Review Spam Detection Using Machine Learning Techniques

Nowadays with the increasing popularity of internet, online marketing is going to become more and more popular. This is because, a lot of products and services are easily available online. Hence, reviews about these all products and services are very important for customers as well as organizations. Unfortunately, driven by the will for profit or promotion, fraudsters used to produce fake reviews. These fake reviews written by fraudsters prevent customers and organizations reaching actual conclusions about the products. Hence, fake reviews or review spam must be detected and eliminated so as to prevent deceptive potential customers. In our work, supervised and semi-supervised learning technique have been applied to detect review spam. The most apt data sets in the research area of review spam detection has been used in proposed work. For supervised learning, we try to obtain some feature sets from different automated approaches such as LIWC, POS Tagging, N-gram etc., that can best distinguish the spam and non-spam reviews. Along with these features sentiment analysis, data mining and opinion mining technique have also been applied. For semi-supervised learning, PU-learning algorithm is being used along with six different classifiers (Decision Tree, Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine, k-Nearest Neighbor, Random Forest, Logistic Regression) to detect review spam from the available data set. Finally, a comparison of proposed technique with some existing review spam detection techniques has been done

Towards a Modular Ontology for Cloud Consumer Review Mining

Nowadays, online consumer reviews are used to enhance the effectiveness of finding useful product information that impacts the consumers’ decision-making process. Many studies have been proposed to analyze these reviews for many purposes, such as opinion-based recommendation, spam review detection, opinion leader analysis, etc. A standard model that presents the different aspects of online review (review, product/service, user) is needed to facilitate the review analysis task. This research suggests SOPA, a modular ontology for cloud Service OPinion Analysis. SOPA represents the content of a product/service and its related opinions extracted from the online reviews written in a specific context. The SOPA is evaluated and validated using cloud consumer reviews from social media and using quality metrics. The experiments revealed that the SOPA-related modules exhibit a high cohesion and a low coupling, besides their usefulness and applicability in real use case studies

Fake review detection using time series

Today’s e-commerce is highly depended on online customers’ reviews posted in opinion sharing websites that are growing incredibly. These reviews are important not only effect on potential customers’ purchase decision but also for manufacturers and business holders to reshape and customize their products and manage competition with rivals throughout the market place. Moreover opinion mining techniques that analyze customer reviews obtained from opinion sharing websites for different purposes could not reveal accurate results for combination of spam reviews and truthful reviews in datasets. Thus employing review spam detection techniques in review websites are highly essential in order to provide reliable resources for customers, manufacturers and researchers. This study aims to detect spam reviews using time series. To achieve this, the novel proposed method detects suspicious time intervals with high number of reviews. Then a combination of three features, i.e. rating of reviews, similarity percentage of review contexts and number of other reviews written by the reviewer of current review, will be used to score each review. Finally a threshold defined for total scores assigned to reviews will be the border line between spam and genuine reviews. Evaluation of obtained results reveals that the proposed method is highly effective in distinguishing spam and non-spam reviews. Furthermore combination of all features used in this research exposed the best results. This fact represents the effectiveness of each feature

A Surveyon Detection of Reviews Using Sentiment Classification of Methods

Merchants selling products on the Web often ask their customers to review the products that they have purchased and the associated services. As e - commerce is becoming more and more popular, the number of customer reviews that a product receives grows rapidly. For a popular product, the number of reviews can be in hundreds or even thousands. This makes it difficult for a potential customer to read them to make an informed decision on whether to purchase the product. It also makes it difficult for the manufacturer of the product to keep track and to manage customer opinions. As the numbers of customers are growin g, reviews received by products are also growing in large amount. Thus, mining opinions from product reviews is an important research topic. In the fast decade considerable research has been done i n academia. However, existing research is more focused towa rds categorization and summary of such online opinions. In this paper we survey various techniques to classify opinion as positive or negative and also detection of reviews as spam or non - spam

Detection of opinion spam with character n-grams

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18117-2_21In this paper we consider the detection of opinion spam as a stylistic classi cation task because, given a particular domain, the deceptive and truthful opinions are similar in content but di ffer in the way opinions are written (style). Particularly, we propose using character ngrams as features since they have shown to capture lexical content as well as stylistic information. We evaluated our approach on a standard corpus composed of 1600 hotel reviews, considering positive and negative reviews. We compared the results obtained with character n-grams against the ones with word n-grams. Moreover, we evaluated the e ffectiveness of character n-grams decreasing the training set size in order to simulate real training conditions. The results obtained show that character n-grams are good features for the detection of opinion spam; they seem to be able to capture better than word n-grams the content of deceptive opinions and the writing style of the deceiver. In particular, results show an improvement of 2:3% and 2:1% over the word-based representations in the detection of positive and negative deceptive opinions respectively. Furthermore, character n-grams allow to obtain a good performance also with a very small training corpus. Using only 25% of the training set, a Na ve Bayes classi er showed F1 values up to 0.80 for both opinion polarities.This work is the result of the collaboration in the frame-work of the WIQEI IRSES project (Grant No. 269180) within the FP7 Marie Curie. The second author was partially supported by the LACCIR programme under project ID R1212LAC006. Accordingly, the work of the third author was in the framework the DIANA-APPLICATIONS-Finding Hidden Knowledge inTexts: Applications (TIN2012-38603-C02-01) project, and the VLC/CAMPUS Microcluster on Multimodal Interaction in Intelligent Systems.Hernández Fusilier, D.; Montes Gomez, M.; Rosso, P.; Guzmán Cabrera, R. (2015). Detection of opinion spam with character n-grams. En Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing: 16th International Conference, CICLing 2015, Cairo, Egypt, April 14-20, 2015, Proceedings, Part II. Springer International Publishing. 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18117-2_21S285294Blamey, B., Crick, T., Oatley, G.: RU:-) or:-(? character-vs. word-gram feature selection for sentiment classification of OSN corpora. Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXIX, 207–212 (2012)Drucker, H., Wu, D., Vapnik, V.N.: Support Vector Machines for Spam Categorization. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 10(5), 1048–1054 (2002)Feng, S., Banerjee, R., Choi, Y.: Syntactic Stylometry for Deception Detection. Association for Computational Linguistics, short paper. ACL (2012)Feng, S., Xing, L., Gogar, A., Choi, Y.: Distributional Footprints of Deceptive Product Reviews. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International AAAI Conference on WebBlogs and Social Media (June 2012)Gyongyi, Z., Garcia-Molina, H., Pedersen, J.: Combating Web Spam with Trust Rank. In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, vol. 30, pp. 576–587. VLDB Endowment (2004)Hall, M., Eibe, F., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.: The WEKA Data Mining Software: an Update. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 10–18 (2009)Hernández-Fusilier, D., Guzmán-Cabrera, R., Montes-y-Gómez, M., Rosso, P.: Using PU-learning to Detect Deceptive Opinion Spam. In: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 38–45 (2013)Hernández-Fusilier, D., Montes-y-Gómez, M., Rosso, P., Guzmán-Cabrera, R.: Detecting Positive and Negative Deceptive Opinions using PU-learning. Information Processing & Management (2014), doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2014.11.001Jindal, N., Liu, B.: Opinion Spam and Analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining, pp. 219–230 (2008)Jindal, N., Liu, B., Lim, E.: Finding Unusual Review Patterns Using Unexpected Rules. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2010, pp. 210–220(October 2010)Kanaris, I., Kanaris, K., Houvardas, I., Stamatatos, E.: Word versus character n-grams for anti-spam filtering. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 16(6), 1047–1067 (2007)Lim, E.P., Nguyen, V.A., Jindal, N., Liu, B., Lauw, H.W.: Detecting Product Review Spammers Using Rating Behaviours. In: CIKM, pp. 939–948 (2010)Liu, B.: Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining. Synthesis Lecture on Human Language Technologies. Morgan & Claypool Publishers (2012)Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., Wang, J., Glance, N., Jindal, N.: Detecting Group Review Spam. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, pp. 93–94 (2011)Ntoulas, A., Najork, M., Manasse, M., Fetterly, D.: Detecting Spam Web Pages through Content Analysis. Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 83–92 (2006)Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., Hancock, J.T.: 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, Portland, Oregon, USA, pp. 309–319 (2011)Ott, M., Cardie, C., Hancock, J.T.: Negative Deceptive Opinion Spam. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 309–319 (2013)Raymond, Y.K., Lau, S.Y., Liao, R., Chi-Wai, K., Kaiquan, X., Yunqing, X., Yuefeng, L.: Text Mining and Probabilistic Modeling for Online Review Spam Detection. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 2(4), Article: 25, 1–30 (2011)Stamatatos, E.: On the robustness of authorship attribution based on character n-gram features. Journal of Law & Policy 21(2) (2013)Wu, G., Greene, D., Cunningham, P.: Merging Multiple Criteria to Identify Suspicious Reviews. In: RecSys 2010, pp. 241–244 (2010)Xie, S., Wang, G., Lin, S., Yu, P.S.: Review Spam Detection via Time Series Pattern Discovery. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, pp. 635–636 (2012)Zhou, L., Sh, Y., Zhang, D.: A Statistical Language Modeling Approach to Online Deception Detection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 20(8), 1077–1081 (2008

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