Strong in-domain performance in fake-news detection does not necessarily imply robustness across datasets, sources, or claim distributions. This study investigates a comparatively compact CNN–BiLSTM architecture for text-based fake-news detection using repeated random-seed evaluation, controlled classical and neural baselines, computational profiling, post hoc explanation analysis, and cross-dataset evaluation. The architecture combines a trainable embedding layer, one-dimensional convolution, and two stacked bidirectional LSTM layers, with 1,532,273 trainable parameters. Across five prespecified random seeds, the model achieved mean Accuracy and Macro-F1 of (99.79%) and (99.79%), respectively, on ISOT, and (97.84%) and (97.84%) on the fixed tweet-level TruthSeeker protocol. The TruthSeeker results require caution because approximately (99.94%) of test tweets are associated with underlying statements already represented in the training partition. On binary LIAR2, the model achieved mean Accuracy of (76.47%) and Macro-F1 of (70.32%), demonstrating substantial dataset dependence. Controlled comparisons showed that no single architecture dominated across all datasets and metrics. Strict zero-shot transfer from ISOT to the PolitiFact and GossipCop subsets of FakeNewsNet resulted in substantial performance degradation. A matched title-to-title transfer experiment improved PolitiFact performance but did not resolve the weak transfer to GossipCop, indicating that input-field mismatch accounts for only part of the external-domain degradation. LIME showed variable local-surrogate fidelity, while LIME and SHAP provided complementary local attribution patterns. The results support the CNN–BiLSTM as a compact and competitive text-based alternative while highlighting the importance of controlled baselines, overlap analysis, cautious interpretation of post hoc explanations, and strict external evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siddiqa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: