Multiple Criteria Fake Reviews Detection Using Belief Function Theory

  • Malika Ben KhalifaEmail author
  • Zied Elouedi
  • Eric Lefèvre
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 940)


Checking online reviews before making a purchase becomes a permanent habit. Hence, online consumer reviews, product and services play an increasingly spreading role in consumer purchasing decisions. Unfortunately, the importance of advertising and the attraction of profit have led to the appearance of fake reviews in order to mislead readers. Considering that the reviews are generally imperfect, the spam reviews detection becomes one of the most important problems. To tackle this problem, we propose a new method of multi-criteria fake reviews under belief function theory. This approach treats the uncertainty in the rating reviewers’ given to multiple evaluation criteria, takes into account the similarity between all provided reviews and deals with missing data. We evaluate our method through artificial datasets. Then, we use a real dataset to validate it. The results prove that the proposed approach is a useful solution for the fake reviews detection problem.


Online reviews Multi-criteria evaluation Fake reviews Uncertainty Belief function theory 


  1. 1.
    Akoglu, L., Chandy, R., Faloutsos, C.: Opinion fraud detection in online reviews by network effects. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 13, pp. 2–11 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banerjee, S., Chua, A.Y.K.: Applauses in hotel reviews: genuine or deceptive? In: Proceedings of Science and Information Conference (SAI), pp. 938–942 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben Khalifa, M., Elouedi, Z., Lefèvre, E.: Fake reviews detection under belief function framework. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Intelligent System and Informatics (AISI), pp. 395–404 (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dempster, A.P.: Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann. Math. Stat. 38, 325–339 (1967)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lefèvre, E., Elouedi, Z.: How to preserve the confict as an alarm in the combination of belief functions? Decis. Support Syst. 56, 326–333 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fayazbakhsh, S., Sinha, J.: Review spam detection: a network-based approach. Final project report: CSE 590 (Data Mining and Networks) (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fusilier, D.H., Montes-y-Gómez, M.M., Rosso, P., Cabrera, R.G.: Detection of opinion spam with character n-grams. In: Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing, pp. 285–294 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heydari, A., Tavakoli, M., Ismail, Z., Salim, N.: Leveraging quality metrics in voting model based thread retrieval. Int. J. Comput. Electr. Autom. Control Inf. Eng. 10(1), 117–123 (2016). World Academy of Science, Engineering and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jindal, N., Liu, B.: Opinion spam and analysis. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Web Search and Sata Mining, pp. 219–230 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jousselme, A.-L., Grenier, D., Bossé, É.: A new distance between two bodies of evidence. Inf. Fusion 2(2), 91–101 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mukherjee, A., Kumar, A., Liu, B., Wang, J., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M.: Spotting opinion spammers using behavioral footprints. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 632–640 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ott, M., Yejin, C., Claire, C., Jerey, T.H.: Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 309-319 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, vol. 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smets, P.: The combination of evidence in the transferable belief model. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 12(5), 447–458 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smets, P.: The transferable belief model for quantified belief representation. In: Smets, P. (ed.) Quantified Representation of Uncertainty and Imprecision, pp. 267–301. Springer, Dordrecht (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malika Ben Khalifa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zied Elouedi
    • 1
  • Eric Lefèvre
    • 2
  1. 1.Université de Tunis, Institut Supérieur de Gestion de Tunis, LARODECTunisTunisia
  2. 2.Univ. Artois, EA 3926, Laboratoire de Génie Informatique et d’Automatique de l’Artois (LGI2A)BéthuneFrance

Personalised recommendations