Are We Safe Yet? The Limitations of Distributional Features for Fake News Detection

Automatic detection of fake news — texts that are deceitful and misleading — is a long outstanding and largely unsolved problem. Worse yet, recent developments in language modeling allow for the automatic generation of such texts. One approach that has recently gained attention detects these fake news using stylometry-based provenance, i.e. tracing a text’s writing style back to its producing source and determining whether the source is malicious. This was shown to be highly effective under the assumption that legitimate text is produced by humans, and fake text is produced by a language model. In this work, we identify a fundamental problem with provenance-based approaches against attackers that auto-generate fake news: fake and legitimate texts can originate from nearly identical sources. First, a legitimate text might be auto-generated in a similar process to that of fake text, and second, attackers can automatically corrupt articles originating from legitimate human sources. We demonstrate these issues by simulating attacks in such settings, and find that the provenance approach fails to defend against them. Our findings highlight the importance of assessing the veracity of the text rather than solely relying on its style or source. We also open up a discussion on the types of benchmarks that should be used to evaluate neural fake news detectors.

[1]  Alexander M. Rush,et al.  GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text , 2019, ACL.

[2]  Preslav Nakov,et al.  Automatic Stance Detection Using End-to-End Memory Networks , 2018, NAACL.

[3]  Ali Farhadi,et al.  Defending Against Neural Fake News , 2019, NeurIPS.

[4]  Preslav Nakov,et al.  Predicting Factuality of Reporting and Bias of News Media Sources , 2018, EMNLP.

[5]  Juhani Rudanko,et al.  Towards a description of negatively conditioned subject operator inversion in English , 1982 .

[6]  Andreas Vlachos,et al.  Fact Checking: Task definition and dataset construction , 2014, LTCSS@ACL.

[7]  Andreas Vlachos,et al.  FEVER: a Large-scale Dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification , 2018, NAACL.

[8]  William Yang Wang “Liar, Liar Pants on Fire”: A New Benchmark Dataset for Fake News Detection , 2017, ACL.

[9]  Philip Bachman,et al.  NewsQA: A Machine Comprehension Dataset , 2016, Rep4NLP@ACL.

[10]  Percy Liang,et al.  Unifying Human and Statistical Evaluation for Natural Language Generation , 2019, NAACL.

[11]  Yejin Choi,et al.  The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration , 2019, ICLR.

[12]  Eunsol Choi,et al.  Truth of Varying Shades: Analyzing Language in Fake News and Political Fact-Checking , 2017, EMNLP.

[13]  Sameer Singh,et al.  Barack’s Wife Hillary: Using Knowledge Graphs for Fact-Aware Language Modeling , 2019, ACL.

[14]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  Where the Truth Lies: Explaining the Credibility of Emerging Claims on the Web and Social Media , 2017, WWW.

[15]  Lukasz Kaiser,et al.  Attention is All you Need , 2017, NIPS.

[16]  Verónica Pérez-Rosas,et al.  Automatic Detection of Fake News , 2017, COLING.

[17]  Iryna Gurevych,et al.  A Retrospective Analysis of the Fake News Challenge Stance-Detection Task , 2018, COLING.

[18]  Andreas Vlachos,et al.  Automated Fact Checking: Task Formulations, Methods and Future Directions , 2018, COLING.

[19]  Ilya Sutskever,et al.  Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners , 2019 .

[20]  Marc'Aurelio Ranzato,et al.  Real or Fake? Learning to Discriminate Machine from Human Generated Text , 2019, ArXiv.

[21]  Sinan Aral,et al.  The spread of true and false news online , 2018, Science.

[22]  Kam-Fai Wong,et al.  Sentence-Level Evidence Embedding for Claim Verification with Hierarchical Attention Networks , 2019, ACL.

[23]  Regina Barzilay,et al.  Towards Debiasing Fact Verification Models , 2019, EMNLP.