Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3159652.3159729acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

REV2: Fraudulent User Prediction in Rating Platforms

Published: 02 February 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Rating platforms enable large-scale collection of user opinion about items(e.g., products or other users). However, untrustworthy users give fraudulent ratings for excessive monetary gains. In this paper, we present REV2, a system to identify such fraudulent users. We propose three interdependent intrinsic quality metrics---fairness of a user, reliability of a rating and goodness of a product. The fairness and reliability quantify the trustworthiness of a user and rating, respectively, and goodness quantifies the quality of a product. Intuitively, a user is fair if it provides reliable scores that are close to the goodness of products. We propose six axioms to establish the interdependency between the scores, and then, formulate a mutually recursive definition that satisfies these axioms. We extend the formulation to address cold start problem and incorporate behavior properties. We develop the REV2 algorithm to calculate these intrinsic quality scores for all users, ratings, and products. We show that this algorithm is guaranteed to converge and has linear time complexity. By conducting extensive experiments on five rating datasets, we show that REV2 outperforms nine existing algorithms in detecting fair and unfair users. We reported the 150 most unfair users in the Flipkart network to their review fraud investigators, and 127 users were identified as being fraudulent(84.6% accuracy). The REV2 algorithm is being deployed at Flipkart.

References

[1]
Rev2 online appendix. https://cs.stanford.edu/~srijan/rev2/.
[2]
L. Akoglu, R. Chandy, and C. Faloutsos. Opinion fraud detection in online reviews by network effects. In International Conference on Web and Social Media, 2013.
[3]
L. Akoglu, H. Tong, and D. Koutra. Graph based anomaly detection and description: a survey. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 2015.
[4]
C. Chen, K. Wu, V. Srinivasan, and X. Zhang. Battling the internet water army: Detection of hidden paid posters. In International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, 2013.
[5]
A. Fayazi, K. Lee, J. Caverlee, and A. Squicciarini. Uncovering crowdsourced manipulation of online reviews. In Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval, 2015.
[6]
S. Ghosh, B. Viswanath, F. Kooti, N. K. Sharma, G. Korlam, F. Benevenuto, N. Ganguly, and K. P. Gummadi. Understanding and combating link farming in the twitter social network. In International Conference on World Wide Web, 2012.
[7]
B. Hooi, N. Shah, A. Beutel, S. Gunneman, L. Akoglu, M. Kumar, D. Makhija, and C. Faloutsos. Birdnest: Bayesian inference for ratings-fraud detection. In SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, 2016.
[8]
B. Hooi, H. A. Song, A. Beutel, N. Shah, K. Shin, and C. Faloutsos. Fraudar: Bounding graph fraud in the face of camouflage. In ACM International conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2016.
[9]
C. J. Hutto and E. Gilbert. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, 2014.
[10]
M. Jiang, P. Cui, A. Beutel, C. Faloutsos, and S. Yang. Catchsync: catching synchronized behavior in large directed graphs. In ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2014.
[11]
M. Jiang, P. Cui, and C. Faloutsos. Suspicious behavior detection: Current trends and future directions. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 31)1):31--39, 2016.
[12]
S. Kumar, J. Cheng, J. Leskovec, and V. Subrahmanian. An army of me: Sockpuppets in online discussion communities. In International Conference on World Wide Web, 2017.
[13]
S. Kumar and N. Shah. False information on web and social media: A survey. In Social Media Analytics: Advances and Applications. CRC, 2018.
[14]
S. Kumar, F. Spezzano, V. Subrahmanian, and C. Faloutsos. Edge weight prediction in weighted signed networks. In IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining, 2016.
[15]
T. Lappas, G. Sabnis, and G. Valkanas. The impact of fake reviews on online visibility: A vulnerability assessment of the hotel industry. INFORMS, 27)4), 2016.
[16]
H. Li, G. Fei, S. Wang, B. Liu, W. Shao, A. Mukherjee, and J. Shao. Bimodal distribution and co-bursting in review spam detection. In International Conference on World Wide Web, 2017.
[17]
R.-H. Li, J. Xu~Yu, X. Huang, and H. Cheng. Robust reputation-based ranking on bipartite rating networks. In SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, 2012.
[18]
E.-P. Lim, V.-A. Nguyen, N. Jindal, B. Liu, and H. W. Lauw. Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors. In International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2010.
[19]
P. Massa and P. Avesani. Trust-aware recommender systems. In ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 2007.
[20]
J. J. McAuley and J. Leskovec. From amateurs to connoisseurs: modeling the evolution of user expertise through online reviews. In International Conference on World Wide Web, 2013.
[21]
A. J. Minnich, N. Chavoshi, A. Mueen, S. Luan, and M. Faloutsos. Trueview: Harnessing the power of multiple review sites. In International Conference on World Wide Web, 2015.
[22]
A. Mishra and A. Bhattacharya. Finding the bias and prestige of nodes in networks based on trust scores. In International World Wide Web conference, 2011.
[23]
A. Mukherjee, A. Kumar, B. Liu, J. Wang, M. Hsu, M. Castellanos, and R. Ghosh. Spotting opinion spammers using behavioral footprints. In ACM International conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2013.
[24]
A. Mukherjee, V. Venkataraman, B. Liu, and N. S. Glance. What yelp fake review filter might be doing? In International Conference on Web and Social Media, 2013.
[25]
J. W. Pennebaker, M. E. Francis, and R. J. Booth. Linguistic inquiry and word count: Liwc 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 71)2001):2001, 2001.
[26]
S. Rayana and L. Akoglu. Collective opinion spam detection: Bridging review networks and metadata. In ACM International conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2015.
[27]
V. Sandulescu and M. Ester. Detecting singleton review spammers using semantic similarity. In International Conference on World Wide Web, 2015.
[28]
V. Subrahmanian and S. Kumar. Predicting human behavior: The next frontiers. Science, 355)6324):489--489, 2017.
[29]
H. Sun, A. Morales, and X. Yan. Synthetic review spamming and defense. In ACM International conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2013.
[30]
B. Viswanath, M. A. Bashir, M. Crovella, S. Guha, K. P. Gummadi, B. Krishnamurthy, and A. Mislove. Towards detecting anomalous user behavior in online social networks. In USENIX Security, 2014.
[31]
B. Viswanath, M. A. Bashir, M. B. Zafar, S. Bouget, S. Guha, K. P. Gummadi, A. Kate, and A. Mislove. Strength in numbers: Robust tamper detection in crowd computations. In Conference on Online Social Networks, 2015.
[32]
G. Wang, S. Xie, B. Liu, and S. Y. Philip. Review graph based online store review spammer detection. In IEEE International Conference on Data Mining series, 2011.
[33]
G. Wang, S. Xie, B. Liu, and P. S. Yu. Identify online store review spammers via social review graph. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 3)4):61, 2012.
[34]
J. Wang, A. Ghose, and P. Ipeirotis. Bonus, disclosure, and choice: what motivates the creation of high-quality paid reviews? In International Conference on Information Systems, 2012.
[35]
G. Wu, D. Greene, and P. Cunningham. Merging multiple criteria to identify suspicious reviews. In ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 2010.
[36]
Z. Wu, C. C. Aggarwal, and J. Sun. The troll-trust model for ranking in signed networks. In ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 2016.
[37]
S. Xie, G. Wang, S. Lin, and P. S. Yu. Review spam detection via temporal pattern discovery. In ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2012.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Multiplex graph fusion network with reinforcement structure learning for fraud detection in online e-commerce platformsExpert Systems with Applications10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125598262(125598)Online publication date: Mar-2025
  • (2024)TPoison: Data-Poisoning Attack against GNN-Based Social Trust ModelMathematics10.3390/math1212181312:12(1813)Online publication date: 11-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Influence Maximization in Temporal Social Networks with the Mixed K-Shell MethodElectronics10.3390/electronics1313253313:13(2533)Online publication date: 27-Jun-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
WSDM '18: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
February 2018
821 pages
ISBN:9781450355810
DOI:10.1145/3159652
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 02 February 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

WSDM 2018

Acceptance Rates

WSDM '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 81 of 514 submissions, 16%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 498 of 2,863 submissions, 17%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)506
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)85
Reflects downloads up to 21 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Multiplex graph fusion network with reinforcement structure learning for fraud detection in online e-commerce platformsExpert Systems with Applications10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125598262(125598)Online publication date: Mar-2025
  • (2024)TPoison: Data-Poisoning Attack against GNN-Based Social Trust ModelMathematics10.3390/math1212181312:12(1813)Online publication date: 11-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Influence Maximization in Temporal Social Networks with the Mixed K-Shell MethodElectronics10.3390/electronics1313253313:13(2533)Online publication date: 27-Jun-2024
  • (2024)GT-CHES: Graph transformation for classification in human evolutionary systemsIntelligent Data Analysis10.3233/IDA-23019428:3(699-715)Online publication date: 28-May-2024
  • (2024)User tendency-based rating scaling in online trading networksPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.029790319:4(e0297903)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Unifying Evolution, Explanation, and Discernment: A Generative Approach for Dynamic Graph CounterfactualsProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3671831(2420-2431)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
  • (2024)Max-Min Diversification with Asymmetric DistancesProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3671757(1440-1450)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
  • (2024)Graph Anomaly Detection with Adaptive Node MixupProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management10.1145/3627673.3679577(3494-3504)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Capturing Temporal Node Evolution via Self-supervised Learning: A New Perspective on Dynamic Graph LearningProceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining10.1145/3616855.3635765(443-451)Online publication date: 4-Mar-2024
  • (2024)λGrapher: A Resource-Efficient Serverless System for GNN Serving through Graph SharingProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645383(2826-2835)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media