Fake Opinion Detection: How Similar are Crowdsourced Datasets to Real Data?

[EN] Identifying deceptive online reviews is a challenging tasks for Natural Language Processing (NLP). Collecting corpora for the task is difficult, because normally it is not possible to know whether reviews are genuine. A common workaround involves collecting (supposedly) truthful reviews online and adding them to a set of deceptive reviews obtained through crowdsourcing services. Models trained this way are generally successful at discriminating between `genuine¿ online reviews and the crowdsourced deceptive reviews. It has been argued that the deceptive reviews obtained via crowdsourcing are very different from real fake reviews, but the claim has never been properly tested. In this paper, we compare (false) crowdsourced reviews with a set of `real¿ fake reviews published on line. We evaluate their degree of similarity and their usefulness in training models for the detection of untrustworthy reviews. We find that the deceptive reviews collected via crowdsourcing are significantly different from the fake reviews published online. In the case of the artificially produced deceptive texts, it turns out that their domain similarity with the targets affects the models¿ performance, much more than their untruthfulness. This suggests that the use of crowdsourced datasets for opinion spam detection may not result in models applicable to the real task of detecting deceptive reviews. As an alternative method to create large-size datasets for the fake reviews detection task, we propose methods based on the probabilistic annotation of unlabeled texts, relying on the use of meta-information generally available on the e-commerce sites. Such methods are independent from the content of the reviews and allow to train reliable models for the detection of fake reviews.Leticia Cagnina thanks CONICET for the continued financial support. This work was funded by MINECO/FEDER (Grant No. SomEMBED TIN2015-71147-C2-1-P). The work of Paolo Rosso was partially funded by the MISMIS-FAKEnHATE Spanish MICINN research project (PGC2018-096212-B-C31). Massimo Poesio was in part supported by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (Grant Number ES/M010236/1).Fornaciari, T.; Cagnina, L.; Rosso, P.; Poesio, M. (2020). Fake Opinion Detection: How Similar are Crowdsourced Datasets to Real Data?. Language Resources and Evaluation. 54(4):1019-1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-020-09486-5S10191058544Baeza-Yates, R. (2018). Bias on the web. Communications of the ACM, 61(6), 54–61.Banerjee, S., & Chua, A. Y. (2014). Applauses in hotel reviews: Genuine or deceptive? In: Science and Information Conference (SAI), 2014 (pp. 938–942). New York: IEEE.Bhargava, R., Baoni, A., & Sharma, Y. (2018). Composite sequential modeling for identifying fake reviews. Journal of Intelligent Systems,. https://doi.org/10.1515/jisys-2017-0501.Bickel, P. J., & Doksum, K. A. (2015). Mathematical statistics: Basic ideas and selected topics (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Jan), 993–1022.Blum, A., & Mitchell, T. (1998). Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual conference on computational learning theory (pp. 92–100). New York: ACM.Cagnina, L. C., & Rosso, P. (2017). Detecting deceptive opinions: Intra and cross-domain classification using an efficient representation. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 25(Suppl. 2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488517400165.Cardoso, E. F., Silva, R. M., & Almeida, T. A. (2018). Towards automatic filtering of fake reviews. Neurocomputing, 309, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.04.074.Carpenter, B. (2008). Multilevel bayesian models of categorical data annotation. Retrieved from http://lingpipe.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/carp-bayesian-multilevel-annotation.pdf.Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 20, 273–297.Costa, P. T., & MacCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO FFI): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.Dawid, A. P., & Skene, A. M. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the EM algorithm. Applied Statistics, 28(1), 20–28.Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–38.Elkan, C., & Noto, K. (2008). Learning classifiers from only positive and unlabeled data. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 213–220). New York: ACM.Fei, G., Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M., & Ghosh, R. (2013). Exploiting burstiness in reviews for review spammer detection. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (Vol. 13, pp. 175–184).Feng, S., Banerjee, R., & Choi, Y. (2012). Syntactic stylometry for deception detection. In: Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (Vol. 2: Short Papers, pp. 171–175). Jeju Island: Association for Computational Linguistics.Forman, G. (2003). An extensive empirical study of feature selection metrics for text classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 1289–1305.Fornaciari, T., & Poesio, M. (2013). Automatic deception detection in Italian court cases. Artificial intelligence and law, 21(3), 303–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-013-9140-4.Fornaciari, T., & Poesio, M. (2014). Identifying fake amazon reviews as learning from crowds. In: Proceedings of the 14th conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 279–287). Gothenburg: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/E14-1030.Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models., Analytical methods for social research Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Graves, A., Jaitly, N., & Mohamed, A. R. (2013). Hybrid speech recognition with deep bidirectional LSTM. In: 2013 IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding (ASRU) (pp. 273–278). New York: IEEE.Hernández-Castañeda, Á., & Calvo, H. (2017). Deceptive text detection using continuous semantic space models. Intelligent Data Analysis, 21(3), 679–695.Hernández Fusilier, D., Guzmán, R., Móntes y Gomez, M., & Rosso, P. (2013). Using pu-learning to detect deceptive opinion spam. In: Proc. of the 4th workshop on computational approaches to subjectivity, sentiment and social media analysis (pp. 38–45).Hernández Fusilier, D., Montes-y Gómez, M., Rosso, P., & Cabrera, R. G. (2015). Detecting positive and negative deceptive opinions using pu-learning. Information Processing & Management, 51(4), 433–443.Hovy, D. (2016). The enemy in your own camp: How well can we detect statistically-generated fake reviews–an adversarial study. In: The 54th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (p 351).Jelinek, F., Lafferty, J. D., & Mercer, R. L. (1992). Basic methods of probabilistic context free grammars. Speech recognition and understanding (pp. 345–360). New York: Springer.Jindal, N., & Liu, B. (2008). Opinion spam and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 219–230). New York: ACM.Karatzoglou, A., Meyer, D., & Hornik, K. (2006). Support vector machines in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 15(9), 1–28.Kim, S., Lee, S., Park, D., & Kang, J. (2017). Constructing and evaluating a novel crowdsourcing-based paraphrased opinion spam dataset. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web (pp. 827–836). Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.Li, F., Huang, M., Yang, Y., & Zhu, X. (2011). Learning to identify review spam. IJCAI Proceedings-International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 22(3), 2488–2493.Li, H., Chen, Z., Liu, B., Wei, X., & Shao, J. (2014a). Spotting fake reviews via collective positive-unlabeled learning. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM) (pp. 899–904). New York: IEEE.Li, H., Fei, G., Wang, S., Liu, B., Shao, W., Mukherjee, A., & Shao, J. (2017). Bimodal distribution and co-bursting in review spam detection. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web (pp. 1063–1072). Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.Li, H., Liu, B., Mukherjee, A., & Shao, J. (2014b). Spotting fake reviews using positive-unlabeled learning. Computación y Sistemas, 18(3), 467–475.Li, J., Ott, M., Cardie, C., & Hovy, E. H. (2014c). Towards a general rule for identifying deceptive opinion spam. In: ACL (Vol. 1, pp. 1566–1576).Lin, C. H., Hsu, P. Y., Cheng, M. S., Lei, H. T., & Hsu, M. C. (2017). Identifying deceptive review comments with rumor and lie theories. In: International conference in swarm intelligence (pp. 412–420). New York: Springer.Liu, B., Dai, Y., Li, X., Lee, W. S., & Yu, P. S. (2003). Building text classifiers using positive and unlabeled examples. In: Third IEEE international conference on data mining (pp. 179–186). New York: IEEE.Liu, B., Lee, W. S., Yu, P. S., & Li, X. (2002). Partially supervised classification of text documents. ICML, 2, 387–394.Martens, D., & Maalej, W. (2019). Towards understanding and detecting fake reviews in app stores. Empirical Software Engineering,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09706-9.Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:13013781.Mukherjee, A., Kumar, A., Liu, B., Wang, J., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M., & Ghosh, R. (2013a). Spotting opinion spammers using behavioral footprints. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 632–640) New York: ACM.Mukherjee, A., Venkataraman, V., Liu, B., & Glance, N. S. (2013b). What yelp fake review filter might be doing? In: Proceedings of the seventh international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media.Negri, M., Bentivogli, L., Mehdad, Y., Giampiccolo, D., & Marchetti, A. (2011). Divide and conquer: Crowdsourcing the creation of cross-lingual textual entailment corpora. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 670–679). Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.Ott, M., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Negative deceptive opinion spam. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies (pp. 497–501).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 (pp. 309–319). Portland, Oregon: Association for Computational Linguistics.Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC): LIWC2001. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 1532–1543).Raykar, V. C., Yu, S., Zhao, L. H., Valadez, G. H., Florin, C., Bogoni, L., et al. (2010). Learning from crowds. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 1297–1322.Ren, Y., & Ji, D. (2017). Neural networks for deceptive opinion spam detection: An empirical study. Information Sciences, 385, 213–224.Rout, J. K., Dalmia, A., Choo, K. K. R., Bakshi, S., & Jena, S. K. (2017). Revisiting semi-supervised learning for online deceptive review detection. IEEE Access, 5(1), 1319–1327.Saini, M., & Sharan, A. (2017). Ensemble learning to find deceptive reviews using personality traits and reviews specific features. Journal of Digital Information Management, 12(2), 84–94.Salloum, W., Edwards, E., Ghaffarzadegan, S., Suendermann-Oeft, D., & Miller, M. (2017). Crowdsourced continuous improvement of medical speech recognition. In: The AAAI-17 workshop on crowdsourcing, deep learning, and artificial intelligence agents.Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In: Proceedings of international conference on new methods in language processing. Retrieved from http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/ftp/pub/corpora/tree-tagger1.pdf.Shehnepoor, S., Salehi, M., Farahbakhsh, R., & Crespi, N. (2017). Netspam: A network-based spam detection framework for reviews in online social media. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 12(7), 1585–1595.Skeppstedt, M., Peldszus, A., & Stede, M. (2018). More or less controlled elicitation of argumentative text: Enlarging a microtext corpus via crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the 5th workshop on argument mining (pp. 155–163).Strapparava, C., & Mihalcea, R. (2009). The lie detector: Explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. In: Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and the 4th international joint conference on natural language processing.Streitfeld, D. (August $$25{{\rm th}}$$, 2012). The best book reviews money can buy. The New York Times.Whitehill, J., Wu, T., Bergsma, F., Movellan, J. R., & Ruvolo, P. L. (2009). Whose vote should count more: Optimal integration of labels from labelers of unknown expertise. Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 2035–2043). Cambridge: MIT Press.Xie, S., Wang, G., Lin, S., & Yu, P. S. (2012). Review spam detection via temporal pattern discovery. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp 823–831). New York: ACM.Yang, Y., & Liu, X. (1999). A re-examination of text categorization methods. In: Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR ’99 (pp. 42–49). New York: ACM.Zhang, W., Bu, C., Yoshida, T., & Zhang, S. (2016). Cospa: A co-training approach for spam review identification with support vector machine. Information, 7(1), 12.Zhang, W., Du, Y., Yoshida, T., & Wang, Q. (2018). DRI-RCNN: An approach to deceptive review identification using recurrent convolutional neural network. Information Processing & Management, 54(4), 576–592.Zhou, L., Shi, Y., & Zhang, D. (2008). A Statistical Language Modeling Approach to Online Deception Detection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 20(8), 1077–1081

Augmenting the performance of image similarity search through crowdsourcing

Crowdsourcing is defined as “outsourcing a task that is traditionally performed by an employee to a large group of people in the form of an open call” (Howe 2006). Many platforms designed to perform several types of crowdsourcing and studies have shown that results produced by crowds in crowdsourcing platforms are generally accurate and reliable. Crowdsourcing can provide a fast and efficient way to use the power of human computation to solve problems that are difficult for machines to perform. From several different microtasking crowdsourcing platforms available, we decided to perform our study using Amazon Mechanical Turk. In the context of our research we studied the effect of user interface design and its corresponding cognitive load on the performance of crowd-produced results. Our results highlighted the importance of a well-designed user interface on crowdsourcing performance. Using crowdsourcing platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, we can utilize humans to solve problems that are difficult for computers, such as image similarity search. However, in tasks like image similarity search, it is more efficient to design a hybrid human–machine system. In the context of our research, we studied the effect of involving the crowd on the performance of an image similarity search system and proposed a hybrid human–machine image similarity search system. Our proposed system uses machine power to perform heavy computations and to search for similar images within the image dataset and uses crowdsourcing to refine results. We designed our content-based image retrieval (CBIR) system using SIFT, SURF, SURF128 and ORB feature detector/descriptors and compared the performance of the system using each feature detector/descriptor. Our experiment confirmed that crowdsourcing can dramatically improve the CBIR system performance

Extracting Cultural Commonsense Knowledge at Scale

Structured knowledge is important for many AI applications. Commonsenseknowledge, which is crucial for robust human-centric AI, is covered by a smallnumber of structured knowledge projects. However, they lack knowledge abouthuman traits and behaviors conditioned on socio-cultural contexts, which iscrucial for situative AI. This paper presents CANDLE, an end-to-end methodologyfor extracting high-quality cultural commonsense knowledge (CCSK) at scale.CANDLE extracts CCSK assertions from a huge web corpus and organizes them intocoherent clusters, for 3 domains of subjects (geography, religion, occupation)and several cultural facets (food, drinks, clothing, traditions, rituals,behaviors). CANDLE includes judicious techniques for classification-basedfiltering and scoring of interestingness. Experimental evaluations show thesuperiority of the CANDLE CCSK collection over prior works, and an extrinsicuse case demonstrates the benefits of CCSK for the GPT-3 language model. Codeand data can be accessed at https://cultural-csk.herokuapp.com/.<br

Crowdsourcing a text corpus for a low resource language

Low resourced languages, such as South Africa's isiXhosa, have a limited number of digitised texts, making it challenging to build language corpora and the information retrieval services, such as search and translation that depend on them. Researchers have been unable to assemble isiXhosa corpora of sufficient size and quality to produce working machine translation systems and it has been acknowledged that there is little to know training data and sourcing translations from professionals can be a costly process. A crowdsourcing translation game which paid participants for their contributions was proposed as a solution to source original and relevant parallel corpora for low resource languages such as isiXhosa. The objectives of this dissertation is to report on the four experiments that were conducted to assess user motivation and contribution quantity under various scenarios using the developed crowdsourcing translation game. The first experiment was a pilot study to test a custom built system and to find out if social network users would volunteer to participate in a translation game for free. The second experiment tested multiple payment schemes with users from the University of Cape Town. The schemes rewarded users with consistent, increasing or decreasing amounts for subsequent contributions. Experiment 3 tested whether the same users from Experiment 2 would continue contributing if payments were taken away. The last experiment tested a payment scheme that did not offer a direct and guaranteed reward. Users were paid based on their leaderboard placement and only a limited number of the top leaderboard spots were allocated rewards. From experiment 1 and 3 we found that people do not volunteer without financial incentives, experiment 2 and 4 showed that people want increased rewards when putting in increased effort , experiment 3 also showed that people will not continue contributing if the financial incentives are taken away and experiment 4 also showed that the possibility of incentives is as attractive as offering guaranteed incentives

Gamifying Language Resource Acquisition

PhD ThesisNatural Language Processing, is an important collection of methods for processing the vast amounts of available natural language text we continually produce. These methods make use of supervised learning, an approach that learns from large amounts of annotated data. As humans, we’re able to provide information about text that such systems can learn from. Historically, this was carried out by small groups of experts. However, this did not scale. This led to various crowdsourcing approaches being taken that used large pools of non-experts. The traditional form of crowdsourcing was to pay users small amounts of money to complete tasks. As time progressed, gamification approaches such as GWAPs, showed various benefits over the micro-payment methods used before. These included a cost saving, worker training opportunities, increased worker engagement and potential to far exceed the scale of crowdsourcing. While these were successful in domains such as image labelling, they struggled in the domain of text annotation, which wasn’t such a natural fit. Despite many challenges, there were also clearly many opportunities and benefits to applying this approach to text annotation. Many of these are demonstrated by Phrase Detectives. Based on lessons learned from Phrase Detectives and investigations into other GWAPs, in this work, we attempt to create full GWAPs for NLP, extracting the benefits of the methodology. This includes training, high quality output from non-experts and a truly game-like GWAP design that players are happy to play voluntarily

Towards Fairer Datasets: Filtering and Balancing the Distribution of the People Subtree in the ImageNet Hierarchy

Computer vision technology is being used by many but remains representative of only a few. People have reported misbehavior of computer vision models, including offensive prediction results and lower performance for underrepresented groups. Current computer vision models are typically developed using datasets consisting of manually annotated images or videos; the data and label distributions in these datasets are critical to the models' behavior. In this paper, we examine ImageNet, a large-scale ontology of images that has spurred the development of many modern computer vision methods. We consider three key factors within the "person" subtree of ImageNet that may lead to problematic behavior in downstream computer vision technology: (1) the stagnant concept vocabulary of WordNet, (2) the attempt at exhaustive illustration of all categories with images, and (3) the inequality of representation in the images within concepts. We seek to illuminate the root causes of these concerns and take the first steps to mitigate them constructively.Comment: Accepted to FAT* 202

How reliable are online speech intelligibility studies with known listener cohorts?

Although the use of nontraditional settings for speech perception experiments is growing, there have been few controlled comparisons of online and laboratory modalities in the context of speech intelligibility. The current study compares outcomes from three web-based replications of recent laboratory studies involving distorted, masked, fil- tered, and enhanced speech, amounting to 40 separate conditions. Rather than relying on unrestricted crowdsourcing, this study made use of participants from the population that would normally volunteer to take part physically in labo- ratory experiments. In sentence transcription tasks, the web cohort produced intelligibility scores 3–6 percentage points lower than their laboratory counterparts, and test modality interacted with experimental condition. These disparities and interactions largely disappeared after the exclusion of those web listeners who self-reported the use of low quality headphones, and the remaining listener cohort was also able to replicate key outcomes of each of the three laboratory studies. The laboratory and web modalities produced similar measures of experimental efficiency based on listener variability, response errors, and outlier counts. These findings suggest that the combination of known listener cohorts and moderate headphone quality provides a feasible alternative to traditional laboratory intel- ligibility studies.Basque Government Consolidados programme under Grant No. IT311-1

Accurate and budget-efficient text, image, and video analysis systems powered by the crowd

Crowdsourcing systems empower individuals and companies to outsource labor-intensive tasks that cannot currently be solved by automated methods and are expensive to tackle by domain experts. Crowdsourcing platforms are traditionally used to provide training labels for supervised machine learning algorithms. Crowdsourced tasks are distributed among internet workers who typically have a range of skills and knowledge, differing previous exposure to the task at hand, and biases that may influence their work. This inhomogeneity of the workforce makes the design of accurate and efficient crowdsourcing systems challenging. This dissertation presents solutions to improve existing crowdsourcing systems in terms of accuracy and efficiency. It explores crowdsourcing tasks in two application areas, political discourse and annotation of biomedical and everyday images. The first part of the dissertation investigates how workers' behavioral factors and their unfamiliarity with data can be leveraged by crowdsourcing systems to control quality. Through studies that involve familiar and unfamiliar image content, the thesis demonstrates the benefit of explicitly accounting for a worker's familiarity with the data when designing annotation systems powered by the crowd. The thesis next presents Crowd-O-Meter, a system that automatically predicts the vulnerability of crowd workers to believe \enquote{fake news} in text and video. The second part of the dissertation explores the reversed relationship between machine learning and crowdsourcing by incorporating machine learning techniques for quality control of crowdsourced end products. In particular, it investigates if machine learning can be used to improve the quality of crowdsourced results and also consider budget constraints. The thesis proposes an image analysis system called ICORD that utilizes behavioral cues of the crowd worker, augmented by automated evaluation of image features, to infer the quality of a worker-drawn outline of a cell in a microscope image dynamically. ICORD determines the need to seek additional annotations from other workers in a budget-efficient manner. Next, the thesis proposes a budget-efficient machine learning system that uses fewer workers to analyze easy-to-label data and more workers for data that require extra scrutiny. The system learns a mapping from data features to number of allocated crowd workers for two case studies, sentiment analysis of twitter messages and segmentation of biomedical images. Finally, the thesis uncovers the potential for design of hybrid crowd-algorithm methods by describing an interactive system for cell tracking in time-lapse microscopy videos, based on a prediction model that determines when automated cell tracking algorithms fail and human interaction is needed to ensure accurate tracking