Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Exploratory data analysis and deception detection in news articles

on social media using machine learning classifiers
Anu Sharma a,⇑, M.K Sharma b, Rakesh Kr. Dwivedi c
a
Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
b
Amrapali Institute, Haldwani, India
c
CCSIT, Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad, UP, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates realistic ways to identify fake news on digital platforms in this context automat-
Received 31 July 2022 ically. To begin, a massive number of current and correlated works were surveyed in an attempt to incor-
Revised 13 November 2022 porate all possible features for detecting fake news, followed by exploratory data analysis to identify
Accepted 10 January 2023
sources that frequently publish fake news and determine the most frequently occurring words in the title
Available online 21 January 2023
and body of fake and genuine news. Our findings indicate that the suggested computer models possess an
advantageous discriminative potential for detecting fake news transmitted via digital channels. In this
Keywords:
paper, we classify documents into fake/real news categories using Random Forest (RF), Naive Bayes
Fake news
Fake news detection
(NB), and Passive Aggressive (PA)] machine learning classifiers with and without text processing (TP).
Machine learning classifiers Our paper’s result is determined and calculated using the confusion matrix and the classifier’s perfor-
Random Forest mance by defining accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score metrics for fake news detection.
Naïve Bayes Ó 2023 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams Uni-
Passive aggressive versity. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction and consumed, causing both unexpected opportunities and com-

About a third of the world’s populace uses digital platforms,
such as social media sites and messaging programs [1]. These plat-
forms have fundamentally altered how users engage and commu-
nicate online, enabling a flood of new apps and reshaping
established information ecosystems. Digital platforms, in particu-
lar, have changed the way news is radically generated, delivered,
Abbreviations: RF, Random Forest; NB, Naive Bayes; PA, Passive Aggressive; TF-
IDF, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency; LIWC, Linguistic Inquiry and
Word Count; RST, Rhetorical Structure Theory; VSM, Vector Space Model; gCLUTO,
Graphical CLUstering Toolkit; RNN, Recurrent neural network; CNN, Convolutional
Neural Network; SVM, Support Vector Machine; NN, Neural Network; API,
Application Programming Interface; POS, Part-of-speech; MFD, Moral Foundations
Dictionary; TP, Text Processing; TP, True Positive; TN, True negative; FP, False
Positive; FN, False Negative; ACC, Accuracy; PRE, Precision; REC, Recall.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: er.anusharma20@gmail.com (A. Sharma).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
plex issues. The flood of manufactured medical information trans-
mitted via digital media is a catastrophe in terms of health [3]. For
example, for medically reliable data, a cancer patient has published
an online announcement for an experimental cancer cure, leading
to his death [4]. Moreover, the spread of rumors and conspiracies
through social media platforms has increased during the COVID-
19 pandemic [5 6]. In less than two months, the International
Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) discovered almost 3,500 incorrect
statements about COVID-19[7]. As a result, at least 800 individuals
may have died worldwide in the first three months of 2020 due to
coronavirus-related misinformation.
The 2016 presidential election in the United States of America is
still renowned for a misinformation war waged primarily on Twit-
ter and Facebook. The infamous case featured an attempt by Russia
to exert influence through targeted advertising [8]. According to a
recent study, 88 % of the most prevalent photos posted in the
month preceding the Brazilian elections were bogus or deceptive
[9]. In India, fake tales circulated via the web service were also
blamed for several lynchings and societal turmoil [10 11].
Identifying fake news automatically is not a simple feat. To
begin with, humans are naturally unable to distinguish between
true and false news [2], much more so when it comes to delicate
matters such as politics and well-being. Additionally, news items

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102166
2090-4479/Ó 2023 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi
are generated by various sources, each with its content style and
inherent favouritism. They are transmitted multiple ways through
numerous locations, complicating the challenge of identifying fake
news. As such, we plan to research characteristics and solutions
that remain relevant in various contexts and investigate ways to
detect fake news propagated on digital platforms.
A. Types of bogus news
Social science academics have examined fake news from vari-
ous angles and classified it broadly, as Rubin et al. did in their latest
work [12]. This classification is summarised here.

Visual-based: Visual-based false news relies heavily on graphi-
cal representation as content, which may embrace altered
video, images, or a blend of the two [13].

User-based: The user-based kind is aimed at a specific audience
through phony accounts, and its target viewers may exemplify
particular age groups, genders, or cultures.

Post-based: post-based fake news is mainly intended to be dis-
seminated via social media platforms.

Network-based: Such news is targeted at specific members of
an organization who are related.

Knowledge-based: Such bogus news articles include precise or
rational explanations for unresolved situations

Style-based: Style-based journalism emphasizes how informa-
tion is presented to its viewers.

Stance-based: While this kind is similar to the style-based type
stated above, the instance is distinct in that it focuses on how
statements are expressed in an artifact.
B. False news recognition approaches
False news recognition approaches and their key characteristics,
advantages, and limitations are discussed underneath:
i. Linguistic Features-based Methods
Language techniques focus on utilizing/extracting essential lin-
guistic characteristics from fake news, as discussed underneath:
N-grams: Unigrams/bigrams are derived from a story’s assem-
blage of words. These are preferably preserved ‘‘Term Frequency-
Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF)” values for information
gathering. TF-IDF is an arithmetical indicator used to indicate the
prominence of a word in the document in which it is utilized
[52,53].
Punctuation: Punctuation can assist the algorithm in detecting
false news in distinguishing between misleading and authentic
texts.
Psycho-linguistic features: Some researchers advised using the
LIWC lexicon (‘‘Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count”) to extract
psycho-linguistic aspects. The system may therefore decide the
tenor of the language (e.g., lovely sentiments, sensorial processes),
the statistics of texts (e.g., number of words), and the portion of the
language category (e.g., sentences, verbs) [14].
Readability: This includes extracting content characteristics
such as character quantity, multifaceted words, lengthy words,
number of syllables, kind of word, and number of paragraphs
[14]. By incorporating these qualities into the content, we may cal-
culate readability measures.
Syntax: This technology extracts from the Context-free gram-
mar several features. These features depend considerably in con-
junction with their parent and grandparent node on lexicalized
production rules. To obtain information, the functions of this set
are encoded in TFIDF.
2
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166
ii. Deception Modelling based techniques
RST (‘‘Rhetorical Structure Theory”) and VSM (‘‘Vector Space
Model”) are the two approaches for clustering false and factual sto-
ries [13].
RST: RST procedural analysis captures a story’s logic regarding
functional relationships between various relevant text components
and defines a hierarchical structure for each story [15].
VSM: VSM is used to connect rhetorical structures in RST sets.
Because VSM scans all news items as vectors in high-dimensional
space, it is essential to represent the extracted text computation-
ally [15,16].
iii. Clustering-based Methods
Clustering is a well-known technique for comparing and con-
trasting vast amounts of data; Robin et al. [15] used the gCLUTO
(Graphical CLUstering TOolkit) clustering software to aid in the
differentiation of news items based on their resemblance according
to the clustering algorithm used. The co-ordinate distance notion
measures this model’s ability to identify deception in a new story.
For Robin et al. [15], new accounts were appraised for misleading
values using Euclidean distances from deceptive cluster centers.
The author claims this method works well on large data sets, with
a 63 % success rate. One obvious disadvantage is that this approach
may not produce an accurate result if a recent false news item is
used, as similar news story sets may not be accessible.
iv. Predictive Modelling based Methods
Robin et al. [15] used 100 out of 132 news reports as training
data. Affirmative coefficients enhance the likelihood of integrity,
while destructive coefficients increase the likelihood of deception.
v. Content Cues-based Methods.
According to Chen et al. [17], the Content Cues-based approach
is founded on what journalists enjoy writing for users and what
consumers enjoy reading (choice gap). Including certain content
in a news report encourages readers to read on. Contaminated
news items frequently urge interaction and encouragement, which
attracts users.
i. Lexical and Semantic Analysis: The word choice is critical in
persuading readers to accept the story. Automated
approaches can be utilized to excerpt stylometric features
from the text that can be exploited to distinguish between
two journalistic genres.
ii. Syntactic and Pragmatic Levels of Analysis: The pragmatic
function of headlines is to call attention to upcoming dis-
course sections [17]. This is accomplished by referring to
open areas of the news story. Headlines are created to
occupy vacant thinking with the lever-aging material that
follows. This analysis also compares news sites with a higher
share activity to those that make significantly more news
content.
vi. Non-Text Cues-based Methods
Non-text cues refer to news stories’ non-text content, as Chen
et al. addressed [17]. The non-textual aspect of a news article is
crucial for polluted news trust. Images are recognized to have a
powerful impact and are typically the most eye-catching compo-
nent of news articles. This method includes two analyses:
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166

i. Image Exploration: The tactical usage of visuals is a recog-
nized technique for manipulating an observer’s emotion.
Given that many readers react to news stories based on
the title and a picture, image (multimedia) is critical in
encouraging readers to trust the subject matter.
ii. User Behaviour Exploration: It is a content-independent
technique that is particularly beneficial for determining
how readers engage with the news after being enticed by
the article. News organizations must attract traffic to their
primary website via various channels. Understanding user
behavior and utilizing teaser photos are critical components
of gaining traction on social media.
Buzz Face [22]: This data collection is derived by supplementing
the BuzzFeed data set with comments on Facebook news articles.
There are 2263 news stories and 1.6 million words in the data
collection.
Facebook Hoax [23]: This data set contains information about
postings from Facebook pages devoted to scientific news (non-
hoax) and conspiracy words (hoax), which were gathered via the
Facebook Graph API.
Table 2 summarises the various data sets in terms of the types
of attributes upon which they are based.
D. Characteristics for detecting bogus news

Table 1 illustrates which sort of fake news revealing approach is When we evaluate activities relating to information credibility,
successful for various types of false news material. rumor detection, and news dissemination, the literature is quite
extensive. A reasonable study of these efforts to ascertain the char-
C. Fake news datasets acteristics is summarized in Table 3.

Popular data sets for detecting fake news include:

2. Related studies
Buzz Feed News [18]: Buzz Feed News is a compilation of head-
lines and links to actual news stories or posts deemed false news.
Scholars from various disciplines, including journalism, com-
This data set is valuable for testing Linguistic approaches.
munication, and political science, have long studied the news
LIAR [19]: LIAR is a benchmarking system developed by
media. Nonetheless, computer scientists were interested when
researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara. This data
news organizations began to utilize Web and digital platforms.
collection, like Buzz Feed News, is linguistic in nature and com-
With the advent of the digital era, news organizations began dis-
prises just text data.
semination in digital format. To address these concerns, computer
BS detector [20]: This data comes from a browser addon called
scientists have looked at the news ecosystem on digital platforms
BS detector, which was created to check the trustworthiness of
but with different goals and purposes. Although detecting false
news. It checks every link on a page for suspicious sources and
news is not a new issue, recent attempts have concentrated on bet-
compares them to a manual list of domains.
ter understanding the phenomenon of fake news on digital plat-
CREDBANK [21]: This is the only data collection that contains
forms [1–48]. Vosoughi et al. [38] demonstrate that fake news
social media data and enables users to analyze it. This data set
spreads quicker than actual news. Lazer et al. [18,49] advocate
qualifies for all categories except visual data. While it lacks multi-
forming an interdisciplinary task group to address this problematic
media data, it remains a very tempting option for academics inter-
issue. However, several intrinsic aspects of digital platforms lead to
ested in detecting fake news in media.
the proliferation of fake news in these environments. Table 4 is a
comparative examination of similar work on fake news.

Table 1
Bogus news types and its detection methods.

Bogus News Types Bogus News Detection Methods

Linguistic Modelling Deceptive Clustering Predictive Modelling Content Cues Non-Text Cues
Visual-based      U
User-based    U U U
Post-based U U U U  U
Network-based     U 
Knowledge-based   U   
Style-based U   U U 
Stance-based      ”

Table 2
Evaluation of data sets containing bogus news.

Features data set News content Social context Spatiotemporal

information
Linguistic Visual User Post Response Network Spatial Temporal
Buzz Feed News U
LIAR U
BS detector U
CRED BANK U U U U U
Buzz Face U U U U
Face book Hoax U U U U
Fake News Net U U U U U U U U

3
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166

Table 3
Summary of the features for detecting bogus news.

Inference from. . . Characteristic Set Used Approach References

News Content Language Structures Sentence-level features (i.e‘‘n-grams‘‘,bag-of-words, POStagging [2 24–27]
Lexical Features Word-level and Character level features [2 27–31]
Moral Foundation Cues Moral foundation features [32,33]
Visual (Images/ Videos) Manipulation indicators and image distributions [34,35]
Psycho linguistic Cues Signals of persuasive language (i.e. Anger, grief, and other emotions, as well as evidence of [36–38]
slanted language)
Semantic Structure Contextual information [39–41]
Subjectivity Cues Subjectivity score, sentiment analysis, opinion lexicons [42–44]
News Source Bias Cues Favouritism indicators (for example, politics), polarisation [31]
Credibility and Trust Estimation of the user’s opinion of the credibility [2 38 45]
worthiness
Environment (Social Engagement Page visits/Likes/Retweets [8 22 37 40 43
Media) 46]
Network Structure Complex network metrics, friendship network [2 30 47]
Temporal Patterns and Metrics for time series, propagation, and uniqueness [2 25 30 47]
Novelty
User’Information Profiles and attributes of users at the individual and group levels (e.g. their friends and [2 25 26–47]
followers)

Table 4
Comparative analysis of related work.

Authors Proposed Approach Model Dataset Features

Volkova et al.[37] Identified tweets in which rumours RNN, CNN, Logistic Tweets Content-based, network-based, Twitter
endorsed. Regression specific memes.
Carvalho et.al.[33] Natural language processing NB, J48, RC, RF Brazilian Portuguese MFD Using moral aspects to discern between
credible and unreliable sources
Helmstetter etal. [43] Analysis of Twitter content. NB, DT, SVM, NN Tweeter API and DMOZ User and Tween level features
catalogue
Chen et al. [12 15 17] Compared the coherence of false VSM News samples from NPR’s Discourse
and true news. ‘‘Bluff the Listener”
Rubin et al. [15 16 17] merging linguistic and network- Linguistic, Net- Simple text sentences Bag of Words, n-gram
based behaviour data. work models
Conroy et al. [12] satire detection model SVM US and Canadian national Punctuation, Grammar, Negative Affect
newspapers
Ahmed et al. [28] n-gram based classifier to identify Linear SVM News articles TF-IDF
bogus ads.
Kapusta, et al. [41] Tf Idf, Posf Idf, PosF, merge Linguistic models COVID-19 Infodemic N-grams extraction from POS tags

3. Materials and methods
a) Dataset and data source
We conduct in-depth research on the Buzzfeed news dataset
[18,49]. This dataset contains an exhaustive sample of news arti-
cles published on Facebook by nine news organizations during
the week leading up to the 2016 United States presidential
election.
b) Methodology
We are primarily concerned with the source of fake news and
the language utilized in the fake news. We are particularly inter-
ested in identifying sites that spread fake news and in identifying
phrases that are more closely related to one category than another.
This analysis’s primary objective is to determine the difference
between fake and true news. This paper is broken into two sec-
tions, Data exploration, and Classification. The first section analy-
ses real and fake news datasets to identify sites that frequently
publish fake news and the most frequently used words in the title
and body of fake and real news. The second section’s objective is to
develop a classifier capable of predicting and detecting fake docu-
ments into real/fake news categories using three different classi-
fiers [Random Forest (RF), Naive Bayes (NB), and Passive
4
Aggressive (PA)] with and without text processing (TP). The overall
proposed methodology is shown in Fig. 1.
Before categorization, we perform the following pre-processing
on the data:
Pre-processing steps before categorization Steps
Step 1: Lowercase text conversion
Step 2: Eliminating numerals from the corpus of text
Step 3: Eliminating punctuation from the corpus of text
Step 4: Eliminating special characters from the text corpus,
such as ‘‘, ’. . .’
Step 5: Elimination of English stop words
Step 6: From stemming to root words
Step 7: Elimination of unnecessary whitespaces from the text
corpus
i. Data Splitting.
In machine learning, it is usual practise to divide the data into
two distinct sets, known as the train set and the test set. Through
this method, we are able to assess the generalisation performance
and determine the model’s hyper-parameter.
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi
Fig. 1. Proposed Methodology.
The primary goal when determining the splitting ratio is to
ensure that both sets retain the original dataset’s overall trend.
Our deployed models are just estimators that study the data for
patterns and predict future outcomes. Consequently, it is crucial
that the learning data and the validation or test data have a statis-
tical distribution that is as close to the same as feasible. Data sam-
ples were chosen at random using stratified random sampling
under well outlined constraints. It guarantees that the information
is fairly split across the training and testing sets. Dataset has been
split into a train set and a test set with a 70:30 split, the exact pro-
portions of which depend on the size of the original data pool. As a
rule, when splitting into parts, one part is used for training the
model and the other is utilised for testing.
4. Data exploration and buzzfeed news dataset analysis using
python
We used the Buzzfeed news dataset [18,49] for data exploration
and analysis. We utilized the BuzzFeed News dataset from [18,49],
5
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166
which contains a Fake news dataset and a real news dataset with
1627 observations and 12 features (Main features-Id, Title, Text,
Source, Images, Movies, etc.). We divided the data into 70:30 sub-
sets for training and testing purposes. For result and analysis, we
have selected python programming language and run-on Windows
10 Operating system, 8th Generation i7 processors, 8 GB RAM, and
Anaconda platform.
a. Real versus Fake News Source Analysis.
Fig. 2 demonstrates that politi.co reports the most authentic
news, followed by cnn.it [18,49].
Fig. 3 reveals that the right-wing news reports top fake news.
Additionally, bogus news sources the number of legitimate news
sources [18,49].
As seen in Fig. 4, there are seven familiar sources of legitimate
and erroneous news. Interestingly, these sources report on fake
news more frequently than they do on legitimate news. The
right-wing news website publishes most fake news. However, it
also includes some legitimate news. Around two-thirds of all news
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166

Fig. 2. Sources of Real News.

Fig. 3. Sources of Publishing Maximum Fake News.

reported by right-wing outlets are bogus. On the other side, free-
dom daily, the second most significant source of fake news, says
very little true news. addictinginfo.org is the only common source
that reports more actual news than fake news, although the overall
number of stories it reports is minimal [18,49].
b. Analysis of Title and Body of News Articles.
(I) Analysis of News Title.
v. Analysis of News Body.
Following the title analysis, we examine the body text of news
stories. We are looking for the top 30 representative terms in the
body of bogus and legitimate news. As seen in the following gra-
phic, the most often used words in the news body are trump and
clinton. Fig. 6 illustrates how some terms, such as clinton, hillari,
and trump, indicate false news, while others, such as trump, said,
and clinton, is indicative of true news.

We process news story titles and then extract the top 20 most (II) Analysis of Title Length.
often occurring words in the headlines for both authentic and fake
news described in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 demonstrates that while specific Following the examination of the words in the headline and
terms such as hillari, clinton, freedom, and obama represent the body of the news, we want to determine whether the length of
title of false news, others such as trump, clinton, donald, and the title is also a distinguishing feature/factor between fake and
debate represent the title of real news [18,49].
6
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166

Fig. 4. Common Sources of Publishing Both Real and Fake News.

Fig. 5. Sources Including Movies and images in the News and their integrity.

 X 
true news. As illustrated in Fig. 7, the title length of fake news is 1 N 2
MSE ¼ ðP i  A i Þ ð1Þ
slightly longer than that of legitimate news. N i¼1

The distribution of title lengths in real news is around 60 char-

acters, but the distribution of title lengths in fake news is slightly
skewed around 80 characters described in Fig. 8.
5. Experimental setup and results evaluation for Fake/Real news
detection
We describe the experimental setup and classify documents
into real/fake news categories using three different classifiers [Ran-
dom Forest (RF), Naive Bayes (NB), and Passive Aggressive (PA)]
with and without text processing (TP). We also provide implemen-
tation details of our explored approaches in fake/real news
detection.
I. Random Forest (RF) classifier
Here, MSE ? Mean Square Error, N ? Data Points of the social
media network, Pi ? Value returned by model, Ai ? Actual value of
Data point I for decision tree.
This classifier is the advanced form of decision tree, which con-
tains a large number of decision tree to predict the output of a par-
ticular class’s voting. In our paper this classifier trained using
different estimators to predict the best model outcome with high
accuracy. The Gini indexed cost function is used in our paper for
random forest classification to split the BuzzFeed News dataset.
The Gini index is calculated using Equation number 2. Equation
(2) find the Ginni of each node’s branch for more likely occurred
between the nodes.
XNC
GiniIndex ¼ 1  ðF i Þ2 ð2Þ
i¼1

This classifier algorithm solves the regression problems and cal-
culates the mean square error of data branches of each connected
node in the social media network. Using Equation (1), calculates
the distance of each node and predicted value that decides which
branch is better for the forest.
7
Here, Fi ? Observed class relative frequency of dataset, Nc ?
Total number of classes in dataset.
In random forest classifier Entropy is also considered to find
nodes branches in the decision tree and probability of the out-
comes to create the new branch of the nodes using Equation (3).
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166

Fig. 6. Frequency of word in title of news.

X
NC
EntropyRFC ¼ F i  log2 ðF i Þ ð3Þ
i¼1
II. Naïve Bayes (NB) classifier
Here, EntropyRFC ! Entropy for Random forest algorithm Nc ?
Total number of classes in dataset and Fi ? Observed class relative Naïve Bayes follows the Bayes theorem which tells an event
frequency of dataset. probability when the probability of another event related to it is
The pseudocode 1 used to perform the prediction using trained known. This classifier assumes that the presence of a one feature
random forest algorithm, this algorithm passes the selected fea- is a class is unconnected to the occurrence of any other feature.
tures based on the rules formed for each randomly created trees. The event A probability of happening, knowing the already hap-
To perform prediction using the trained random forest algorithm, pening of event B is given in Equation (4)
we use pseudocode 1.
PðAandBÞ
PðAjBÞ ¼ ð4Þ
PðBÞ
Pseudocode 1- Random Forest (RF) pseudocode:
Input: Predefined classes of Training BuzzFeed News Dataset (T) And for event B when event A has happened is given in Equation (5)
Output: Final predicated class of BuzzFeed News Dataset
PðAandBÞ
Begin PðBjAÞ ¼ ð5Þ
Steps 1: Collect the dataset.
PðAÞ
Step 2: Randomly extract some features (K) from total features these two equations (Equation (4) and Equation (5)) when put
(M) or text (T1, T2, T3,.Tn). (K < M) together, we get Equation (6) to determine the Posterior probabil-
Step 3 Store and predict the result of randomly created decision ity, shown in the Fig. 9 with notations.
tree.
Steps 4: Now calculate the node ‘‘D) from selected features using PðAjBÞ  PðBÞ
BayesTheoremPðBjAÞ ¼ ð6Þ
best split points and determine the best splinter point for node D. PðAÞ
Step 5: Split the node into two Child nodes using optimal splinter Here, P(A|B), P(B|A), P(A), P(B) are Likelihood, Posterior, Prior
point and Marginal Probability respectively.
Step 6: Repeat the step 2 to step 5 until total number of nodes The Equation (7) is used to classify the BuzzFeed News posts for
reached. Naïve bayes for Fake or real words in the network.
Step 7: Repeat the step 2 to step 6 for D time to build the forest
and d number of trees. Na€iv e Bayes  > ðFjWÞ
Step8:NowDeterminethefinaloutcomeasaresultofmajorityvoted ¼ PðWjFÞ  PðEÞ=ðPðWjFÞ  PðEÞ þ PðWjTÞ  PðTÞÞ
and calculate votes of each predicted target as final outcome
End ð7Þ
Here, F(Class)->Fake, W(Data)-> Word, and T-> True (Class).

8
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166

Fig. 7. Frequency of word in body(text) of news.

Fig. 8. Distribution of Title Length for Real and Fake News.

9
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi
Fig. 9. Bayes Theorem Notations of various variables.
The complete pseudocode of Naïve bayes algorithm that we
have considered in our research paper is given in pseudocode 2.
These all steps are determining the final outcome of the greatest
likelihoods using Equation (4), Equation (5), Equation (6) and
Equation (7).
Pseudocode 2- Naïve bayes (NB) pseudocode:
Input:
Training BuzzFeed News Dataset (T), P= (p1, p2,p3,. . ..,pn) //
Predictor variable value in the testing BuzzFeed News Dataset
Output: Testing BuzzFeed News Dataset class with maximum
probability value
Begin
Steps 1: Collect the data.
Step 2: Read, separate and summarized the training dataset by
class.
Step 3 Convert the dataset into a frequency table.
Steps 4: Calculate the statistical values like means, standard
deviation of the predictor variable in each class.
Step 5: Repeat (until probability of each (p1, p2, p3. . ..,pn)
predictor variable is calculated) - Calculate the probability of pi
using gaussian probability function of each class.
Step 6: Find the P(A|B), P(B|A), P(A), P(B) Likelihood, Posterior,
Prior and Marginal Probability respectively for each class.
Step 7: Calculate Naïve Bayes -> P(F|W) = P(W|F) * P(F)/(P(W|F)*
P(F)+ P(W|T) * P(T))
and find the greatest likelihood
End
Fig. 10. Workflow of proposed approach of Buzzfeed news dataset using RF, NB and PA Classifiers.
10
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166
III. Passive Aggressive (PA)Classifier
This classifier is the online learning algorithms that includes
both classification and regression parts [50,51] and used for
large-scale learning. In this classifier, if classification turns out to
be correct, called Passive process and called Aggressive process if
classification is wrong. In our research paper we have considered
Passive Aggressive for better outcome for fake news detection. This
algorithm performance is superior as compared to other classifiers.
This algorithm is similar to the perception classifier which do not
require the learning rate but contains the regularization parameter
C. The working principle of this kind of classifier is similar to that of
Perceptron classifier; meanwhile, they do not require a learning
rate. However, it includes a regularization parameter c. The com-
plete pseudocode of Passive Aggressive classifier is described in
the pseudocode 3.
Pseudocode 3- Passive Aggressive (PA) classifier
pseudocode:
Input: BuzzFeed News Dataset (T), D= (X, Y) X- Training
Instances and Y- Class Labels, Weight Vector Weighti
(Initialized Weight Vetor (0,. . .0) for i = 1,2,3,. . .
Output: Correctly classify weight
Begin
Step 1: Passive: If prediction correct, do nothing.
Step 2: Aggressive: If prediction wrong, minimally update the
weights to correctly classify.
(For correctly Classify)
Weighti+1 = MinAgg ||Weightt- Weight||2 s.t ƪ (Weight; Yn,
Xn) = 0 (8)

0 Y n WeightT X n P 1
iðWeight; X n ; Y n Þ ¼ (9)
1  Y n WeightT X n Otherwise
End
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166

Table 6
IV. Proposed workflow of for training and testing of BuzzFeed Fake/Real News Detection Based on News Body.
news using classifiers
Algorithms ACC PRE REC F1

We conduct in-depth research on the Buzzfeed news dataset RF with Pre-Processing 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
RF without Pre-Processing 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.76
[18,49]. This dataset contains an exhaustive sample of news arti-
NB with Pre-Processing 0.69 0.72 0.69 0.69
cles published on Facebook by nine news organizations during NB without Pre-Processing 0.67 0.77 0.67 0.65
the week leading up to the 2016 United States presidential PA with Pre-Processing 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.76
election. PA without Pre-Processing 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
The complete workflow of our approach is shown in the Fig. 10
for result evaluation to determine the news is Fake or real. In this
workflow, initially we have collected the Buzzfeed news dataset Table 7
from [18,49] then we have applied the data cleaning and explo- Fake/Real News Detection Based on News Title.
ration process. In next steps various features are selected from
Algorithms ACC PRE REC F1
the Fake/ Real dataset and dataset is divide into 70:30 subsets
for training and testing purposes as mentioned in the previous sec- RF with Pre-Processing 0.67 0.69 0.67 0.67
RF without Pre-Processing 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
tion also. Finally, based on the user’s query about the news, RF, NB,
NB with Pre-Processing 0.6 0.63 0.6 0.59
and PA are used to find the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score NB without Pre-Processing 0.58 0.63 0.6 0.56
with and without text processing (TP). PA with Pre-Processing 0.64 0.66 0.64 0.63
PA without Pre-Processing 0.56 0.58 0.56 0.55
V. Performance measure and evaluation metrics
The performance of the all the Classifier can be estimated after
applying on the test set and training set of BuzzFeed News dataset. Table 8
The performance measures accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score Fake/Real News Detection Based on Both Body and Title of News.

of RF, NB and PA Classifiers for fake news detection problem are Algorithms ACC PRE REC F1
determined using four features (Parameters) such as True Positive RF with Pre-Processing 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.82
(TP)- Predicted fake news is actually fake news, True negative (TN)- RF without Pre-Processing 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Predicted true news is actually true news, False Positive (FP)- Pre- NB with Pre-Processing 0.65 0.69 0.65 0.64
dicted fake news is actually true news and False Negative (FN)- NB without Pre-Processing 0.64 0.75 0.64 0.6
PA with Pre-Processing 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73
Predicted true news is actually fake news of Class C. The result is
PA without Pre-Processing 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
determined and calculated using confusion matrix shown in the
Table 5 to detect the fake/real news. The confusion matrix is the
2 cross 2 matrix that compare the predicted classification with
actual classification. measures the predicted sensitivity or fraction of fake news that
By formulating this as a classification problem and Based on the are correctly classified as fake news and F1 score combine the pre-
confusion matrix, we can evaluate the classifier’s performance by cision and recall for overall performance prediction of fake news
defining accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score metrics for fake detection. For better results and performance, these four matrices’
news detection given in the Equation (10), Equation (11), Equation values should be high.
(12) and Equation (12). The accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score of RF, NB and PA
Classifiers for fake news detection using features news body, title,
jTPj þ jTNj
Classifier Accuracy ¼ ð10Þ and both are illustrated in Tables 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
jTP j þ jTN j þ jFP j þ FN In Table 6 classification result is shown to detect the fake/real
news based on news body, in this case the values of Accuracy
jTPj (ACC)  91 %, Precision (PRE)- 91 %, Recall (REC)- 91 % and F1 Score
Classifier Precision ¼ ð11Þ
jTP j þ jFPj (F1)- 91 % for Passive Aggressive classifier is superior using PA
without pre-processing is better. Random forest classifier also per-
jTPj forms using RF with Pre-processing.
Classifier Recall ¼ ð12Þ
jTP j þ jFNj Table 7 shows that Random Forest classifier perform better as
compared to other two classifier for fake/real news detection based
Classifier Precision  Classifier Recall on News Titles. The values are Accuracy (ACC)  67 %, Precision
Classifier F1Score ¼ 2  ð13Þ (PRE)- 69 %, Recall (REC)- 67 % and F1 Score (F1)- 67 %.
ClassifierPrecision þ Classifier Recall
Finally, Table 8 illustrate that if we combine the Body and Title
These are the mainly used matrices for prediction in machine of news together to determine the fake/real news, The Passive
learning that calculates the performance of various classifiers, Aggressive classifier outperforms, and performance values are
specifically accuracy to predict the Fake news or Rea news of Buzz- Accuracy (ACC)  87 %, Precision (PRE)- 87 %, Recall (REC)- 87 %,
Feed news dataset in our paper, Precision used to detect the actu- and F1 Score (F1)- 87 % for BuzzFeed News dataset [18, 50].
ally fake news and important to determine the fake new, Recall

6. Comparative result analysis using machine learning RF, NB

Table 5
Confusion matrix.
and PA classifiers

Predicted true (1) Predicted false (0) Fig. 11 reveals that combining titles with body does not
Actual true (1) True positives (TPs) False negatives (FNs) improve the accuracy of the Passive Aggressive models without
Correctly Classified Incorrect rejection of classified records pre-processed data. Also, for NB, combining titles with body does
Actual false (0) False positives (FPs) True negatives (TNs)
Incorrectly Classified Correct rejection of classified records
not improve the accuracy with pre-processed data. Regarding the
pre-processing, it should be mentioned that although some
11
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi
Fig. 11. Comparative Analysis of RF, NB and PA Classifiers.
phrases and bigrams should be cleaned and pre-processed, remov-
ing stop words and stemming might not be a good idea in this
specific dataset as we might lose some language information.
Therefore, we conclude that Passive Aggressive model on the com-
bined feature matrix without text pre-processing is the best classi-
fication model in our analysis that can categorize the real and fake
news with maximum accuracy.
7. Conclusion
While disinformation, spin, falsehoods, and deception have
existed for centuries, the emergence of digital platforms may have
accelerated the transmission of misinformation and thus elevated
the problem of fake news to a global scale, where the absence of
scalable fact-checking procedures is particularly concerning. We
conducted a rigorous exploratory data analysis on the actual and
fake news datasets in this article. We identified the most often
occurring words in the title or body of fake news and legitimate
news. We developed binary classifiers to distinguish fake news
from legitimate news based on the words in the article’s title, body,
or both. We employed three different classifiers: Random Forest,
Naive-Bayes, and passive Aggressive. Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8
illustrates and measures the performance of RF, NB and PA Classi-
fiers and calculates the four major matrices values Accuracy
(ACC)  87 %, Precision (PRE)- 87 %, Recall (REC)- 87 %, and F1 Score
(F1)- 87 % for BuzzFeed News dataset and Fig. 11 described the
comparative performance accuracy result analysis of RF, NB and
PA Classifiers with Pre-Processing and without Pre-Processing of
Text only, Title Only and Both Title and Text. Passive Aggressive
was the best model for this study of text of body feature matrix
without pre-processing, accurately predicting fake and authentic
news with 91 % accuracy. The Passive Aggressive classifier outper-
formed both the Random Forest and Naive Bayes classifiers.
While the suggested method does a better job of distinguishing
between bogus and real news, it may still face two major obstacles.
The first issue is that the suggested technique may suffer in perfor-
mance if it has to deal with a high number of social media posts in
real time. Second, the proposed predictive model cannot identify
malicious URLs(containing fake news), embedded in social media
posts. The first problem may be solved by giving the model the
ability to scale up by adding more resources or by replicating itself
12
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166
numerous times. Deploying the model in the cloud using an over-
lay architecture that enables establishing numerous instances of
the prediction algorithm on-the-fly is one approach to solving
the dynamic scaling problem. The second obstacle may be over-
come by determining how to selectively remove people who are
very vital to the repost chain. Combining these approaches is
another potential area of exploration for this study.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Vuorinen, J., Koivula, A. and Koiranen, I., 2020, The Confidence in social media
platforms and private messaging. In International Conference on Human-
Computer Interaction (pp. 669-682). Springer, Cham.
[2] Shu K, Sliva A, Wang S, Tang J, Liu H. Fake news detection on social media: a
data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newslett 2017;19
(1):22–36.
[3] Pérez-Curiel C, Molpeceres AMV. Impact of political discourse on the
dissemination of hoaxes about Covid-19. influence of misinformation in
public and media. Rev Lat Comun Soc 2020;78:65–96.
[4] Dai, E., Sun, Y. and Wang, S., 2020, May. Ginger cannot cure cancer: Battling
fake health news with a comprehensive data repository. In Proceedings of the
International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 14, pp. 853-862).
[5] Love JS, Blumenberg A, Horowitz Z. The parallel pandemic: Medical
misinformation and COVID-19: Primumnon nocere. J Gen Intern Med
2020;35(8):2435.
[6] Shahsavari S, Holur P, Wang T, Tangherlini TR, Roychowdhury V. Conspiracy in
the time of corona: automatic detection of emerging COVID-19 conspiracy
theories in social media and the news. J Comput Social Sci 2020;3(2):279–317.
[7] Poynter (2020). Fighting the infodemic: The coronavirusfacts alliance. https://
www.poynter.org/coronavirusfactsalliance/.
[8] Ribeiro, F.N., Saha, K., Babaei, M., Henrique, L., Messias, J., Benevenuto, F., Goga,
O., Gummadi, K.P. and Redmiles, E.M., 2019, January. On microtargeting
socially divisive ads: A case study of russia-linked ad campaigns on facebook.
In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency
(pp. 140-149).
[9] Tardáguila C, Benevenuto F, Ortellado P. Fake news is poisoning Brazilian
politics. WhatsApp can stop it. The New York Times 2018;17(10).
[10] Vasudeva F, Barkdull N. WhatsApp in India? a case study of social media
related lynchings. Social Identities 2020;26(5):574–89.
[11] Arun C. On WhatsApp, rumours, lynchings, and the Indian Government. Econ
Pol Wkly 2019;54(6).
A. Sharma, M.K Sharma and R. Kr. Dwivedi
[12] Rubin, V.L., Chen, Y. and Conroy, N.K., 2015. Deception detection for news:
three types of fakes. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, 52(1), pp.1-4.
[13] Parikh, S.B. and Atrey, P.K., 2018, April. Media-rich fake news detection: A
survey. In 2018 IEEE conference on multimedia information processing and
retrieval (MIPR) (pp. 436-441). IEEE.
[14] Pérez-Rosas, V., Kleinberg, B., Lefevre, A. and Mihalcea, R., 2017. Automatic
detection of fake news. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07104.
[15] Rubin, V.L., Conroy, N.J. and Chen, Y., 2015, January. Towards news
verification: Deception detection methods for news discourse. In Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 5-8).
[16] Rubin VL, Lukoianova T. Truth and deception at the rhetorical structure level. J
Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2015;66(5):905–17.
[17] Chen, Y., Conroy, N.J. and Rubin, V.L., 2015, November. Misleading online
content: recognizing clickbait as‘‘ false news”. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM
on workshop on multimodal deception detection (pp. 15-19).
[18] ‘‘Buzzfeednews: 2017-12-fake-news-top-50,” https://github. com/
BuzzFeedNews/2017-12-fake-news-top-50.
[19] Wang, W.Y., 2017. ‘‘ liar, liar pants on fire”: A new benchmark dataset for fake
news detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00648.
[20] BS Detector: https://gitlab.com/bs-detector/bs-detector.
[21] Mitra, T. and Gilbert, E., 2015, April. Credbank: A large-scale social media
corpus with associated credibility annotations. In Ninth international AAAI
conference on web and social media.
[22] Santia, G.C. and Williams, J.R., 2018, June. Buzzface: A news veracity dataset
with facebook user commentary and egos. In Twelfth International AAAI
Conference on Web and Social Media.
[23] Tacchini, E., Ballarin, G., Della Vedova, M.L., Moret, S. and de Alfaro, L., 2017.
Some like it hoax: Automated fake news detection in social networks. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1704.07506.
[24] Conroy NK, Rubin VL, Chen Y. Automatic deception detection: methods for
finding fake news. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2015;52(1):1–4.
[25] Kwon S, Cha M, Jung K. Rumor detection over varying time windows. PLoS one
2017;12(1):e0168344.
[26] Rubin, V.L., Conroy, N., Chen, Y. and Cornwell, S., 2016, June. Fake news or
truth? using satirical cues to detect potentially misleading news.
In Proceedings of the second workshop on computational approaches to
deception detection (pp. 7-17).
[27] Wei, W. and Wan, X., 2017. Learning to identify ambiguous and misleading
news headlines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.06031.
[28] Ahmed, H., Traore, I. and Saad, S., 2017, October. Detection of online fake news
using n-gram analysis and machine learning techniques. In International
conference on intelligent, secure, and dependable systems in distributed and
cloud environments (pp. 127-138). Springer, Cham.
[29] Bhattacharjee, S.D., Talukder, A. and Balantrapu, B.V., 2017, December. Active
learning based news veracity detection with feature weighting and deep-
shallow fusion. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data)
(pp. 556-565). IEEE.
[30] Kumar, S., West, R. and Leskovec, J., 2016, April. Disinformation on the web:
Impact, characteristics, and detection of wikipedia hoaxes. In Proceedings of
the 25th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 591-602).
[31] Ribeiro, M.H., Calais, P.H., Almeida, V.A. and Meira Jr, W., 2017. ‘‘ Everything I
Disagree With is# FakeNews”: Correlating Political Polarization and Spread of
Misinformation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05924.
[32] Reis, J.C., Correia, A., Murai, F., Veloso, A. and Benevenuto, F., 2019, June.
Explainable machine learning for fake news detection. In Proceedings of the
10th ACM conference on web science (pp. 17-26).
[33] Carvalho, F., Okuno, H.Y., Baroni, L. and Guedes, G., 2020, November. A
Brazilian Portuguese Moral Foundations Dictionary for Fake News
classification. In 2020 39th International Conference of the Chilean
Computer Science Society (SCCC) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
[34] Cao J, Qi P, Sheng Q, Yang T, Guo J, Li J. Exploring the role of visual content in
fake news detection. Disinformation, Misinformation, and Fake News in Social
Media 2020:141–61.
[35] Qi, P., Cao, J., Yang, T., Guo, J. and Li, J., 2019, November. Exploiting multi-
domain visual information for fake news detection. In 2019 IEEE International
Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) (pp. 518-527). IEEE.
[36] Zhang X, Ghorbani AA. An overview of online fake news: characterization,
detection, and discussion. Inf Process Manag 2020;57(2):102025.
[37] Volkova, S., Shaffer, K., Jang, J.Y. and Hodas, N., 2017, July. Separating facts from
fiction: Linguistic models to classify suspicious and trusted news posts on
twitter. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for
Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) (pp. 647-653).
[38] Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. The spread of true and false news online. Science
2018;359(6380):1146–51.
[39] Stein RA, Jaques PA, Valiati JF. An analysis of hierarchical text classification
using word embeddings. Inf Sci 2019;471:216–32.
[40] Vogel, I. and Meghana, M., 2020, September. Fake News Spreader Detection on
Twitter using Character N-Grams. In CLEF (Working Notes).
[41] Kapusta J, Drlik M, Munk M. Using of n-grams from morphological tags for fake
news classification. PeerJ Comput Sci 2021;7:e624.
[42] Alonso MA, Vilares D, Gómez-Rodríguez C, Vilares J. Sentiment analysis for
fake news detection. Electronics 2021;10(11):1348.
13
Ain Shams Engineering Journal 14 (2023) 102166
[43] Helmstetter, S. and Paulheim, H., 2018, August. Weakly supervised learning for
fake news detection on Twitter. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on
Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) (pp. 274-277).
IEEE.
[44] Jeronimo CL, Marinho LB, Campelo CE, Veloso A, Melo ASDC. Characterization
of fake news based on subjectivity lexicons. J Data Intell 2020;1(4):419–41.
[45] Dabbous A, AounBarakat K, de Quero Navarro B. Fake news detection and
social media trust: a cross-cultural perspective. Behav Inform Technol
2021:1–20.
[46] Geeng, C., Yee, S. and Roesner, F., 2020, April. Fake News on Facebook and
Twitter: Investigating How People (Don’t) Investigate. In Proceedings of the
2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-14).
[47] Alassad M, Hussain MN, Agarwal N. In: September. Finding Fake News Key
Spreaders in Complex Social Networks by Using Bi-level Decomposition
Optimization Method. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 41–54.
[48] Resende, G., Melo, P., Sousa, H., Messias, J., Vasconcelos, M., Almeida, J. and
Benevenuto, F., 2019, May. (Mis) information dissemination in WhatsApp:
Gathering, analyzing and countermeasures. In The World Wide Web
Conference (pp. 818-828).
[49] Lazer DM, Baum MA, Benkler Y, Berinsky AJ, Greenhill KM, Menczer F, et al. The
science of fake news. Science 2018;359(6380):1094–6.
[50] Amadou Olabi, Fopa Yuffon & Namba, Mikayilou & Moctar, Mohamadou.
(2020). Fake News Detection: A Machine Learning Approach using Automated-
Text Analysis Technique.
[51] Koby Crammer & al. Online Passive-Aggressive Algorithms. Journal of Machine
Learning Research, March 2006.
[52] N. Lal, M. Singh, S. Pandey, and A. Solanki, ‘‘A Proposed Ranked Clustering
Approach for Unstructured Data from Dataspace using VSM,” 2020 20th
International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications
(ICCSA), Cagliari, Italy, 2020, pp. 80-86, DOI: 10.1109/ICCSA50381.2020.00024.
[53] N.Lal, B. Pathak, ‘‘Information Retrieval from Heterogeneous Data Sets using
Moderated IDF-Cosine Similarity in Vector Space Model” ‘‘International
Conference on Energy, Communication, Data Analytics and Soft Computing
(ICECDS 2017)”, pp. 3793-3799 IEEE Explorer, 2018.
Ms. Anu Sharma, received the B.Tech Degree from N.C
College of Engineering,Israna,Panipat in 2006 and M.
Tech degree for MMU, Mullna, Ambala, Haryana in
2011. Assistant professor in CCSIT, TMU, Moradabad,
UP, India. She is pursuing Ph.D in CSE from Uttrakhand
Technical University, Dehradun. Her research interest
includes data Mining, Neural Network, Machine Learn-
ing. She is having experience of more than 12 years. She
has published more than 11 research papers in Inter-
national, UGC approved, Scopus Indexed Journals.
Dr. M.K Sharma, received the Ph.D from Kumoun
University.Professor in Amrapali Institute, Haldwani ,
Uttarakhand, India. His research interest includes Neu-
ral Network, Machine Learning. He is having experience
of more than 20 years. He has published more than 35
research papers in international journals, UGC
approved, Scopus Indexed Journals.
Dr. Rakesh Kr. Dwivedi, received the Ph.D from IIT
Roorkee in Remote Sensing .Director in CCSIT, TMU,
Moradabad, UP, India. He has published more than 45
research papers in international/national conferences
and more than 30 research papers in international
journals. His research interest includes Remote Sensing ,
Digital Image Processing, Machine Learning, Deep
Learning, Sensor Network.