
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includesvg[width=\textwidth]{figures/FNN_hist_anecdote}
    \caption{
    Distribution for \emph{anecdote} in the PolitiFact dataset.
    }
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includesvg[width=\textwidth]{figures/emi_hist_anecdote}
    \caption{
    Distribution for \emph{anecdote} in the FakeNews-2018 dataset.
    }
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
Histograms showing the distribution of the ratio of sentences labelled \emph{anecdote} for both credible and deceptive news.
Anecdotes are more represented on deceptive articles on the PolitiFact dataset, while they appear at roughly the same rate the FakeNews-2018 dataset.
\label{fig:fnn_anecdote_hist}
}
\end{figure*}


\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includesvg[width=\textwidth]{figures/FNN_hist_assumption}
    \caption{
    Distribution for \emph{assumption} in the PolitiFact dataset.
    }
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includesvg[width=\textwidth]{figures/emi_hist_assumption}
    \caption{
    Distribution for \emph{assumption} in the FakeNews-2018 dataset.
    }
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
Histograms showing the distribution of the ratio of sentences labelled \emph{assumption} for both credible and deceptive news.
Assumptions appear less often on deceptive articles on the FakeNews-2018 dataset.
There difference for the distributions of the PolitiFact dataset is not statistically significant, meaning that we cannot rule out random chance as the reason behind this.
\label{fig:fnn_assumption_hist}
}
\end{figure*}


\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includesvg[width=\textwidth]{figures/FNN_hist_testimony}
    \caption{
    Distribution for \emph{testimony} in the PolitiFact dataset.
    }
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includesvg[width=\textwidth]{figures/emi_hist_testimony}
    \caption{
    Distribution for \emph{testimony} in the FakeNews-2018 dataset.
    }
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
Histograms showing the distribution of the ratio of sentences labelled \emph{testimony} for both credible and deceptive news.
Testimonies appear more often on deceptive articles, regardless of the dataset.
\label{fig:fnn_testimony_hist}
}
\end{figure*}


\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includesvg[width=\textwidth]{figures/FNN_hist_other}
    \caption{
    Distribution for \emph{other} in the PolitiFact dataset.
    }
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
    \includesvg[width=\textwidth]{figures/emi_hist_other}
    \caption{
    Distribution for \emph{other} in the FakeNews-2018 dataset.
    }
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
Histograms showing the distribution of the ratio of sentences labelled \emph{other} for both credible and deceptive news.
This label appears more often in credible articles, regardless of the dataset.
This label includes the labels \emph{statistics} and \emph{common-ground} from the Webis-16 dataset, as noted in Section \ref{sec:dataset_arg}.
\label{fig:fnn_other_hist}
}
\end{figure*}
