Detect, Investigate, Judge and Determine:
A Novel LLM-based Framework for Few-shot Fake News Detection

The objective of fake news detection task is to distinguish inaccurate news from real ones (Shu et al., 2017). For few-shot fake news detection, only $K$ instances per category ($K$-shot) are sampled for the training phase (Gao et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2023).

Generally, fake news detection can be defined as a binary classification problem and is addressed by a variety of classification models. Initially, researchers mainly rely on feature engineering and machine learning algorithms. For example, Horne and Adali (2017) presented a set of content-based features to a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier. With the rapid development of computing power, significant improvements have been made with the help of various deep learning algorithms and Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs). Ghanem et al. (2021) combined lexical features and a Bi-GRU network to achieve accurate fake news detection. Jiang et al. (2022) proposed Knowledgeable Prompt Learning (KPL), incorporating prompt learning into fake news detection for the first time, and achieved state-of-the-art performance.

Additionally, due to the specificity of news articles, researchers have incorporated external knowledge knowledge to contribute to traditional fake news detection models. For instance, Dun et al. (2021); Ma et al. (2023); Hu et al. (2021b) utilized knowledge graphs to enrich entity information and structured relation knowledge, leading to more precise news representations and improved detection performance. Meanwhile, Huang et al. (2023) adopted a data augmentation perspective, proposing a novel framework for generating more valuable training examples, which has proven to be beneficial in detecting human-written fake news.

Currently, with the advent of large language models, many researchers are exploring few-shot fake news detection through in-context learning and data augmentation technologies (Hu et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024; Teo et al., 2024). However, These methodologies either simply apply LLMs to judge the authenticity of the given news, or employ LLMs to rephrase the training data, thereby not fully utilizing the potential of LLMs. More importantly, most of them are significantly limited by the aforementioned two shortcomings, particularly in the Information Scarcity problem.

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4, LLama-3 and others (Hoffmann et al., 2022; OpenAI, 2023; AI@Meta, 2024; Tunstall et al., 2023), marks a significant advancement in the field of natural language processing. In-context learning, a novel few-shot learning paradigm, was initially introduced by Brown et al. (2020). To date, LLMs have exhibited remarkable performance across a range of NLP tasks, including text classification, information extraction, question answering and fake news detection (Hu et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024; Teo et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2021).

Previous studies (Hu et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024; Teo et al., 2024) have endeavored to solve few-shot fake news detection via directly asking LLMs or employing them to rephrase the training data. For example, Hu et al. (2024) explored the potential of LLMs in fake news detection, and further developed an Adaptive Rationale Guidance (ARG) network to synergize traditional methods with large language models. Similarly, Wang et al. (2024) leveraged LLMs to generate justifications towards evidence relevant to given news, which were subsequently fed into a trainable classifier.

In this module, we aim to identify the key information contained in the given news article, which will serve as the query for the subsequent modules. Specifically, we construct prompts to convey the original news article to the LLM. The LLM is then guided to extract $N$ keywords $\{w_{1},w_{2},...,w_{N}\}$, which are expected to address the question: “when, where, who, what, how and why did the given news $S$ happen?”:

$$\{w_{1},...,w_{N}\}=\mathcal{F}(Ins_{w},S),$$

(1)

where $\mathcal{F}$ represents the LLM, and $Ins_{w}$ denotes the prompt for the in-context learning. We provide a more detailed description about it in Appendix A.1.

In this module, we aim to investigate the relevant information to assist the LLM in conducting accurate inferences. As outlined in Section 1, this process is approached from two perspectives: Inside Investigation and Outside Investigation.

Following the paradigm designed in the Investigation Module (Section 4.2), we attempt to derive the inference results based on the investigated information from both inside and outside perspectives.

With the predictions $P_{i}$, $P_{o}$ and their corresponding explanations $R_{i}$, $R_{o}$, the final outputs are obtained by jointly considering these two perspectives.

More specifically, if the two predictions are identical (i.e., $P_{i}=P_{o}$), we can directly derive the final prediction with high confidence. Nevertheless, if two results diverge, indicating a conflict between the Inside Judge and Outside Judge, we further propose a determination selector to make a choice based on both sets of predictions and explanations:

	$\displaystyle P_{f}\ =\ \mathcal{F}(Ins_{d}\uplus\ x_{test}\ \uplus$	$\displaystyle\ P_{i}\ \uplus R_{i}$		(6)
		$\displaystyle\uplus\ P_{o}\ \uplus\ R_{o}\ ),$

where $Ins_{d}$ denotes the determination instruction (see Appendix A.4 for more details). $P_{f}$ is the final inference result of the DAFND model.

The main results, presented in Table 2, indicate that our proposed DAFND model surpasses all baselines across various metrics, encompassing traditional, LLM-based and hybrid methods. This underscores the effectiveness of our design and the advantages of enhancing the LLM through both inside and outside perspectives. Furthermore, several notable phenomena emerge from these results:

Firstly, for most baselines and our DAFND model, the performance on the PolitiFact dataset exceeds that on the Gossipcop dataset, suggesting that Gossipcop presents greater difficulty. Specifically, PolitiFact consists of political news while Gossipcop pertains to the entertainment domain. This disparity is reasonable as political news typically exhibits more organized format and content, which facilitates the fake news detection process. Secondly, with the increase of training instances ($K$), most traditional fake news detection methods (e.g., ④ PSM) and hybrid methods (⑨ ARG) show improved performance. This is logical as more data enables better training of a supervised model, mitigating the lack of prior knowledge. However, an exception is observed in ① PROPANEWS, whose performance appears relatively unaffected by $K$. As introduced in Section 5.1, different from other methods, PROPANEWS designs a data constructing strategy to supplement original training set. This significantly offsets the impact of training data quantity. Moreover, for LLM-based methods (⑤ $\sim$ ⑧), as outlined in Section 5.1, due to the limitation of maximum tokens, we all randomly select 6 samples as demonstrations. Hence, increasing the number of training instances does not substantially benefit the in-context learning of LLMs. Thirdly, although our DAFND model also faces the constraint of maximum token limitations, the $k$NN retrieval mechanism in the Inside Investigation part (Section 4.2) enhances the utilization of increased training data, thereby achieving a certain degree of improvements with higher $K$ values. Fourthly, the hybrid method (⑨ ARG), benefiting from the joint modeling of traditional models and LLMs, obtains competitive performance. And compared to that, DAFND still maintains a significant advantage, particularly in scenarios with scarcer data. These observations further demonstrate the effectiveness of our designs from multiple perspectives.

In this subsection, we conduct ablation experiments to assess the effectiveness of different components within our model. Specifically, we directly remove the Determination Module, consequently leading to two ablated variants: Inside Judge and Outside Judge. The results are depicted in Figure 3.

From this figure, across all configurations on PolitiFact and Gossipcop datasets, noticeable decreases are observed between the full DAFND model and its two ablated variants. This thoroughly substantiates the essentiality and non-redundancy of our DAFND designs. Notably, when the training instances are relatively limited ($K=8$), Inside Judge exhibits less effectiveness compared to Outside Judge. With the increase of training instances ($K=32,100$), Inside Judge progressively achieves more competitive performance than Outside Judge. This can be attributed to the increasing benefit of additional training data for the Inside Investigation and Inside Judge components. In contrast, Outside Investigation and Outside Judge rely on the retrieved information online, which remains unaffected by the quantity of training data.

Furthermore, considering that the backbone of DAFND is ⑤ Zephyr (Tunstall et al., 2023), we can jointly compare the results in Figure 3 and the “⑤ Zephyr” line in Table 2. This comparison highlights that both Inside Judge and Outside Judge significantly outperform Zephyr, thereby demonstrating the efficacy of our motivation to design DAFND from both inside and outside perspectives.

To further illustrate the effectiveness of different modules in our model, we conduct a case study on both PolitiFact and Gossipcop datasets. Specifically, Figure 4 presents the input information (i.e., target news), the ground truth label, DAFND results (including the intermediate results of each module and the final results).

As depicted Figure 4 (a), the Detection Module accurately identifies the key information within the target news. And based on the valid results from Inside Investigation and Outside Investigation, both the Inside Judge and Outside Judge correctly infer that: “[This is fake news].”. These are fed into the Determination Module, leading to the final prediction, which is consistent with the ground truth label (i.e., [Fake]). Moreover, In Figure  4 (b), Inside Judge obtains the right inference (i.e., [Fake]), while Outside Judge makes the wrong inference (i.e., [Real]). Conversely, in Figure 4 (c), Inside Judge incorrectly infers “[Real]”, while Outside Judge accurately predicts “[Fake]”. In both (b) and (c), with the design of Determination Module, DAFND finally makes the correct decision. These cases intuitively demonstrate the significant role of each module in DAFND, affirming its efficacy.

More experimental analyses, such as Bad Case Analysis, can be found in Appendix B.