Cited by 47Anomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsTopic Modeling

Detecting anomalies in dynamic rating data: a robust probabilistic model for rating evolution

Günnemann, Stephan, Günnemann, Nikou, Faloutsos, Christos·2014·Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining

Abstract

Rating data is ubiquitous on websites such as Amazon, TripAdvisor, or Yelp. Since ratings are not static but given at various points in time, a temporal analysis of rating data provides deeper insights into the evolution of a product's quality. In this work, we tackle the following question: Given the time stamped rating data for a product or service, how can we detect the general rating behavior of users as well as time intervals where the ratings behave anomalous? We propose a Bayesian model that represents the rating data as sequence of categorical mixture models. In contrast to existing methods, our method does not require any aggregation of the input but it operates on the original time stamped data. To capture the dynamic effects of the ratings, the categorical mixtures are temporally constrained: Anomalies can occur in specific time intervals only and the general rating behavior should evolve smoothly over time. Our method automatically determines the intervals where anomalies occur, and it captures the temporal effects of the general behavior by using a state space model on the natural parameters of the categorical distributions. For learning our model, we propose an efficient algorithm combining principles from variational inference and dynamic programming. In our experimental study we show the effectiveness of our method and we present interesting discoveries on multiple real world datasets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2623330.2623721

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The study confirms that fraud is perpetrated by experts who control many sockpuppet user accounts.

    “Our study thus confirms observations made by existing work, that fraud is perpetrated by experts who control either (1) many sockpuppet user accounts, e.g., [28, 37, recruited online [13,17].”

    From The Art and Craft of Fraudulent App Promotion in Google Play (2019) · cites this paper as [17]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Günnemann, S., Günnemann, N., & Faloutsos, C.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2014-08-24
Pages
841-850
OpenAlex
W2020214545
Cited by
47
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3
FWCI
4.71
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • German Academic Exchange Service
  • U.S. Army Research Laboratory (W911NF-09-2-0053)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Methods and Mixture Models
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
anomaly detection, online ratings, Bayesian model, state-space model, variational inference, dynamic programming, time-stamped data

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