Spam Review Detection Using Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A robust and reliable system of detecting spam reviews is a crying need in todays world in order to purchase products without being cheated from online sites. In many online sites, there are options for posting reviews, and thus creating scopes for fake paid reviews or untruthful reviews. These concocted reviews can mislead the general public and put them in a perplexity whether to believe the review or not. Prominent machine learning techniques have been introduced to solve the problem of spam review detection. The majority of current research has concentrated on supervised learning methods, which require labeled data - an inadequacy when it comes to online review. Our focus in this article is to detect any deceptive text reviews. In order to achieve that we have worked with both labeled and unlabeled data and proposed deep learning methods for spam review detection which includes Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and a variant of Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) that is Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM). We have also applied some traditional machine learning classifiers such as Nave Bayes (NB), K Nearest Neighbor (KNN) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) to detect spam reviews and finally, we have shown the performance comparison for both traditional and deep learning classifiers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".