Advertisement

A Multi-criteria Decision Making Approach for the Assessment of Information Credibility in Social Media

  • Marco Viviani
  • Gabriella Pasi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10147)

Abstract

In Social Media, large amounts of User Generated Content (UGC) generally diffuse without any form of trusted external control. In this context, the risk of running into misinformation is not negligible. For this reason, assessing the credibility of both information and its sources in Social Media platforms constitutes nowadays a fundamental issue for users. In the last years, several approaches have been proposed to address this issue. Most of them employ machine learning techniques to classify information and misinformation. Other approaches exploit multiple kinds of relationships connecting entities in Social Media applications, focusing on credibility and trust propagation. Unlike previous approaches, in this paper we propose a model-driven approach based on Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) and quantifier guided aggregation. An overall credibility estimate for each piece of information is obtained based on multiple criteria connected to both UGC and users generating it. The proposed model is evaluated in the context of opinion spam detection in review sites, on a real-world dataset crawled from Yelp, and it is compared with well-known supervised machine learning techniques.

Keywords

Credibility assessment Opinion spam detection Social Media Multi-Criteria Decision Making OWA aggregation operators 

References

  1. 1.
    Abbasi, A., Fu, T., Zeng, D., Adjeroh, D.: Crawling credible online medical sentiments for social intelligence. In: 2013 International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), pp. 254–263. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banerjee, S., Chua, A.Y.: Applauses in hotel reviews: genuine or deceptive? In: 2014 Science and Information Conference (SAI), pp. 938–942. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvo, T., Mayor, G., Mesiar, R. (eds.): Aggregation Operators: New Trends and Applications. Physica-Verlag GmbH, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., Poblete, B.: Predicting information credibility in time-sensitive social media. Internet Res. 23(5), 560–588 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fogg, B.J., Tseng, H.: The elements of computer credibility. In: Proceeding of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 80–87. ACM (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gupta, A., Kumaraguru, P., Castillo, C., Meier, P.: TweetCred: a real-time web-based system for assessing credibility of content on Twitter. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Social Informatics (SocInfo), Barcelona, Spain (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heydari, A., ali Tavakoli, M., Salim, N., Heydari, Z.: Detection of review spam: a survey. Expert Syst. Appl. 42(7), 3634–3642 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L., Kelley, H.H.: Communication and Persuasion. Yale University Press, New Haven (1953)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jin, Z., Cao, J., Jiang, Y.G., Zhang, Y.: News credibility evaluation on microblog with a hierarchical propagation model. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 230–239. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jindal, N., Liu, B.: Opinion spam and analysis. In: Proceedings of 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 219–230. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kang, B., Höllerer, T., O’Donovan, J.: Believe it or not? Analyzing information credibility in microblogs. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015, pp. 611–616. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, H., Liu, B., Mukherjee, A., Shao, J.: Spotting fake reviews using positive-unlabeled learning. Computación y Sistemas 18(3), 467–475 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, X., Liu, B.: Learning to classify texts using positive and unlabeled data. In: IJCAI, vol. 3, pp. 587–592 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lim, E.P., Nguyen, V.A., Jindal, N., Liu, B., Lauw, H.W.: Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors. In: Proceedings of 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 939–948. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luca, M., Zervas, G.: Fake it till you make it: reputation, competition, and Yelp review fraud. Manag. Sci. 62(12), 3412–3427 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ma, T.J., Atkin, D.: User generated content and credibility evaluation of online health information: a meta analytic study. Telemat. Informat. (2016). In PressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R., McCann, R.M.: Credibility for the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 27(1), 293–335 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., Glance, N.: Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews. In: Proceedings of 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 191–200. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mukherjee, A., Venkataraman, V., Liu, B., Glance, N.S.: What Yelp fake review filter might be doing? In: Proceedings of ICWSM (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mukherjee, S., Weikum, G., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C.: People on drugs: credibility of user statements in health communities. In: Proceedings of 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference, pp. 65–74. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Donovan, J., Kang, B., Meyer, G., Höllerer, T., Adalii, S.: Credibility in context: an analysis of feature distributions in Twitter. In: Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2012 International Conference on Social Computing, pp. 293–301. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ott, M., Cardie, C., Hancock, J.: Estimating the prevalence of deception in online review communities. In: Proceedings of 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 201–210. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ren, Y., Ji, D., Zhang, H.: Positive unlabeled learning for deceptive reviews detection. In: EMNLP, pp. 488–498 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seo, E., Mohapatra, P., Abdelzaher, T.: Identifying rumors and their sources in social networks. In: SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing, p. 83891I. International Society for Optics and Photonics (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sikdar, S., Kang, B., ODonovan, J., Höllerer, T., Adah, S.: Understanding information credibility on Twitter. In: 2013 International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), pp. 19–24. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, G., Xie, S., Liu, B., Yu, P.S.: Identify online store review spammers via social review graph. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. (TIST) 3(4), 61 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yager, R.R.: On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 18(1), 183–190 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yager, R.R.: Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 11(1), 49–73 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ye, J., Akoglu, L.: Discovering opinion spammer groups by network footprints. In: Appice, A., Rodrigues, P.P., Santos Costa, V., Soares, C., Gama, J., Jorge, A. (eds.) ECML PKDD 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9284, pp. 267–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23528-8_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica, Sistemistica e Comunicazione (DISCo)Università degli Studi di Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations