Deep Learning-Based Approach for Monitoring and Controlling Fake Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade, E-commerce has developed into the world's biggest stage for shopping. It has allowed people around the world to directly communicate without any barriers to purchasing the products as per requirements. Internet technologies have reshaped E-commerce since product reviews have become a vital part of online shopping due to their rapid growth. But with widespread usage, it has also brought forth an influx in rates of fake reviews. Fake reviews, which are frequently used to influence public perception, are now a widespread occurrence due to the open nature of E-commerce. Using different learning techniques, many methods and techniques are implemented to spot false reviews and fake behavior. This research aims to use a recurrent neural network (RNN) to combine content and data to identify false product reviews. The proposed approach, which is related to spam indicators, makes use of both product reviews and reviewers' behavioral characteristics. The fine-grained burst pattern analysis is used to conduct a more thorough investigation of produced testimonials during "suspicious" periods in the proposed approach. Additionally, a customer's previous review data are utilized to determine their overall "authorship" reputation, which serves as a barometer for the authenticity of most recent reviews. For the proposed theory, we examined the real-world Amazon review dataset and produced more accurate findings than previous methodologies. In addition to this, our proposed deep learning-based model performance has been validated utilizing the benchmark Yelp Open dataset and IMDB dataset. Received: 12 June 2024 | Revised: 29 July 2024 | Accepted: 18 August 2024 Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in this work. Data Availability Statement Data are available on request from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Author Contribution Statement Nilesh Sable: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Parikshit Mahalle: Conceptualization, Software, Resources, Supervision. Kalyani Kadam: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Bipin Sule: Methodology, Writing – original draft. Rahul Joshi: Investigation, Visualization. Mahendra Deore: Software, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".