2016 International Conference on Emerging Technological Trends [ICETT]
Review authenticity verification using supervised
learning and reviewer personality traits
Sonu Liza Christopher
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
TKM College of Engineering
Kollam, India
sonuchristyk90@gmail.com
Abstract— Social media has increasingly promoted users to
provide customer feedback on shopping experiences in the form
of online product reviews. Many major ecommerce sites are
collecting revenue from advertisements of products and creating
better shopping experiences for customers with the help of such
reviews. The problem of accurately verifying review authenticity
steadily grows and can help in making or breaking the good
name of a product. Feature engineering performed on the
reviews assist in extracting the useful features that help in
identifying actual fake reviews. Supervised machine learning
algorithms help in classifying reviews into authentic and fake.
The newly emerging phenomenon of personality prediction has
taken hold of social media and this is being employed in the case
of reviewer traits which will help identify key personality traits of
fake reviewers. The Big 5 model is used for this which will be
useful in tracking such people through their associated social
media accounts.
Keywords—product review, personality trait, social media,
opinion mining, feature extraction, review deviation, content
similarity, spam detection.
I. INTRODUCTION
The onset of social media has brought about massive
impacts in all spheres of life. From casual comments in social
networking sites to more serious studies concerning market
trends and analyzing strategies; all which have been possible
largely due to rising influence of social media data. Data
mining tasks applied on Big Data has led to knowledge
discovery which has helped analyze market trends and target
customer interests to bring in bigger profits for organizations.
Also people continue to express their interests and opinions
through various social platforms and the collective analyses of
these texts have also contributed to the growth of Sentiment
analysis. Social media analytics have gained much importance
and interest among people in present times judging from the
rapidly growing participation in online social media which has
risen from 25-43% in many countries. This has motivated
studies which focus on extracting knowledge from opinions
being expressed in social platforms like Twitter, Facebook and
also e-commerce sites such as Amazon. One such form of
social media data are product reviews written by customers
narrating their level of satisfaction with a particular product.
Organizations such as Amazon are involved in hundreds and
thousands of electronic transactions every day where the
reviews of customers help new buyers make a better shopping
978-1-5090-3751-3/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Rahulnath H A
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
TKM College of Engineering
Kollam, India
rahulnath@tkmce.ac.in
experience and also guide organizations with marketing and
product design strategies.
Most review sites are customer centric which make the
presence of fake and unfair competitor placed reviews pose an
everyday problem. These kinds of untruthful reviews result in
huge financial gain and grab attention for businesses and
organizations. It has led to the widely known problem of
opinion spamming seen commonly in the form of fake
reviews, social network postings such as tweets, and blogs and
other forms of deception. These are different forms of illegal
activities which aim at misleading readers by giving
undeserving positive opinions in order to promote the entities
or provide false negative opinions to some other entities in
order to damage their reputation. The current work deals with
accurately differentiating fake and authentic product reviews
from online shopping sites predominantly Amazon. Trying to
go through such a vast amount of information to understand
the general opinion is impossible for users just by the sheer
volume of data. Every customer is influenced by the recent
market trends and public opinion and hence the need for such
a system. Further, labeling these documents with their
sentiment would provide a succinct summary to the readers
about the general opinion regarding an entity. Before every
purchase, a customer is involved in analyzing the most recent
reviews provided by reliable users of the product and the
question rises about which reviews are found to be reliable or
authentic. To determine reliability score for each review is not
an easy task and these opinions shape the future of the
product. Thus the task of detecting and verifying authentic
reviews or opinions has become critical and significant.
II. RELATED WORKS
The truthfulness of online product reviews has been widely
discussed in the past. One of the earlier works of Dixit et al.
[6] distinguished reviews based on their content as untruthful
reviews, reviews on brands and non reviews. The first
category consisting of untruthful reviews is of most concern as
they undermine the integrity of the online review system.
Detection of type 1 review spam is a challenging task as it
attempts to distinguish fake and real reviews by manually
reading them.
Data mining and machine learning techniques together
have been effective in detecting fraudulent reviews. A
straightforward example of web content mining is opinion
 2016 International Conference on Emerging Technological Trends [ICETT]
mining which consists of attempting to ascertain the sentiment
(positive or negative) of a text by analyzing its features.
Review authenticity verification also lies in the category of
content mining and in addition utilizes features not directly
linked to the content. These features are constructed from the
online reviews using various different techniques in text
mining and Natural Language Processing (NLP). There are
also features linked with the review author for instance their
frequency pattern and how much a review deviates from
reviews for the same product or service which allows
distinguishing between authentic and fake reviews.
Existing machine learning techniques were not sufficiently
accurate in review authenticity verification, but it was found
these methods are more reliable than manual detection. The
primary issue, which was identified by Abbasi et al. [1], is the
lack of any distinguishing features which can be based on to
act as a definitive guide in the classification process of
reviews as real or fake. A common method is using the bag of
words approach in which the presence of individual or small
groups of words is used as the feature set. But studies have
shown that this approach is not sufficient to train a classifier
with adequate performance. This led to modified methods of
feature engineering in an effort to extract a more informative
feature set that will improve review authenticity verification.
There are many previous works that take into account different
features sets for the current context of review authenticity,
each utilizing a different variety of machine learning
techniques. Jindal et al. [10], Li et al. [19] and Mukherjee et
al. [25], used individual words from the review text as the
features, while Shojaee et al. [31] used syntactic and lexical
features. An additional study by Ott et al. [29] used review
characteristic features in addition to unigram and bigram term-
frequencies. Features associated with the behavior of the
reviewer also directed further investigation as it helps in
extracting information from multiple texts of the same
reviewer. Examples of studying spammer behavior include
spotting multiple User IDs for the same author [30] and
identifying groups of spammers by studying their behavioral
footprints [23–25]. Combining review spam detection through
a review’s features, and spammer detection through analysis
of their behavior was found to be a more effective approach
for detecting review authenticity than either approach alone.
Before addressing the challenges associated with
improving review authenticity verification, we must first
address collection of data. Data is a major part of any machine
learning based model, and while a massive volume of reviews
are available on the Internet, collecting and labeling a
sufficient number of them to train a review spam classifier is a
difficult task. An alternative to collecting and labeling data is
to artificially create review spam datasets by the method of
synthetic review spamming. This takes existing truthful
reviews and builds fake reviews from them. Also review
burstiness was studied in [8] which have also been
implemented in the proposed system with modifications in
detecting burst periods.
Fig. 1. Proposed System Architecture
III. PROPOSED METHOD
The entire model of review authenticity verification system
is divided into two modules. The first module comprises of the
Review Authenticity Verification Module which performs
tasks such as pre-processing, feature extraction and machine
based classification using SVM. The dataset comprises of
reviews extracted from Amazon website of Musical
instruments [35]. The customer reviews relate experiences that
each person has endured during the course of post-purchase.
Some reviews are lengthy and dwell into the musical history
and describe passion towards music. To reduce the size of data
to be processed, two tasks are done. First stop word removal
removes words which do not convey a sentiment or emotion
and can be avoided. This help is considerably reducing the
data size. The next part of the preprocessing process deals
with POS tagging. Every word in a review is tagged with its
part of speech .The most common parts of speech are nouns,
adjectives, verbs, adverbs etc. After pre-processing the process
of feature selection or extraction is carried out. This deals with
extracting essential and crucial features from each review
which best aid in verifying review authenticity. Previous
works have made use of different features such as activity
window, review count maximum number of reviews, number
of positive reviews, review deviation, content similarity. From
the already mentioned factors a subset of reliable features is
selected after study and these observed values are passed to
SVM for machine based classification. Fig 1 depicts the
proposed system architecture.
The second module deals with personality prediction using
Big 5 personality model. This module takes as input only
those reviews identified by the output of the classification task
as fake reviews. This is done to uncover core personality traits
of fake reviewers based on the reviews written by them after
the initial identification of such reviewers. These traits can be
utilized to find out the presence of fake reviewers from social
media like Facebook and Twitter where personality prediction
is currently being implemented. From each identified fake
review, features are extracted which include average word
count, average length of a word, number of positive and
negative words, number of punctuations, exclamations,
 2016 International Conference on Emerging Technological Trends [ICETT]
question mark etc which help in building a grammatical vector
representing each reviewer. The Big Five describes a
personality structure divided into five basic elements known
as OCEAN: Openness; Conscientiousness; Extroversion;
Agreeableness; and Neuroticism. These are the five core
personality traits and the presence of each trait is measured in
each reviewer and the most common traits identified. Since a
reviewer cannot be analyzed in terms of all five traits in the
model, the presence of only traits like extroversion,
neuroticism and openness will be taken in this work.
A. Preprocessing
Preprocessing is the first step in any text mining process
and plays a very important role. The most common words in
text documents are articles, prepositions, and pro-nouns which
do not add any specific meaning to the text. These words are
treated as stop words. The reason for removing stop-words
from a text is because they take up additional processing and
this can be avoided by the dimensionality space of the review
text being analyzed. Many types of stop word removal
methods are followed which are used to remove stop words
from the data which in this case are the product reviews. The
classic method is based on removing stop words obtained from
an already pre-compiled list. Another approach includes
removing words with low inverse document frequency (IDF)
and mutual information. The lower value of mutual
information suggests that the sop-word relates to a low
discrimination power hence can be removed from the review
text. The classical method has been adopted in the proposed
system which uses a file of stop words and removes every
occurrence of the word if present in the review text.
The second step of pre-processing uses POS tagging.
Traditional parts of speech are nouns, verbs, adverbs,
conjunctions, etc. Part-of-speech taggers typically take a
sequence of words (i.e. a review) as input, and provide a list of
tuples as output, where each word is associated with the
related tag based on both its definition and its context. The
tagger used in this work is the Stanford POS tagger which
provides an accuracy of 96.7%. Taggers are available in
various different languages. The English taggers use the Penn
Treebank tag set. In the proposed system the tagger takes as
input a file containing review text and annotates each word
with its corresponding tag. This can be used to find the count
of each part of speech in a review. This will later be used in
the personality prediction module.
B. Feature Extraction
The features are divided into two categories of review and
reviewer centric features. Review centric features are those
constructed using information available from a single review
and reviewer centric features adapt a holistic approach taking
into account all of the reviews written by any particular
reviewer along with any additional information regarding the
reviewer himself. In this case, profile information relating to a
reviewer is not available so we rely only on the information
collected from past reviews of a reviewer to build the reviewer
centric features. The 4 basic features used in the proposed
system are defined as follows.
• Review deviation
Every review is marked by a reviewer with a review
rating that denotes the level of satisfaction achieved from
using the product. For a product p, the rating is marked
using a five point scale ranging from a very bad rating of
1 to a very high rating of 5. The maximum deviation
possible for any product is 4. To calculate the review
deviation for a product by a given reviewer, the average
rating of all customers except current reviewer is taken
and review deviation is calculated. To normalize the score
this value is divided by a factor of 4.This can be
expressed by the formula defined below. If the average
deviation is greater than a selected threshold value, then
the reviewer is marked as likely fake.
RD(p) = |R(p) - R(avg,
4
p)|
(1)
• Burst Detection
There are durations within a product lifetime when
there are large number of reviews flooding in. These may
be because of sudden popularity of the product which may
be attributed to advertisements and other seasonal
promotions or else due to fake reviewer groups who write
many reviews in a day on various products. These are
known as burst periods and detection of such burst periods
are an indication of likely fake reviews. Given a product
which has a set of m reviews, the first step is to divide the
life span of the product into small sub-intervals or bins.
This is done by choosing a proper bin size (e.g. two
weeks). Next step is finding the average number of
reviews in each bin. For all those months for which the
review count is greater than average, mark flag 1 to denote
exceptionally high review count for specific duration and
mark others 0. This is done for each year in the lifespan of
the product. After each month of every year is labeled
either 1 or 0, next we select every 2 years and check to see
recurring patterns occur like seasonal offers or promotions
which would explain the higher review count for that
month. If such a repeating pattern is observed within a
span of 2 years, then the burst flag is labeled 0 and if not
1.This means that every month which does not repeat and
has a higher review count in a particular year is prone to be
a fake review. All reviews for the product during the
particular month are marked 1 which denotes likely fake.
This factor is given lesser weight than other features
because burst flag does not prove all reviews during that
period to be fake and only a subset of such reviews may be
actually fake.
• Review Content Similarity
This feature has been used previously and has proved
to be useful in identifying fake reviews. Clearly this is a
reviewer centric feature as it takes in account all the
reviews written by a reviewer and measures the content
similarity value between each review. Content similarity is
a measure which can be found using various methods such
as cosine similarity, Jaccard similarity and various other
similarity measures. Cosine similarity is selected because
it gives a fast and accurate value for similarity between
 2016 International Conference on Emerging Technological Trends [ICETT]

texts. This is done using the term frequency and inverse

document frequency of each term in the review. The
average is calculated across all reviews and cosine
similarity values of the reviewer. For a reviewer having
high content similarity of value 0.5 or higher, the reviews
are marked as likely spam. For a reviewer who has no
more than a single review with a unique reviewer id,
content similarity value is not applicable in such scenario.
• Sentiment Score
Finding the sentiment of a reviewer can help assign a
small score to each review. A person who only writes
very good or very bad reviews can be treated as a fake
reviewer. To find this we use Stanford CoreNLP package
in which each sentence is assigned a sentiment score
ranging from 0 to 5. This feature is also reviewer centric
and helps analyze the sentiment of reviews written by a
particular reviewer. Calculating the average score of all
sentences in a review each review is marked with a score
and normalized. A sentiment score above a 0.6 denotes a
very positive review and below 0.3 denotes a very bad
one. Next we proceed by calculating the average
sentiment scores of all reviews of a particular reviewer. A
one-time reviewer cannot be judged with this factor and
so this lowers its priority because of the limit in universal
applicability to identify fake reviews written by an
individual who hasn’t written any other reviews before. A
lower weight is thus assigned to this factor.
C. Classification using supervised learning
Machine learning comes in various forms of supervised,
semi-supervised and unsupervised methods. Earlier works
have been done creating a gold standard dataset in which
accuracy and performance of classifiers like Support Vector
Machine was found to be very high. Keeping in mind the lack
of authenticity in creating a dataset, the currently in use
dataset of Amazon based product reviews have a predefined
structure. Each review is described using a set of features like
reviewer name, reviewer ID, product code, review rating,
review text and review date. The data has been modified to a
small extent to facilitate false testing and labels are manually
assigned to a small subset of reviews. This is done with the
help of a small training data set and the SVM is trained to
predict the labels for each review. Supervised learning is
performed using classification by SVM. Other classifiers such
as Bayesian classifiers were earlier used but accuracy and
performance measured were found to be less. The final label
assigned to each review indicates 0 in the case of authentic
review and 1 for every fake review.
IV. PERSONALITY PREDICTION SUBSYSTEM
The three basic steps for personality detection comprises
of pre-processing, transformation and classification. The five
traits of the OCEAN model are highlighted in Fig 2. The pre-
processing module is responsible for extracting a set of
features from the previously identified fake reviews. The
transformation module handles the task of converting each
Fig. 2. Big 5 Model
multi-label problem into a binary problem, while the
classification module performs the actual task of personality
classification itself. These modules are detailed in the
following sections.
A. Pre-processing module
This module does not work directly with the reviews but
instead uses information extracted from the review texts. In its
first module the initial text corpus and user information are
transformed into a set containing some grammatical features
highlighted below. User information is not available in the
current context but can be taken up as future work which can
help analysis when a reviewer can be tracked to his social
media accounts in Facebook or Twitter. The information
extracted from the reviews is used to create a set of
grammatical category of features. The grammatical category
takes into account information like the number of words used,
number of punctuation marks etc utilized in the text. The
meta-attributes extracted are as follows
• Average length of text
• Average number of words.
• Average number of words longer than six letters.
• Average number of unique words.
• Average number of question marks.
• Average number of exclamation marks.
• Average number of positive words.
• Average number of negative words.
Every review is represented as a vector of the above found
features and is next passed to the transformation module
which deals with individual binary problems; that is, for each
of the Big Five personality traits a binary classifier is created
with two labels which indicate the presence or absence of the
trait.
B. Transformation module
In this module, the primary task deals with transformation
of multi label problems into linear single label problems where
 2016 International Conference on Emerging Technological Trends [ICETT]
each label will correspond to a personality trait in the Big Five
model of a binary problem; that is, a problem in which each
review text may or may not contain a personality trait. Let R
be a reviewer characterized by the traits extroversion and
openness. After the transformation, this reviewer now has all
labels with extroversion and openness marked with ‘1’ and the
other three personality traits, agreeableness, conscientiousness
and neuroticism, marked with ‘0’. In the upcoming stage of
classification module, each classifier is assigned the role to
determine whether a reviewer has the personality trait. The
presence of a trait is marked by 1 and absence by 0. Only three
classifiers are used in the present work because as previously
explained review texts would not be useful in finding out traits
like conscientiousness and agreeableness.
C. Classification module
One of the most commonly used methods of
classification in machine learning is the use of semi-
supervised techniques which uses a small number of labeled
data and a large number of unlabelled data. This is ideal in the
present case as the product reviews do not have a previously
annotated text labeled with personality traits. Personality
prediction has been previously carried out in many social
networking sites but as to the best of our knowledge it hasn’t
been applied on product reviews. As a labeled dataset is not
available in the present scenario, we are taking up an approach
from a previous work in which prediction was performed on a
set of Tweets. The data set taken for this purpose is
synthetically created by analyzing a similar data set of Tweets
having an approximate length corresponding to the review
lengths of the fake reviewers. The data matching the overall
length of the review texts was analyzed and a dataset was
created with labeled traits of extroversion, neuroticism and
openness. The grammatical features are studied and a
comparative study is done to create a small labeled set of traits
for each review. This method was adopted because of the lack
of presence of a labeled set for product reviews.
TABLE 1. EXPERIMENTAL VALUES FOR PRECISION, ACCURACY, RECALL AND F-
MEASURE
Dataset Used: Amazon Reviews (Musical Instruments)
Method Used Precision Recall Accuracy F-measure
SVM with Proposed 0.9901 0.7368
0.7 0.778
set of Review Features
SVM with Basic set of 0.9839 0.4285
0.3 0.75
Review Features
V. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION AND RESULTS
One of the major obstacles towards review authenticity
detection was the evaluation because there is no ground truth
data of review authenticity that can be used in model building
and model testing. Previously human evaluation has been used
as a means to test the authenticity of reviews but this would
fail due to the subjective nature of each evaluator who would
possess different tolerance levels even if they are given the
same set of behavior indicators and reviews. We now evaluate
the proposed system in Java on an Intel® Core i3 processor
running Windows 8.1 with 4 GB of main memory. We have
used product reviews from Amazon belonging to the musical
instrument category and the features extracted are subjective
to this category of products. Each review is represented by a
set of features including reviewer name and ID, product code,
user review rating, review date and review text.
All reviews are initially loaded from a file into table and
each reviewer details are inserted into a separate Reviewer
Table. Content similarity values between every two reviews of
a particular reviewer are calculated and saved linked to each
distinct reviewer. Also against each reviewer the number of
reviews written during bursts periods is also noted which
comprised the burst ratio feature. Sentiment scores are
calculated using deep learning approaches. Each sentence of a
review is annotated and sentiment calculated and average
score for a review is calculated. This helps calculate the
overall sentiment score of each reviewer. The burst detection
is carried out on separate product ids and for each year that the
product was written about. Every month of the year is marked
by 1 or 0 indicating the presence of burst or not. If a burst
month reappears every time in two consecutive years, such a
scenario is considered to be due to natural reasons like
seasonal promotions which occur during the same months
every year. In this case, a small weight is added to this feature
because this does not have to be the case always as fake
reviews are also present during seasonal times. Every other
month for the year under observation is marked likely burst
with a flag 1.
Therefore we can treat the spam reviews as
belonging to the positive class and non-spam reviews as
belonging to the negative class. A classifier can then be built
to separate the two classes of reviews. The values for
accuracy, precision, recall and f-measure are described in
Fig. 3. Comparison of accuracy, precision, recall and f-measure
for proposed and baseline methods
Table 1. The labels predicted by the classifiers could be
categorized as True Positive (TP), True Negative (TN), False
Negative (FN) or False Positive (FP). A True Positive
(likewise Negative) refers to an object whose actual class is
positive (negative) and the classifier predicted it to be positive
(negative). False Negative classes correspond to those objects
whose actual is positive and the classifier predicted them to be
negative. Similarly, the true label of False Positive class is
negative and the classifier predicted them to be positive.
 2016 International Conference on Emerging Technological Trends [ICETT]
Fig. 4. Extent of presence of Extroversion, Openness and Neuroticism in
identified fake reviewers
• Precision is defined as the number of true positives
(TP) over the number of true positives plus the
number of false positives (FP):
Precision = TPTP (2)
+ FP
• Recall is defined as the number of true positives (TP)
over the number of true positives plus the number of
false negatives (FN):
Recall = TPTP
+ FN
(3)
• Accuracy is defined as the overall success of the
classifier, i.e. is the average number of correct
predictions divided by the number of labels:
Accuracy = TP +TN
TP + TN
+ FP + FN
(4)
• F-measure is calculated by,
precision∗ recall
F = 2∗ precision + recall
(5)
The supervised learning is performed using SVM based
classifier. The values for accuracy, precision, recall and f-
measure are described in Table 1. A comparison of the values
obtained using the proposed system against the baseline
method is illustrated in Figure 3. The reviews identified as
those belonging to fake reviewers were passed to the
personality prediction module which performed multi
classification to train the classifier and find out the percentage
of traits identified from such reviewers. The data set for semi-
supervised classification of personality traits was manually
created using a similar set of Tweets used in one of the prior
works for personality prediction [5]. The data set created
contained reviews with similar review length as the tweets.
The corresponding grammatical features were modified to an
extent as they would vary within the different contexts.
The created set contains reviews having presence of all
three traits in varying patterns. The semi-supervised
classification was then conducted on the fake reviews
identified from previous module. Although the number of fake
reviews identified was less, the proposed prediction module
highlighted the predominant presence of extroversion in most
fake reviewers followed by openness and still lower levels of
neuroticism (Fig 4). Since the data taken for evaluation was
synthetically created, the personality traits found by this
method can be used as a baseline for further studies in this
area. Personality could be still strengthened by analyzing the
social behavior of reviewers which has not been taken up in
this study. The total time taken to extract each feature and
overall memory consumption for entire system is less.
VI. CONCLUSION
The proposed method for review authenticity verification
shows a significant increase in accuracy and precision from
the baseline method. This is due to the selection of features
such as burst review detection, sentiment scores, content
similarity, review deviation and certain modifications and
weights assigned to each factor which have lead to this
improvement. Furthermore personality detection module has
been applied for the first time in the case of product reviews
which assess grammatical features of all reviews of a
particular reviewer and predict the most common feature of a
fake reviewer. The results imply that the most common
personality traits that a fake reviewer is likely to have is
extroversion. This trait makes encourages people to be more
active on social media and in sharing their opinions in a very
strong and loud manner. Any fake reviewer would deviate
significantly from general public opinion and influence buyers
to make wrong choices in a very convincing manner. All this
could be accounted to an extrovert who is active, enthusiastic
and fully focused on spreading the wrong word. Future works
can be done focused on linking the various reviewer ids in
product reviews to the social media accounts of these
reviewers. As the participation in social media is increasing
every day, performing analysis on social media data would
reveal more behavioral traits of a person. Facebook and
Twitter are two platforms where the social behavior of a
person can be studied in depth and sentiment analysis on posts
and comments would shed light in different dimensions.
References
[1] Abbasi, Ahmed, et al. "Detecting fake websites: the contribution of
statistical learning theory." Mis Quarterly (2010).
[2] Aaron N. Richter , Hamzah Al Najada , Joseph D. Prusa ,Michael
Crawford , “Survey of review spam detection using machine learning
techniques” , Crawford et al. Journal of Big Data (2015).
[3] Bandakkanavar, Rekha V., M. Ramesh, and H. Geeta. "A survey on
detection of reviews using sentiment classification of methods."
IJRITCC 2.2 (2014).
[4] Banerjee, Snehasish, Alton YK Chua, and Jung-Jae Kim. "Using
supervised learning to classify authentic and fake online reviews."
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Ubiquitous
Information Management and Communication. ACM, 2015.
[5] Lima, A. C. E., \& De Castro, L. N. (2014). A multi-label, semi-
supervised classification approach applied to personality prediction in
social media. Neural Networks.
[6] Dixit, Snehal, and A. J. Agrawal. "Survey on review spam detection."
Int J Comput Commun Technol ISSN (PRINT) 4 (2013).
 2016 International Conference on Emerging Technological Trends [ICETT]
[7] Dave, Kushal, Steve Lawrence, and David M. Pennock. "Mining the
peanut gallery: Opinion extraction and semantic classification of product
reviews." Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World
Wide Web. ACM, 2003.
[8] Fei, Geli, et al. "Exploiting Burstiness in Reviews for Review Spammer
Detection." ICWSM 13 (2013).
[9] Feng, Song, et al. "Distributional Footprints of Deceptive Product
Reviews." ICWSM 12 (2012).
[10] Jindal, Nitin, Bing Liu, and Ee-Peng Lim. "Finding unusual review
patterns using unexpected rules." Proceedings of the 19th ACM
international conference on Information and knowledge management.
ACM, 2010.
[11] Jindal, Nitin, and Bing Liu. "Opinion spam and analysis." Proceedings
of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining.
ACM, 2008.
[12] Jindal, Nitin, and Bing Liu. "Review spam detection." Proceedings of
the 16th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 2007.
[13] Judge, Timothy A., et al. "The big five personality traits, general mental
ability, and career success across the life span." Personnel psychology
52.3 (1999).
[14] Khan, Khairullah, et al. "Mining opinion components from unstructured
reviews: A review." Journal of King Saud University-Computer and
Information Sciences(2014).
[15] Khan, Khairullah, Baharum B. Baharudin, and Aurangzeb Khan.
"Mining opinion from text documents: A survey." 2009 3rd IEEE
International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies.
IEEE, 2009.
[16] Laryea, Bryan Nii Lartey, et al. "Web Application for Sentiment
Analysis Using Supervised Machine Learning." International Journal of
Software Engineering and Its Applications 9.1 (2015)
[17] Lau, Raymond YK, et al. "Text mining and probabilistic language
modeling for online review spam detecting." ACM Transactions on
Management Information Systems 2.4 (2011).
[18] Li, Jiwei, et al. "Towards a General Rule for Identifying Deceptive
Opinion Spam." ACL (1). 2014.
[19] Li, Fangtao, et al. "Learning to identify review spam." IJCAI
Proceedings-International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Vol. 22. No. 3. 2011.
[20] Lim, Ee-Peng, et al. "Detecting product review spammers using rating
behaviors." Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on
Information and knowledge management. ACM, 2010.
[21] Liu, Bing, et al. "Building text classifiers using positive and unlabeled
examples." Data Mining, 2003. ICDM 2003. Third IEEE International
Conference on. IEEE, 2003.
[22] Mukherjee, Arjun, et al. Fake review detection: Classification and
analysis of real and pseudo reviews. UIC-CS-03-2013. Technical
Report, 2013.
[23] Mukherjee, Arjun, et al. "Spotting opinion spammers using behavioral
footprints." Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international
conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 2013.
[24] Mukherjee, Arjun, et al. "What yelp fake review filter might be doing?."
ICWSM. 2013.
[25] Mukherjee, Arjun, Bing Liu, and Natalie Glance. "Spotting fake
reviewer groups in consumer reviews." Proceedings of the 21st
international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 2012.
[26] Narayanan, Vivek, Ishan Arora, and Arjun Bhatia. "Fast and accurate
sentiment classification using an enhanced Naive Bayes model."
International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated
Learning. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
[27] Pang, Bo, and Lillian Lee. "Opinion mining and sentiment analysis."
Foundations and trends in information retrieval (2008).
[28] Ott, Myle, et al. "Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the
imagination." Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the
Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language
Technologies-Volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics,
2011.
[29] Ott, Myle, Claire Cardie, and Jeffrey T. Hancock. "Negative Deceptive
Opinion Spam." HLT-NAACL. 2013.
[30] Qian, Tieyun, and Bing Liu. "Identifying Multiple Userids of the Same
Author." EMNLP. 2013.
[31] Shojaee, Somayeh, et al. "Detecting deceptive reviews using lexical and
syntactic features." 2013 13th International Conference on Intellient
Systems Design and Applications. IEEE, 2013.
[32] Saulsman, Lisa M., and Andrew C. Page. "The five-factor model and
personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review."
Clinical psychology review(2004).
[33] Virmani, Deepali, Vikrant Malhotra, and Ridhi Tyagi. "Sentiment
Analysis Using Collaborated Opinion Mining." arXiv preprint arXiv
(2014).
[34] Xie, Sihong, et al. "Review spam detection via temporal pattern
discovery." Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international
conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 2012.
[35] McAuley, Julian, Rahul Pandey, and Jure Leskovec. "Inferring networks
of substitutable and complementary products." Proceedings of the 21th
ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and
Data Mining. ACM, 2015.