CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1,008Spam and Phishing DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination

Open access
Ott, Myle, Choi, Yejin, Cardie, Claire, Hancock, Jeffrey T.·2011·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1107.4557arXiv 1107.4557
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Consumers increasingly rate, review and research products online. Consequently, websites containing consumer reviews are becoming targets of opinion spam. While recent work has focused primarily on manually identifiable instances of opinion spam, in this work we study deceptive opinion spam---fictitious opinions that have been deliberately written to sound authentic. Integrating work from psychology and computational linguistics, we develop and compare three approaches to detecting deceptive opinion spam, and ultimately develop a classifier that is nearly 90% accurate on our gold-standard opinion spam dataset. Based on feature analysis of our learned models, we additionally make several theoretical contributions, including revealing a relationship between deceptive opinions and imaginative writing.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1107.4557

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [6]6. the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 669-672. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. [17]17. M.K. Johnson and C.L. Raye. 1981. Reality monitoring. Psychological Review , 88(1):67-85.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,002

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2011
Pages
309-319
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1107.4557
arXiv
1107.4557
OpenAlex
W2161283199
Cited by
1,008
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 103 · 2018: 89 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 43
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0624267, 0904822, 0968450)
  • Jack Kent Cooke 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 › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
opinion spam, opinion spam detection, consumer reviews, fake reviews, creative writing, feature analysis, classifier comparison, psychology of deception

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