Consumers' purchase decisions are increasingly influenced by user-generated online reviews. Accordingly, there has been growing concern about the potential for posting deceptive opinion spam fictitious reviews that have been deliberately written to sound authentic, to deceive the readers. Existing approaches mainly focus on developing automatic supervised learning based methods to help users identify deceptive opinion spams. This work, we used the LSI and Sprinkled LSI technique to reduce the dimension for deception detection. We make our contribution to demonstrate what LSI is capturing in latent semantic space and reveal how deceptive opinions can be recognized automatically from truthful opinions. Finally, we proposed a voting scheme which integrates different approaches to further improve the classification performance.
Jindal and Liu first studied the deceptive opinion problem and trained models using features based on the review text, reviewer, and product to identify duplicate opinions, i.e., opinions that appear more than once in the corpus with similar contexts. (2010) propose an alternative strategy to detect deceptive opinion spam in the absence of a gold standard. Yoo and Gretzel gathered 40 truthful and 42 deceptive hotel reviews and manually compare the linguistic differences between them. created a gold-standard collection by employing Turkers to write fake reviews, and follow-up research was based on their data @cite_25 @cite_3 @cite_23 @cite_24 @cite_7 . For example, looked into syntactic features from Context Free Grammar parse trees to improve the classifier performance. A step further, Feng and Hirst make use of degree of compatibility between the personal experiment and a collection of reference reviews about the same product rather than simple textual features.
@cite_7 @cite_3 @cite_24 @cite_23 @cite_25
2251030241 2179021455 2794855269 2251645975
The rising influence of user-generated online reviews (Cone, 2011) has led to growing incentive for businesses to solicit and manufacture DECEPTIVE OPINION SPAM—fictitious reviews that have been deliberately written to sound authentic and deceive the reader. Recently, (2011) have introduced an opinion spam dataset containing gold standard deceptive positive hotel reviews. However, the complementary problem of negative deceptive opinion spam, intended to slander competitive offerings, remains largely unstudied. Following an approach similar to (2011), in this work we create and study the first dataset of deceptive opinion spam with negative sentiment reviews. Based on this dataset, we find that standard n-gram text categorization techniques can detect negative deceptive opinion spam with performance far surpassing that of human judges. Finally, in conjunction with the aforementioned positive review dataset, we consider the possible interactions between sentiment and deception, and present initial results that encourage further exploration of this relationship. Recent work has developed supervised methods for detecting deceptive opinion spam— fake reviews written to sound authentic and deliberately mislead readers. And whereas past work has focused on identifying individual fake reviews, this paper aims to identify offerings (e.g., hotels) that contain fake reviews. We introduce a semi-supervised manifold ranking algorithm for this task, which relies on a small set of labeled individual reviews for training. Then, in the absence of gold standard labels (at an offering level), we introduce a novel evaluation procedure that ranks artificial instances of real offerings, where each artificial offering contains a known number of injected deceptive reviews. Experiments on a novel dataset of hotel reviews show that the proposed method outperforms state-of-art learning baselines. Abstract With the widespread of deceptive opinions in the Internet, how to identify online deceptive reviews automatically has become an attractive topic in research field. Traditional methods concentrate on extracting different features from online reviews and training machine learning classifiers to produce models to decide whether an incoming review is deceptive or not. This paper proposes an approach called DRI-RCNN (Deceptive Review Identification by Recurrent Convolutional Neural Network) to identify deceptive reviews by using word contexts and deep learning. The basic idea is that since deceptive reviews and truthful reviews are written by writers without and with real experience respectively, the writers of the reviews should have different contextual knowledge on their target objectives under description. In order to differentiate the deceptive and truthful contextual knowledge embodied in the online reviews, we represent each word in a review with six components as a recurrent convolutional vector. The first and second components are two numerical word vectors derived from training deceptive and truthful reviews, respectively. The third and fourth components are left neighboring deceptive and truthful context vectors derived by training a recurrent convolutional neural network on context vectors and word vectors of left words. The fifth and six components are right neighboring deceptive and truthful context vectors of right words. Further, we employ max-pooling and ReLU (Rectified Linear Unit) filter to transfer recurrent convolutional vectors of words in a review to a review vector by extracting positive maximum feature elements in recurrent convolutional vectors of words in the review. Experiment results on the spam dataset and the deception dataset demonstrate that the proposed DRI-RCNN approach outperforms the state-of-the-art techniques in deceptive review identification. Consumers’ purchase decisions are increasingly influenced by user-generated online reviews. Accordingly, there has been growing concern about the potential for posting deceptive opinion spam— fictitious reviews that have been deliberately written to sound authentic, to deceive the reader. In this paper, we explore generalized approaches for identifying online deceptive opinion spam based on a new gold standard dataset, which is comprised of data from three different domains (i.e. Hotel, Restaurant, Doctor), each of which contains three types of reviews, i.e. customer generated truthful reviews, Turker generated deceptive reviews and employee (domain-expert) generated deceptive reviews. Our approach tries to capture the general difference of language usage between deceptive and truthful reviews, which we hope will help customers when making purchase decisions and review portal operators, such as TripAdvisor or Yelp, investigate possible fraudulent activity on their sites. 1