Human vs. Machine Deception: Distinguishing AI-Generated and Human-Written Fake News Using Ensemble Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapid adoption of large language models has introduced a new class of AI-generated fake news that coexists with traditional human-written misinformation, raising important questions about how these two forms of deceptive content differ and how reliably they can be distinguished. This study examines linguistic, structural, and emotional differences between human-written and AI-generated fake news and evaluates machine learning and ensemble-based methods for distinguishing these content types. A document-level feature representation is constructed using sentence structure, lexical diversity, punctuation patterns, readability indices, and emotion-based features capturing affective dimensions such as fear, anger, joy, sadness, trust, and anticipation. Multiple classification models, including logistic regression, random forest, support vector machines, extreme gradient boosting, and a neural network, are applied alongside an ensemble framework that aggregates predictions across models. Model performance is assessed using accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The results show strong and consistent classification performance, with readability-based features emerging as the most informative predictors and AI-generated text exhibiting more uniform stylistic patterns. Ensemble learning provides modest but consistent improvements over individual models. These findings indicate that stylistic and structural properties of text provide a robust basis for distinguishing AI-generated misinformation from human-written fake news.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Apr 2026.
Builds on
16 of 33 references.
References · 16
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 481
- 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
- 2017Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspectivecited by 336
- 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
- 2018FakeNewsNet: A Data Repository with News Content, Social Context and Spatialtemporal Information for Studying Fake News on Social Mediacited by 285
- 2013Crowdsourcing a Word-Emotion Association Lexiconcited by 196
- 2023GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writerscited by 178
- 2017Automatic Detection of Fake Newscited by 145
- 2023The science of fake newscited by 97
4 more
- 2017Beyond News Contents: The Role of Social Context for Fake News Detectioncited by 91
- 2018A Survey on Natural Language Processing for Fake News Detectioncited by 67
- 2025Ensemble Survival Analysis for Preclinical Cognitive Decline Prediction in Alzheimer's Disease Using Longitudinal Biomarkerscited by 4
- 2018FAKEDETECTOR: Effective Fake News Detection with Deep Diffusive Neural Networkcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.