forest Classifier proposed by Kwon et al. (2017) using three parameters to fit the temporal properties and an extensive set of hand-crafted features related to the user, linguistic and structure characteristics.
GRU: The RNN-based rumor detection model proposed by Ma et al. (2016) with gated recurrent
7
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
Table 2: Rumor detection results (NR: NonRumor; FR: False Rumor; TR: True Rumor; UR: Unverified Rumor)
(a) Twitter15 Dataset
Method NR FR TR URAcc. F1 F1 F1 F1 DTR 0.409 0.501 0.311 0.364 0.473 SVM-RBF 0.318 0.455 0.037 0.218 0.225 DTC 0.454 0.733 0.355 0.317 0.415
SVM-TS 0.544 0.796 0.472 0.404 0.483 RFC 0.565 0.810 0.422 0.401 0.543 GRU 0.646 0.792 0.574 0.608 0.592 BOW 0.548 0.564 0.524 0.582 0.512 PTK- 0.657 0.734 0.624 0.673 0.612
cPTK- 0.697 0.760 0.645 0.696 0.689 PTK 0.710 0.825 0.685 0.688 0.647
cPTK 0.750 0.804 0.698 0.765 0.733
(b) Twitter16 Dataset
Method NR FR TR URAcc. F1 F1 F1 F1 DTR 0.414 0.394 0.273 0.630 0.344 SVM-RBF 0.321 0.423 0.085 0.419 0.037 DTC 0.465 0.643 0.393 0.419 0.403
SVM-TS 0.574 0.755 0.420 0.571 0.526 RFC 0.585 0.752 0.415 0.547 0.563 GRU 0.633 0.772 0.489 0.686 0.593 BOW 0.585 0.553 0.556 0.655 0.578 PTK- 0.653 0.673 0.640 0.722 0.567
cPTK- 0.702 0.711 0.664 0.816 0.608 PTK 0.722 0.784 0.690 0.786 0.644
cPTK 0.732 0.740 0.709 0.836 0.686
unit for representation learning of high-level features from relevant posts over time.
BOW: A naive baseline we worked by representing the text in each tree using bag-of-words and building the rumor classifier with linear SVM.
Our models: PTK and cPTK are our full PTK and cPTK models, respectively; PTK- and cPTKare the setting only using content while ignoring user properties.
We implemented DTC and RFC with Weka4, SVM models with LibSVM5 and GRU with Theano6. We held out 10% of the trees in each dataset for model tuning, and for the rest of the trees, we performed 3-fold cross-validation. We used accuracy, F1 measure as evaluation metrics.
5.3 Experimental Results
Table 2 show that our proposed methods outperform all the baselines on both datasets.
4http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/ 5https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/˜cjlin/
libsvm/ 6http://deeplearning.net/software/ theano/
Among all baselines, GRU performs the best, which learns the low-dimensional representation of responsive tweets by capturing the textual and temporal information. This indicates the effectiveness of complex signals indicative of rumors beyond cue words or phrases (e.g., “what?”, “really?”, “not sure”, etc.). This also justifies the good performance of BOW even though it only uses uni-grams for representation. Although DTR uses a set of regular expressions, we found only 19.59% and 22.21% tweets in our datasets containing these expressions. That is why the results of DTR are not satisfactory.
SVM-TS and RFC are comparable because both of them utilize an extensive set of features especially focusing on temporal traits. But none of the models can directly incorporate structured propagation patterns for deep similarity comparison between propagation trees. SVM-RBF, although using a non-linear kernel, is based on traditional hand-crafted features instead of the structural kernel like ours. So, they performed obviously worse than our approach.
Representation learning methods like GRU cannot easily utilize complex structural information since learning features from networked data is not studied well. Our models capture complex propagation patterns from structured data rich of linguistic, user and temporal signals. The superiority of our models is clear: PTK- which only uses text is already better than GRU, demonstrating the importance of propagation structures. PTK that combines text and user yields better results on both datasets, implying that both properties are complementary and PTK integrating flat and structured information is more effective.
It is also observed that cPTK outperforms PTK except for non-rumor class. This suggests the context-sensitive modeling based on PTK is effective for different types of rumors, but for nonrumors, it seems that considering context of propagation path is not always helpful. This might be due to the generally weak signal from node properties on the paths during non-rumor’s diffusion as user distribution patterns in non-rumors are not as obvious as in rumors. This is not an issue in cPTK- since user information is not considered. Over all classes, cPTK achieves the highest accuracies on both datasets.
Furthermore, we observe that all the baseline methods perform much better on non-rumors than
8
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
Figure 4: The example subtree of a rumor captured by the algorithm at early stage of propagation
on rumors. This is because the exiting features were defined for binary (rumor vs. non-rumor) classification in previous works. So, they do not perform well for finer-grained classes. Our approach can differentiate various classes much better by deep, detailed comparison of different patterns based on propagation structure.
5.4 Early Detection Performance
Detecting rumors at an early stage of propagation is very important so that preventive measures could be taken. In early detection task, all the posts after a detection deadline are invisible during test. The earlier the deadline, the less propagation information can be available.
Figure 5 shows the performances of our PTK and cPTK models versus RFC (the best system based on feature engineering), GRU (the best system based on RNN) and DTR (an early-detectionspecific algorithm) against various deadlines. In the first few hours, our approach demonstrates superior early detection performance than other models. Particularly, cPTK achieve 75% accuracy on Twitter15 and 73% on Twitter16 within 24 hours, that is much faster than other models.
Our analysis shows that rumors typically demonstrate more complex propagation substructures especially at early stage. Figure 4 shows a detected subtree of a false rumor spread in its first few hours, where influential users are somehow captured to boost its propagation and the information flows among the users with an obvious unpopular-to-popular-to-unpopular trend in terms
of user popularity, but such pattern was not witnessed in non-rumors in early stage. Many textual signals (underlined) can also be observed in that early period. Our method can learn such structures and patterns naturally, but it is difficult to know and hand-craft them in feature engineering.
6 Conclusion
We propose a novel approach for detecting rumors in microblog posts based on kernel learning method using propagation trees. A propagation tree encodes the spread of a hypothesis (i.e., a source tweet) with complex structured patterns and flat information regarding content, user and time associated with the tree nodes. Enlightened by tree kernel techniques, our kernel method learns discriminant clues for identifying rumors of finer-grained levels by directly measuring the similarity among propagation trees via kernel functions. Experiments show that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art baselines with large margin for both general and early rumor detection tasks.
9
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899

Review:
- Strengths:  The authors propose a kernel-based method that captures high-order patterns differentiting different types of rumors by evaluating the similarities between their propagation tree structures.  - Weaknesses:  maybe the maths is not always clear in Sect. 4.   - General Discussion:  The authors propose a propagation tree kernel, a kernel-based method that captures high-order patterns differentiating types of rumors by evaluating the similarities between their propagation tree structures. The proposed approach detects rumors more quickly and with a higher accuracy compared to the one obtained by the state of the art methods.  The data set should be made public for research purposes.  Typos need to be fixed (e.g. 326 3277: any subgraph which havetohas; 472: TPKtoPTK; 644: Table 2 show+s), missing information needs to be added (875: where was it published?), information needs to be in the same format (e.g. 822 vs 897). Figure 5 is a bit small.