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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“The dataset of deceptive reviews from Ott et al. [46, 47] has 800 truthful reviews and 800 deceptive reviews for hotels in Chicago.”
From Improving Human-AI Collaboration With Descriptions of AI Behavior (2023) · cites this paper as [47]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
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
Machine learning in automated text categorization
Sebastiani, F. (2002) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/505282.505283 · Cited by 7,927
SRILM - an extensible language modeling toolkit
Stolcke, A. (2002) · International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP) · doi:10.21437/icslp.2002-303 · Cited by 4,385
Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.011 · Cited by 3,267
Generalized additive models for location, scale and shape.
Rigby, R. A., & Stasinopoulos, D. M. (2005) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9876.2005.00510.x · Cited by 3,228
Accurate unlexicalized parsing
Klein, D., & Manning, C. D. (2003) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.3115/1075096.1075150 · Cited by 3,055
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English
Biber, D., & Quirk, R. (1999) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587792 · Cited by 2,766
Accuracy of Deception Judgments
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 · Cited by 1,953
The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015) · University of Texas at Austin · doi:10.15781/t25p41 · Cited by 1,674
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [6]6. the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 669-672. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- [17]17. M.K. Johnson and C.L. Raye. 1981. Reality monitoring. Psychological Review , 88(1):67-85.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,002 of 1,002
Direcția informare și relații publice, M. A. N., & BĂLAN, C. (2021) · Gândirea militară românească · doi:10.55535/gmr.2021.3.12
Recognition of Phony Reviews in E-commerce Platform
M, R. B. T., & Harshith, K. S. (2023) · International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology · doi:10.22214/ijraset.2023.55564
Metadata
- Authors
- Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2011
- Pages
- 309-319
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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
