Assessing the Performance of AI Models in Misinformation Detection Using Predefined Social Noise Constructs
Organizations: East Texas A&M University, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, Commerce, Texas, USA
Abstract
Social media platforms generate vast volumes of user-generated content that often obscure meaningful discourse, a phenomenon conceptualized as social noise. While existing misinformation detection methods primarily focus on factual verification, they largely overlook the role of social noise in amplifying misinformation. This study assesses the performance of six text-based models and a graph neural network (GNN) in mitigating the effects of misinformation using predefined social noise constructs. The dataset consists of 500,000 tweets collected from the X platform using the Ukraine hashtag during the Russia-Ukraine conflict from March 2024 to March 2025. Advanced machine learning models achieve strong performance, with accuracies ranging from 79.94% to 97.17%. RoBERTa demonstrates the highest performance, with an accuracy of 97.17%, Cohen's kappa of 0.9660, MCC of 0.9660, and AUC of 0.9977. The GNN achieves an accuracy of 64.52% and an AUC of 0.899, demonstrating performance above random-chance classification by exploiting the relational structure between tweets. All text-based models achieve kappa values greater than 0.75, indicating substantial overall agreement. Explainable AI analysis using LIME reveals that 89.6% of predictive weight is attributed to contextual features rather than isolated keywords. The findings highlight that integrating social noise into AI pipelines enhances misinformation detection and supports more effective mitigation strategies in large-scale social media environments.
Figures & tables
| Model | Image | Relationship | Conflict | Cultural | Affiliation | Norms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Curation | Management | Engagement | Agency | & Politics | & Beliefs | |
| RoBERTa (Pre-trained Transformer) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| BiLSTM + Multi-head Self-Attention | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Multi-scale Residual CNN + SE Attention | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| XGBoost | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Random Forest | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Model | Configuration | Parameters |
|---|---|---|
| GCN | Symmetric spectral normalization with a residual skip connection from the input layer to the first hidden layer. Hidden dimension: 256. | 1,608,199 |
| GAT | Two-layer attention mechanism. The first two layers used eight parallel attention heads with concatenated outputs to maintain a hidden size of 256; the output layer used a single head. | 839,445 |
| GraphSAGE | Mean-based inductive neighborhood aggregation, updating each node representation by concatenating its embedding with the mean of its neighbors’ embeddings. | 1,675,271 |
| GIN | Weisfeiler–Leman expressive aggregation using a two-layer MLP, 256 to 256 with ReLU, applied to the sum of each node’s own representation and its neighbors’ representations. | 1,035,783 |
| Metric | AP | CE | CA | IC | NB | RM | Macro Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | 0.9715 | 0.9815 | 0.9591 | 0.9591 | 0.9797 | 0.9798 | 0.9718 |
| Recall | 0.9650 | 0.9733 | 0.9767 | 0.9767 | 0.9667 | 0.9717 | 0.9717 |
| F1-score | 0.9682 | 0.9774 | 0.9678 | 0.9678 | 0.9732 | 0.9757 | 0.9717 |
| Cohen’s | 0.9672 | 0.9698 | 0.9598 | 0.9589 | 0.9668 | 0.9710 | 0.9667 |
| MCC | 0.9665 | 0.9670 | 0.9578 | 0.9567 | 0.9670 | 0.9716 | 0.9666 |
| Metric | AP | CE | CA | IC | NB | RM | Macro Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | 0.9396 | 0.9796 | 0.9614 | 0.9672 | 0.9382 | 0.9523 | 0.9564 |
| Recall | 0.9600 | 0.9600 | 0.9550 | 0.9350 | 0.9617 | 0.9650 | 0.9561 |
| F1-score | 0.9497 | 0.9697 | 0.9582 | 0.9508 | 0.9498 | 0.9586 | 0.9561 |
| Cohen’s | 0.9487 | 0.9560 | 0.9498 | 0.9298 | 0.9289 | 0.9686 | 0.9476 |
| MCC | 0.9454 | 0.9458 | 0.9431 | 0.9289 | 0.9279 | 0.9677 | 0.9476 |
| Metric | AP | CE | CA | IC | NB | RM | Macro Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | 0.9210 | 0.9085 | 0.8620 | 0.8947 | 0.8195 | 0.8967 | 0.8837 |
| Recall | 0.8950 | 0.9183 | 0.8850 | 0.8350 | 0.8700 | 0.9100 | 0.8856 |
| F1-score | 0.9078 | 0.9134 | 0.8733 | 0.8638 | 0.8440 | 0.9033 | 0.8843 |
| Cohen’s | 0.8810 | 0.9001 | 0.8599 | 0.8089 | 0.8190 | 0.8871 | 0.8649 |
| MCC | 0.8800 | 0.9101 | 0.8589 | 0.8000 | 0.8180 | 0.8710 | 0.8649 |
| Metric | AP | CE | CA | IC | NB | RM | Macro Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | 0.9435 | 0.8948 | 0.9043 | 0.9457 | 0.6805 | 0.8677 | 0.8727 |
| Recall | 0.9183 | 0.8367 | 0.8817 | 0.9000 | 0.8733 | 0.7650 | 0.8625 |
| F1-score | 0.9307 | 0.8648 | 0.8928 | 0.9223 | 0.7650 | 0.8131 | 0.8648 |
| Cohen’s | 0.9011 | 0.8267 | 0.8786 | 0.8981 | 0.6948 | 0.7278 | 0.8350 |
| MCC | 0.9001 | 0.8261 | 0.8643 | 0.8991 | 0.6989 | 0.7274 | 0.8350 |
| Model | Accuracy (%) | Cohen’s | MCC | F1-score | Log Loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RoBERTa-base | 97.17 | 0.966 | 0.966 | 0.9717 | 0.1304 |
| BiLSTM+Attn | 96.94 | 0.963 | 0.963 | 0.9694 | 0.1270 |
| CNN+SE | 96.69 | 0.960 | 0.960 | 0.9670 | 0.1280 |
| XGBoost | 95.61 | 0.947 | 0.947 | 0.9561 | 0.1370 |
| Random Forest | 91.69 | 0.900 | 0.901 | 0.9169 | 0.3070 |
| AdaBoost | 79.94 | 0.759 | 0.761 | 0.8008 | 0.6000 |
| Model | Acc. w/o KW | Acc. Drop | F1 w/o KW | F1 Drop | w/o KW | Drop | Retained |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RoBERTa | 88.69% | 0.8870 | 0.864 | 91.3% | |||
| BiLSTM+Attn | 16.67% | 0.0476 | 0.000 | 17.2% | |||
| CNN+SE | 87.06% | 0.8735 | 0.845 | 90.0% | |||
| XGBoost | 86.25% | 0.8648 | 0.835 | 90.2% | |||
| Random Forest | 83.83% | 0.8415 | 0.806 | 91.4% | |||
| AdaBoost | 68.64% | 0.7061 | 0.624 | 85.9% |
| Model | AP | CE | CA | IC | NB | RM | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deep Learning Models | |||||||
| RoBERTa | 0.0 | 1.7 | 21.6 | 16.4 | 60.4 | 1.6 | 16.9 |
| BiLSTM+Attn | 6.7 | 20.0 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 45.6 | 19.3 | 15.8 |
| CNN+SE | 3.2 | 96.7 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 22.7 | 8.8 | 22.4 |
| Machine Learning Models | |||||||
| XGBoost | 0.9 | 18.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.4 | 9.1 | 10.4 |
| Model | Acc. w/o KW | Acc. Drop (pp) | F1 w/o KW | F1 Drop | w/o KW | Retained |
| Deep Learning Models | ||||||
| RoBERTa | 88.69% | 0.8870 | 0.864 | 91.3% | ||
| BiLSTM+Attn | 16.67% | 0.0476 | 0.000 | 17.2% | ||
| CNN+SE | 87.06% | 0.8735 | 0.845 | 90.0% | ||
| Traditional Machine Learning Models | ||||||
| XGBoost | 86.25% | 0.8648 | 0.835 | 90.2% | ||
| Metric | GCN | GAT | GraphSAGE | GIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.3010 | 0.6362 | 0.3514 | 0.6452 |
| Cohen’s | 0.1844 | 0.5756 | 0.2433 | 0.5861 |
| MCC | 0.2219 | 0.5759 | 0.2819 | 0.5867 |
| F1 Macro | 0.1942 | 0.6377 | 0.2756 | 0.6471 |
| F1 Weighted | 0.1942 | 0.6377 | 0.2756 | 0.6471 |
| Precision Macro | 0.2756 | 0.6408 | 0.4188 | 0.6528 |
| Construct | GCN | GAT | GraphSAGE | GIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affiliation and Politics | 0.0641 | 0.6319 | 0.2471 | 0.6431 |
| Conflict Engagement | 0.3958 | 0.6992 | 0.0000 | 0.6947 |
| Cultural Agency | 0.0000 | 0.6309 | 0.2286 | 0.6083 |
| Image Curation | 0.0000 | 0.6609 | 0.4114 | 0.6784 |
| Norms and Beliefs | 0.4972 | 0.6929 | 0.6441 | 0.6990 |
| Relationship Management | 0.0000 | 0.6271 | 0.0000 | 0.6618 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Construct | Definition | All Keywords |
|---|---|---|
| Image Curation | Is the effort by a social media user, consciously or unconsciously, to craft their online identities | please, willing, identity, recommend, report, thank, determination, express, filter, glow up, online persona, blessed, appreciate, grateful, effort, try, connect, inspire, style, follow, vibe, share, careful, build, personalize, aesthetic, rebrand, curate, highlight, showcase, authentic, unfiltered, realme, selfie, transformation, glow, reinvent, portfolio, brand, influencer, goals, milestone, achievement, flex, posture, visibility, credibility, impression, perception, polished, reputation, narrative, self-promote, presence, lifestyle, snapshot, moment, debut, reveal, spotlight |
| Relationship Management | Refers to a user’s understanding of their roles and responsibilities within social institutions as well as the level of confidence in their personal beliefs | love, want, help, please, equivalent, humanity, stop, violence, awareness, defense, influence, mutual aid, absurdity, ordained, advising, trust, personal, values, support, system, role, follow, link, caretaker, share, build, bond, network, community, solidarity, ally, engage, connect, collaborate, partnership, unity, belong, inclusion, outreach, brotherhood, sisterhood, tribe, circle, uplift, empower, mentor, peer, kinship, loyalty, reciprocity, validate, affirm, acknowledge, compassion, empathy, check in, hold space, stand with, together, with you |
| Conflict Engagement | Is the level of social conflict with which a user is comfortable | report, stop, humiliation, mistreat, misconduct, controversial, discord, confront, stand, call out, cancel, criticism, drama, argue, debate, disagree, feud, end, stand by, challenge, exposed, push back, clash, trigger, offensive, toxic, harass, troll, bully, attack, block, mute, ban, dragged, ratio, receipts, problematic, accountability, blast, cancel culture, beef, clap back, shut down, respond, dispute, resist, counter, reject, silence, defend, expose, unfollow, clapback, petty |
| Cultural Agency | Is characterized by civic participation in social issues and is exhibited by individuals who believe in their own power to be heard and to shape culture and beliefs | radical, recommend, demand, justice, lives, matter, revolution, leadership, diversity, community, social, systemic, engagement, civic, raise, awareness, empowered, movement, voice, agency, disrupt, change, advocate, cultural, shift, representation, take, stand, allyship, protest, activism, mobilize, solidarity, march, petition, boycott, organize, grassroots, narrative, reclaim, decolonize, equity, liberation, amplify, platform, intersectionality, privilege, oppression, systemic change, reform, rally, coalition, impact, visibility, humanize, uplift, marginalized, speak up, movement building, social justice, power |
| Affiliation and Politics | Is characterized by loyalty to a political party, religion, or an organization. This could include people paid to carry out certain activities or advertise certain products. | Foxnews, sisracist, systemic, racism, supremacist, supremacy, racist, white, left, fascist, abiding, loyalist, influencer, vote, supporter, endorse, propaganda, party line, lobby, affiliated, news, report, campaign, black, right, MAGA, woke, liberal, conservative, leftist, right-wing, Democrat, Republican, partisan, polarized, deep state, mainstream media, fake news, conspiracy, agenda, endorsed, sponsored, bot, astroturfing, dark money, PAC, echo chamber, tribe, dogma, manifesto, ideology, regime, coup, fringe, extremist, radicalized, red pill, blue pill, disinformation, influence operation |
| Norms and Beliefs | Is characterized by deep beliefs, culture, ideology, religion, a cause etc. | change, culture, demand, justice, equity, inclusion, fight, racism, socialists, communists, anarchists, conservatives, extremists, religion, moral, values, cultural, identity, spiritual, practices, tradition, faith, doctrine, sacred, afterlife, scripture, nationalism, karma, virtue, ethics, principle, creed, conviction, righteousness, worldview, taboo, sin, blessed, prayer, amen, truth, awakening, salvation, prophet, divine, judgment, heresy, redemption, blasphemy, anti-woke, natural law, evolution, creationism, pro-life, pro-choice, freedom, sovereignty, anarchy, patriotism, censorship, heritage, purity, indoctrination |