The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exploiting Burstiness in Reviews for Review Spammer Detection
Open accessAbstract
Online product reviews have become an important source of user opinions. Due to profit or fame, imposters have been writing deceptive or fake reviews to promote and/or to demote some target products or services. Such imposters are called review spammers. In the past few years, several approaches have been proposed to deal with the problem. In this work, we take a different approach, which exploits the burstiness nature of reviews to identify review spammers. Bursts of reviews can be either due to sudden popularity of products or spam attacks. Reviewers and reviews appearing in a burst are often related in the sense that spammers tend to work with other spammers and genuine reviewers tend to appear together with other genuine reviewers. This paves the way for us to build a network of reviewers appearing in different bursts. We then model reviewers and their co-occurrence in bursts as a Markov Random Field (MRF), and employ the Loopy Belief Propagation (LBP) method to infer whether a reviewer is a spammer or not in the graph. We also propose several features and employ feature induced message passing in the LBP framework for network inference. We further propose a novel evaluation method to evaluate the detected spammers automatically using supervised classification of their reviews. Additionally, we employ domain experts to perform a human evaluation of the identified spammers and non-spammers. Both the classification result and human evaluation result show that the proposed method outperforms strong baselines, which demonstrate the effectiveness of the method.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733
Jindal, N., & Liu, B. (2008) · Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining - WSDM '08 · doi:10.1145/1341531.1341560 · Cited by 1,542
Self-citationFinding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2011) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1107.4557 · Cited by 1,008
Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews
Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., & Glance, N. (2012) · Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2187836.2187863 · Cited by 773
Self-citation
Cited by
Collective 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
Spotting opinion spammers using behavioral footprints
Mukherjee, A., Kumar, A., Liu, B., Wang, J., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M., & Ghosh, R. (2013) · Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2487575.2487580 · Cited by 426
Self-citationCredibility in social media: opinions, news, and health information—a survey
Viviani, M., & Pasi, G. (2017) · WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1209 · Cited by 221
Automated Crowdturfing Attacks and Defenses in Online Review Systems
Yao, Y., Viswanath, B., Cryan, J., Zheng, H., & Zhao, B. Y. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3133956.3133990 · Cited by 150
Bimodal Distribution and Co-Bursting in Review Spam Detection
Li, H., Fei, G., Wang, S., Liu, B., Shao, W., Mukherjee, A., & Shao, J. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/3038912.3052582 · Cited by 141
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Fei, G., Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M., & Ghosh, R.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
- Published
- 2021-08-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 175-184
- ISSN
- 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
- 2334-0770
- OpenAlex
- W2189187207
- Cited by
- 348
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 16.40
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Exploiting Burstiness in Reviews for Review Spammer Detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14400
- The paper
- Fei, G., Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M., & Ghosh, R. (2021). Exploiting Burstiness in Reviews for Review Spammer Detection. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14400
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.