Proceedings of the ACM Turing Celebration Conference - China 2019
DOI: 10.1145/3321408.3323077
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detecting review spammer groups in dynamic review networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The model marked top-ranked groups as spammer groups. In a similar context, Hu et al (2019) used the CPM method to find spammer groups with the infinite change in the review stream.…”
Section: Spammer Group Detection Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The model marked top-ranked groups as spammer groups. In a similar context, Hu et al (2019) used the CPM method to find spammer groups with the infinite change in the review stream.…”
Section: Spammer Group Detection Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Considering the existing work on spam group detection, most of the related studies (Mukherjee, Liu & Glance, 2012;Allahbakhsh et al, 2013;Zhang, Wu & Cao, 2017;Zhou, Liu & Zhang, 2018) have used spammer behavioral features to detect spam groups. On the other hand, some researchers used graph-based techniques to identify suspicious spammer groups with a little focus on spammer behavioral features (Rayana & Akoglu, 2015;Li et al, 2017;Kaghazgaran, Caverlee & Squicciarini, 2018;Zhang et al, 2018;Xu & Zhang, 2016;Xu et al, 2019;Hu et al, 2019). This research aims to develop a framework that will use both behavioral and graph features.…”
Section: Spammer Group Detection Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the increasing activities of spammer groups, numerous researchers have been motivated to develop algorithms to detect these groups to mitigate their detrimental impact (Mukherjee et al 2012;Xu et al 2013;Xu and Zhang 2015;Wang et al 2016Wang et al , 2018aChoo et al 2015;Hu et al 2019;Zhang et al 2020Zhang et al , 2022aZhang et al , b, 2023Akoglu et al 2013;Ye and Akoglu 2015;Zheng et al 2018;Zhu et al 2019;Shehnepoor et al 2021;Chao et al 2022;Li et al 2017;Ji et al 2020;Liu et al 2018). According to the approach of generating candidate groups, existing spammer group detection algorithms can be classified into Frequent Item Mining (FIM)-based, graph-based, and burst-based algorithms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The FIM-based algorithms (Mukherjee et al 2012;Xu et al 2013;Xu and Zhang 2015) aim to capture repetitive fraudulent actions of reviewers to identify spammer groups. The graph-based algorithms (Wang et al 2016(Wang et al , 2018aChoo et al 2015;Hu et al 2019;Zhang et al 2020Zhang et al , 2022aAkoglu et al 2013;Ye and Akoglu 2015;Zheng et al 2018;Zhu et al 2019;Shehnepoor et al 2021;Chao et al 2022) leverage the network relationships of reviewers to construct either homogeneous or heterogeneous graphs and then, based on the relational or behavioral information of the graph, generate candidate groups through clustering or community detection techniques. The burst-based algorithms (Li et al 2017;Ji et al 2020;Liu et al 2018) capture the burst intervals of reviews from either reviewers or products, using these intervals to determine candidate groups.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation