The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spotting opinion spammers using behavioral footprints
Abstract
Opinionated social media such as product reviews are now widely used by individuals and organizations for their decision making. However, due to the reason of profit or fame, people try to game the system by opinion spamming (e.g., writing fake reviews) to promote or to demote some target products. In recent years, fake review detection has attracted significant attention from both the business and research communities. However, due to the difficulty of human labeling needed for supervised learning and evaluation, the problem remains to be highly challenging. This work proposes a novel angle to the problem by modeling spamicity as latent. An unsupervised model, called Author Spamicity Model (ASM), is proposed. It works in the Bayesian setting, which facilitates modeling spamicity of authors as latent and allows us to exploit various observed behavioral footprints of reviewers. The intuition is that opinion spammers have different behavioral distributions than non-spammers. This creates a distributional divergence between the latent population distributions of two clusters: spammers and non-spammers. Model inference results in learning the population distributions of the two clusters. Several extensions of ASM are also considered leveraging from different priors. Experiments on a real-life Amazon review dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed models which significantly outperform the state-of-the-art competitors.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“We found ASO workers who post fake reviews in rapid bursts in both our qualitative and quantitative investigations.This is consistent with assumptions made in previous fraud detection work, e.g., [26, 28, 32, 36-38, 40, 42, 43, 51, 52, 59-61, 63, 65, 92, 95, 96, 100].”
From The Art and Craft of Fraudulent App Promotion in Google Play (2019) · cites this paper as [36]
In the citing paper
“These results confirm DDA's outcome and previous work on crowdsourced review manipulation, e.g., [36].”
From Fraud De-Anonymization for Fun and Profit (2018) · cites this paper as [36]
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Book Review: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
Nasrabadi, N. M. (2007) · Journal of Electronic Imaging · doi:10.1117/1.2819119 · Cited by 22,066
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733
Text categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with many relevant features
Joachims, T. (1998) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/bfb0026683 · Cited by 8,271
(2006) · Springer eBooks · Cited by 8,123
Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data
Joachims, T. (2002) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/775047.775067 · Cited by 3,947
Zhu, C., Byrd, R. H., Lu, P., & Nocedal, J. M. (1997) · ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software · doi:10.1145/279232.279236 · Cited by 3,474
Multi-Interval Discretization of Continuous-Valued Attributes for Classification Learning
Fayyad, U. M., & Irani, K. B. (1993) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 2,870
Learning to rank for information retrieval
Liu, T. (2010) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/1835449.1835676 · Cited by 1,929
Supervised Topic ModelsPreprint
Blei, D., & McAuliffe, J. D. (2007) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1003.0783 · Cited by 1,860
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Duda R. O. Hart P. E. and Stork D.J. 2001. Pattern Recognition. Wiley. Duda R. O. Hart P. E. and Stork D.J. 2001. Pattern Recognition. Wiley.
- 10.5555/2283696.2283811 · DOI
- Ramage , D. , Hall , D. , Nallapati , R. , & Manning , C.D. 2009. A supervised topic model for credit attribution in multi-labeled corpora. EMNLP ( 2009 ). Ramage, D., Hall, D., Nallapati, R., & Manning, C.D. 2009. A supervised topic model for credit attribution in multi-labeled corpora. EMNLP (2009).
- Streitfeld , D. 2012. Buy Reviews on Yelp , Get Black Mark. ( 2012 ). Streitfeld, D. 2012. Buy Reviews on Yelp, Get Black Mark. (2012).
- 10.5555/1814490.1814493 · DOI
- 10.5555/945365.964285 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sentiment Analysis: Mining Opinions, Sentiments, and Emotions
Liu, B. (2015) · Cited by 624
Self-citationCollective Opinion Spam Detection: Bridging Review Networks and Metadata
Rayana, S., & Akoglu, L. (2015) · Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2783258.2783370 · Cited by 604
A review of natural language processing techniques for opinion mining systems
Sun, S., Luo, C., & Chen, J. (2016) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2016.10.004 · Cited by 576
Detecting opinion spams and fake news using text classification
Ahmed, H., Traoré, I., & Saad, S. (2017) · Security and Privacy · doi:10.1002/spy2.9 · Cited by 553
Survey of review spam detection using machine learning techniques
Crawford, M., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Prusa, J. D., Richter, A. N., & Najada, H. A. (2015) · Journal Of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-015-0029-9 · Cited by 530
Metadata
- Authors
- Mukherjee, A., Kumar, A., Liu, B., Wang, J., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M., & Ghosh, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Hewlett-Packard (United States) (US)
- HP Labs, Palo Alto, CA, USA
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2013-08-11
- Pages
- 632-640
- OpenAlex
- W2016266039
- Cited by
- 426
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 24.84
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- fake review detection, Bayesian clustering, reviewer behavior, Amazon reviews
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
