Cited by 306Spam and Phishing DetectionComplex Network Analysis TechniquesMisinformation and Its Impacts

FRAUDAR: Bounding Graph Fraud in the Face of Camouflage

Hooi, Bryan, Song, Hyun Ah, Beutel, Alex, Shah, Neil, Shin, Kijung, Faloutsos, Christos·2016·Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

Abstract

Given a bipartite graph of users and the products that they review, or followers and followees, how can we detect fake reviews or follows? Existing fraud detection methods (spectral, etc.) try to identify dense subgraphs of nodes that are sparsely connected to the remaining graph. Fraudsters can evade these methods using camouflage, by adding reviews or follows with honest targets so that they look "normal". Even worse, some fraudsters use hijacked accounts from honest users, and then the camouflage is indeed organic. Our focus is to spot fraudsters in the presence of camouflage or hijacked accounts. We propose FRAUDAR, an algorithm that (a) is camouflage-resistant, (b) provides upper bounds on the effectiveness of fraudsters, and (c) is effective in real-world data. Experimental results under various attacks show that FRAUDAR outperforms the top competitor in accuracy of detecting both camouflaged and non-camouflaged fraud. Additionally, in real-world experiments with a Twitter follower-followee graph of 1.47 billion edges, FRAUDAR successfully detected a subgraph of more than 4000 detected accounts, of which a majority had tweets showing that they used follower-buying services.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2939672.2939747

Cites

31 of 31 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 lockstep signature is unlikely to form naturally and is highly correlated to fraudulent activities.

    “this signature is unlikely to form naturally and highly correlated to fraudulent activities [30, 57, 73]”
  • Decreasing account reuse decreases profits, because reputable accounts are often preferred in search rank fraud jobs.

    “Decreasing account reuse decreases profits, as reputable accounts are often preferred in search rank fraud jobs [22,68,87].”

    From Fraud De-Anonymization for Fun and Profit (2018) · cites this paper as [22]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hooi, B., Song, H. A., Beutel, A., Shah, N., Shin, K., & Faloutsos, C.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-08-13
Pages
895-904
OpenAlex
W2348679751
Cited by
305
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 2
FWCI
19.25
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (IIS-1408924, CNS-1314632, DGE-1252522)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
fraud detection, fake reviews, fake followers, bipartite graphs, subgraph detection

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