Submitted:
12 May 2026
Posted:
13 May 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- A rigorous comparative study of XGBoost, DistilBERT, and RoBERTa on a 70,556-article deduplicated corpus, with false negative rate as the primary selection criterion—a deliberate departure from accuracy-centric evaluation that better reflects the asymmetric cost of missed fake news.
- A post-deployment continuous learning system comprising a nightly GitHub Actions scraper, experience replay fine-tuning, automatic evaluation gating, and versioned deployment—the first such pipeline reported for fake news detection to our knowledge.
- An adversarial training procedure that constructs formally-worded misinformation examples and demonstrates 95.71% adversarial accuracy versus approximately 40% for the base model, with no degradation on standard benchmarks.
- Production deployment via ONNX INT8 quantization, FastAPI hosting on free CPU infrastructure, and a Chrome extension providing paragraph-level detection, LIME explainability, source credibility fusion, multilingual support, and OCR-based image text analysis.
- Comprehensive evaluation across 50 curated articles (98% accuracy) and a seven-category adversarial test suite (91.7% overall, 100% in five of seven categories).
2. Related Work
2.1. Fake News Detection: From Features to Transformers
2.2. Adversarial Robustness
2.3. Continuous Learning
2.4. Browser-Based Deployment
3. Dataset Construction
3.1. Source Datasets
3.2. Preprocessing and Deduplication
| Statistic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Total unique articles | 70,556 | After deduplication |
| Real articles | 35,841 (50.8%) | Label: 0 |
| Fake articles | 34,715 (49.2%) | Label: 1 |
| Duplicates removed | 52,980 (42.9%) | Cross-dataset overlap |
| Median article length | 2,283 chars | Range: 50–12,000 |
| Temporal range | 2016–2021 | Six-year span |
| Training split (70%) | 49,388 | Stratified |
| Validation split (15%) | 10,584 | Stratified |
| Test split (15%) | 10,584 | Stratified |
4. Model Architecture and Training
4.1. Comparative Study
4.1.1. XGBoost with TF-IDF Features
4.1.2. DistilBERT
4.1.3. RoBERTa-Base
4.2. Results and Model Selection
4.3. RoBERTa Training Dynamics
5. Continuous Learning Pipeline
5.1. Motivation and Architecture
5.2. Automated Data Collection
5.3. Experience Replay Fine-Tuning
5.4. Model Versioning and Deployment
6. Adversarial Robustness
6.1. Vulnerability Analysis
6.2. Adversarial Dataset Construction
6.3. Adversarial Fine-Tuning Results

7. System Deployment
7.1. ONNX INT8 Quantization
7.2. FastAPI Backend
7.3. Chrome Browser Extension
8. Evaluation
8.1. Benchmark Performance
8.2. 50-Article Curated Evaluation
8.3. Research-Backed Seven-Category Adversarial Testing
8.4. Improvement Trajectory

9. Discussion
9.1. The False Negative Priority
9.2. Practical Contributions and Limitations
9.3. Comparison with Related Work
10. Conclusion
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
References
- Vosoughi, S.; Roy, D.; Aral, S. The spread of true and false news online. Science 2018, vol. 359(no. 6380), 1146–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaliyar, R. K.; Goswami, A.; Narang, P. FakeBERT: Fake news detection in social media with a BERT-based deep learning approach. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2021, vol. 80(no. 8), 11765–11788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, C.; Pan, F.; Qiu, Y. Fake news detectors are biased against texts generated by large language models. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2309.08674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, K.; Sliva, A.; Wang, S.; Tang, J.; Liu, H. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 2017, vol. 19(no. 1), 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser; Polosukhin, I. Attention is all you need. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2017, 5998–6008. [Google Scholar]
- Devlin, J.; Chang, M.-W.; Lee, K.; Toutanova, K. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proc. NAACL-HLT, 2019; pp. 4171–4186. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Ott, M.; Goyal, N.; Du, J.; Joshi, M.; Chen, D.; Levy, O.; Lewis, M.; Zettlemoyer, L.; Stoyanov, V. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1907.11692. [Google Scholar]
- Przybyła, P.; Shardlow, A.; Zerva, S.; Nawaz, M.; Ives, M.; Ananiadou, S.; Procter, R. BODEGA: Benchmark for adversarial example generation in credibility assessment. Proc. LREC-COLING, 2024; pp. 15411–15422. [Google Scholar]
- Tahmasebi, S.; Müller-Budack, E.; Ewerth, R. Robust fake news detection using large language models under adversarial sentiment attacks. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2601.15277. [Google Scholar]
- McCloskey, M.; Cohen, N. J. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In in Psychology of Learning and Motivation; 1989; vol. 24, pp. 109–165. [Google Scholar]
- Sallami, D.; Aïmeur, E. Verify as you go: An LLM-powered browser extension for fake news detection. arXiv 2026, arXiv:2603.05519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, H.; Traore, I.; Saad, S. Detection of online fake news using n-gram analysis and machine learning techniques. Proc. ISDCS, 2017; pp. 127–138. [Google Scholar]
- Verma, P. K.; Agrawal, P.; Amorim, I.; Prodan, R. WELFake: Word embedding over linguistic features for fake news detection. IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 2021, vol. 8(no. 4), 881–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patwa, P.; Sharma, S.; Pykl, S.; Guptha, V.; Kumari, G.; Akhtar, M. S.; Ekbal, A.; Das, A.; Chakraborty, T. Fighting an infodemic: COVID-19 fake news dataset. Combat. Online Hostile Posts Reg. Lang. Dur. Emerg. Situat. 2021, 21–29. [Google Scholar]
- Sanh, V.; Debut, L.; Chaumond, J.; Wolf, T. DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: Smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1910.01108. [Google Scholar]






| Dataset | Total | Real | Fake | Year | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISOT | 44,898 | 21,417 | 23,481 | 2017 | News |
| WELFake | 72,134 | 35,028 | 37,106 | 2021 | News |
| COVID-19 Constraint | 10,700 | 5,600 | 5,100 | 2021 | Social |
| Combined | 127,732 | 62,045 | 65,687 | 2016–21 | Mixed |
| Metric | XGBoost | DistilBERT | RoBERTa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 95.88% | 97.74% | 98.51% |
| Precision | 95.21% | 96.98% | 98.08% |
| Recall | 96.49% | 98.48% | 98.91% |
| F1-Score | 95.84% | 97.72% | 98.49% |
| False Negatives | 183 | 79 | 57 |
| FN Rate | 3.51% | 1.52% | 1.09% |
| False Positives | 253 | 160 | 101 |
| Parameters | – | 67 M | 125 M |
| Training Time | 59 min | 207 min | 409 min |
| Model Size | 100 MB | 268 MB | 500 MB |
| Epoch | Train Loss | Train Acc | Val Loss | Val Acc | Time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.3163 | 91.55% | 0.2538 | 97.35% | 81.8 |
| 2 | 0.2319 | 98.25% | 0.2298 | 98.35% | 81.9 |
| 3 | 0.2143 | 99.22% | 0.2303 | 98.55% | 81.9 |
| 4 | 0.2052 | 99.69% | 0.2299 | 98.65% | 81.9 |
| 5 | 0.2019 | 99.86% | 0.2291 | 98.67% | 81.9 |
| Version | Original (2016–21) | Fresh (2024–26) | FNR Old | FNR Fresh |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V1 (baseline) | 98.51% | – | 1.09% | – |
| V2 (replay) | 98.53% | 99.58% | 1.15% | 0.24% |
| V3 (nightly) | 98.26% | 99.52% | 1.44% | 0.59% |
| V3-Robust (adv.) | 98.60% | 99.60% | 1.61% | 0.40% |
| Test Set | V3 | V3-Robust | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original (2016–21) | 98.26% | 98.60% | % |
| Fresh (2024–26) | 99.52% | 99.60% | % |
| Adversarial (70 ex.) | ≈40% | 95.71% | % |
| Category | Correct / Total | Accuracy | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obvious fake news | 10 / 10 | 100% | Sensationalist language |
| Subtle fake news | 10 / 10 | 100% | Academic register |
| Real news (verified) | 20 / 20 | 100% | Established outlets |
| Borderline cases | 9 / 10 | 90% | Inherent ambiguity |
| Overall | 49 / 50 | 98% | – |
| Category | Correct / Total | Accuracy | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adversarial robustness | 5 / 5 | 100% | Formal language detected |
| AI-generated fake news | 4 / 4 | 100% | LLM content detected |
| Temporal domain shift | 5 / 5 | 100% | COVID, election, climate |
| Multilingual content | 4 / 4 | 100% | Hindi, Spanish, Hinglish |
| Source credibility | 4 / 5 | 80% | Trusted domain override |
| Domain-specific | 8 / 8 | 100% | Medical, political, science |
| Edge cases | 3 / 5 | 60% | Short text, stats-only |
| Overall | 33 / 36 | 91.7% | – |
| System Version | Score | Absolute Gain | Primary Gain |
|---|---|---|---|
| V3 (initial) | 24/36 = 66.7% | – | – |
| V3-Robust (adv. training) | 31/36 = 86.1% | % | Adversarial cats. |
| + Pattern fixes | 33/36 = 91.7% | % | Edge cases, domain |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).