比较不同机器学习和深度学习模型在假新闻检测中的有效性

{"title":"比较不同机器学习和深度学习模型在假新闻检测中的有效性","authors":"","doi":"10.52783/jier.v3i2.207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today's information ecosystem, with its abundance of fake news, presents serious obstacles to accurate reporting. Several machine learning and deep learning models have been implemented to help in the detection of fake news. In this research, we evaluate the merits and weaknesses of various algorithms for spotting false news. Deep learning models LSTM and CNN are examined alongside popular machine learning models such as Gaussian Naive Bayes, Decision Tree Classifier, Random Forest Classifier, XGBoost, and LightGBM. Accuracy is the metric against which the models are measured. In terms of accuracy in classifying false news stories, the results demonstrate that the deep learning models, and in particular LSTM and CNN, perform better than the machine learning models. While CNN is good at capturing structural information and local relationships, LSTM excels at capturing long-term dependencies and language patterns. The research emphasises the superiority of deep learning models in detecting false news, providing useful insights for the creation of trustworthy detection systems. The results pave the way for more studies into false news detection methods and contribute to their development.","PeriodicalId":201034,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informatics Education and Research","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Effectiveness of Different Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Fake News Detection\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.52783/jier.v3i2.207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Today's information ecosystem, with its abundance of fake news, presents serious obstacles to accurate reporting. Several machine learning and deep learning models have been implemented to help in the detection of fake news. In this research, we evaluate the merits and weaknesses of various algorithms for spotting false news. Deep learning models LSTM and CNN are examined alongside popular machine learning models such as Gaussian Naive Bayes, Decision Tree Classifier, Random Forest Classifier, XGBoost, and LightGBM. Accuracy is the metric against which the models are measured. In terms of accuracy in classifying false news stories, the results demonstrate that the deep learning models, and in particular LSTM and CNN, perform better than the machine learning models. While CNN is good at capturing structural information and local relationships, LSTM excels at capturing long-term dependencies and language patterns. The research emphasises the superiority of deep learning models in detecting false news, providing useful insights for the creation of trustworthy detection systems. The results pave the way for more studies into false news detection methods and contribute to their development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":201034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Informatics Education and Research\",\"volume\":\"112 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Informatics Education and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52783/jier.v3i2.207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Informatics Education and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52783/jier.v3i2.207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如今的信息生态系统充斥着大量假新闻,给准确报道带来了严重障碍。已经实施了几种机器学习和深度学习模型来帮助检测假新闻。在本研究中,我们评估了各种识别假新闻的算法的优缺点。深度学习模型LSTM和CNN与流行的机器学习模型(如高斯朴素贝叶斯、决策树分类器、随机森林分类器、XGBoost和LightGBM)一起进行了研究。准确性是衡量模型的标准。就虚假新闻故事分类的准确性而言,结果表明深度学习模型,特别是LSTM和CNN,比机器学习模型表现得更好。CNN擅长捕捉结构信息和局部关系,而LSTM擅长捕捉长期依赖关系和语言模式。该研究强调了深度学习模型在检测假新闻方面的优势,为创建可信的检测系统提供了有用的见解。研究结果为进一步研究假新闻检测方法铺平了道路,并有助于假新闻检测方法的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the Effectiveness of Different Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Fake News Detection
Today's information ecosystem, with its abundance of fake news, presents serious obstacles to accurate reporting. Several machine learning and deep learning models have been implemented to help in the detection of fake news. In this research, we evaluate the merits and weaknesses of various algorithms for spotting false news. Deep learning models LSTM and CNN are examined alongside popular machine learning models such as Gaussian Naive Bayes, Decision Tree Classifier, Random Forest Classifier, XGBoost, and LightGBM. Accuracy is the metric against which the models are measured. In terms of accuracy in classifying false news stories, the results demonstrate that the deep learning models, and in particular LSTM and CNN, perform better than the machine learning models. While CNN is good at capturing structural information and local relationships, LSTM excels at capturing long-term dependencies and language patterns. The research emphasises the superiority of deep learning models in detecting false news, providing useful insights for the creation of trustworthy detection systems. The results pave the way for more studies into false news detection methods and contribute to their development.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信