Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 571–597 | Cite as

Graph-based review spammer group detection

Regular Paper

Abstract

Online product reviews nowadays are increasingly prevalent in E-commerce websites. People often refer to product reviews to evaluate the quality of a product before purchasing. However, there have been a large number of review spammers who often work collaboratively to promote or demote target products, which severely harm the review system. Much previous work exploits machine learning approaches to detect suspicious reviews/reviewers. In this paper, we introduce a top-down computing framework, namely GGSpam, to detect review spammer groups by exploiting the topological structure of the underlying reviewer graph which reveals the co-review collusiveness. A novel instantiation of GGSpam, namely GSBC, is designed by modeling spammer groups as bi-connected graphs. Given a reviewer graph, GSBC identifies all the bi-connected components whose spamicity scores exceed the given spam threshold. For large unsuspicious bi-connected graphs, the minimum cut algorithm is used to split the graph, and the smaller graphs are further processed recursively. A variety of group spam indicators are designed to measure the spamicity of a spammer group. Experimental study shows that the proposed approach is both effective and efficient and outperforms several state-of-the-art baselines, including graph based and non-graph based, by a large margin.

Keywords

Fraud detection Review spam Review spammer groups Bi-connected graph Opinion mining Graph mining 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Dr. Shebuti Rayana (Stony Brook University) and Prof. Julian McAuley (UCSD) for sharing their high-quality datasets used in this study. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Akoglu L, Chandy R, Faloutsos C (2013) Opinion fraud detection in online reviews by network effects. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on weblogs and social media, ICWSM, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 8-11 July 2013Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akoglu L, Tong H, Koutra D (2015) Graph based anomaly detection and description: a survey. Data Min Knowl Discov 29(3):626–688MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allahbakhsh M, Ignjatovic A, Benatallah B, Beheshti S, Bertino E, Foo N (2013) Collusion detection in online rating systems. In: Web technologies and applications (Lecture notes in computer science), vol 7808. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 196–207Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choo E, Yu T, Chi M (2015) Detecting opinion spammer groups through community discovery and sentiment analysis. In: Data and applications security and privacy XXIX---29th annual IFIP WG 11.3 working conference, DBSec 2015, Fairfax, 13–15 July 2015, pp 170–187Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fayazi A, Lee K, Caverlee J, Squicciarini A (2015) Uncovering crowdsourced manipulation of online reviews. In: Proceedings of the 38th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Santiago, 9–13 August 2015, pp 233–242Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fei G, Mukherjee A, Liu B, Hsu M, Castellanos M, Ghosh R (2013) Exploiting burstiness in reviews for review spammer detection. In: 7th International AAAI conference on weblogs and social mediaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hopcroft J, Tarjan R (1973) Efficient algorithms for graph manipulation [H] (algorithm 447). Commun ACM 16(6):372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jindal N, Liu B (2008) Opinion spam and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining, ACM, New York, pp 219–230Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jindal N, Liu B, Lim E (2010) Finding unusual review patterns using unexpected rules. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management , CIKM ’10, New York, pp 1549–1552Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li J, Ott M, Cardie C, Hovy E (2014) Towards a general rule for identifying deceptive opinion spam. In: Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (Vol 1: Long papers), Baltimore, pp 1566–1576Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lim E, Nguyen V, Jindal N, Liu B, Lauw H (2010) Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, CIKM ’10, New York, pp 939–948Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mukherjee A, Liu B, Glance N (2012) Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on world wide web, ACM, New York, pp 191–200Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mukherjee A, Kumar A, Liu B, Wang J, Hsu M, Castellanos M, Ghosh R. (2013) Spotting opinion spammers using behavioral footprints. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, New York, pp 632–640Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mukherjee A, Venkataraman V, Liu B, Glance N (2013) What yelp fake review filter might be doing? In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on weblogs and social media, ICWSM, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 8–11 July 2013Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ott M, Choi Y, Cardie C, Hancock J (2011) Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In: Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, vol 1, Stroudsburg, pp 309–319Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rayana S, Akoglu L (2015) Collective opinion spam detection: bridging review networks and metadata. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Sydney, 10–13 Aug 2015, pp 985–994Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stoer M, Wagner F (1997) A simple min-cut algorithm. J ACM 44(4):585–591MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang G, Xie S, Liu B, Yu P (2011) Review graph based online store review spammer detection. ICDM 2011:1242–1247Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang Z, Hou T, Song D, Li Z, Kong T (2016) Detecting review spammer groups via bipartite graph projection. Comput J 59(6):861–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xie S, Wang G, Lin S, Yu P (2012) Review spam detection via time series pattern discovery. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference companion on world wide web, New York, pp 635–636Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xu C, Zhang J (2015) Combating product review spam campaigns via multiple heterogeneous pairwise features. In: Proceedings of the 2015 SIAM international conference on data mining, Vancouver, April 30–May 2 2015, pp 172–180Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xu C, Zhang J (2015) Towards collusive fraud detection in online reviews. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on data mining, ICDM Atlantic City, 14–17 Nov 2015, pp 1051–1056Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu C, Zhang J, Chang K, Long C (2013) Uncovering collusive spammers in chinese review websites. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on conference on information and knowledge management, ACM, New York, pp 979–988Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xu X, Yuruk N, Feng Z, Schweiger T (2007) SCAN: a structural clustering algorithm for networks. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, San Jose, 12–25 Aug 2007, pp 824–833Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ye J, Akoglu L (2015) Discovering opinion spammer groups by network footprints. In: Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases (Lecture notes in computer science), vol 9284. Springer International Publishing, pp 267–282Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shenyang Ligong UniversityShenyangChina
  2. 2.University of Arkansas at Little RockLittle RockUSA

Personalised recommendations