Estimating global opinions by keeping users from fraud in online review systems

In this work, we focus on online review systems, in which users provide opinions about a set of entities (movies, restaurants, etc.) based on their experiences and in turn can check what others prefer. These systems have been proved to be sensitive to fraud and have shown some shortcomings as a result of capturing opinions through numerical ratings. Thus, supported by recent work on the field, we tackle the problem of fraud in such systems by designing a mechanism based on pairwise comparisons, coupled with an incentive policy attempting to foster the collection of majority opinions over individual experiences. As a result, we propose a new mechanism called iPWRM (incentive-based PWRM), where users are persuaded to reply honestly to pairwise queries based on opinion polls. The idea is: (1) to give a positive reward when all users agree in their reviews; (2) to give a positive reward when a user agrees the majority’s choice; and finally, (3) to give a low incentive—possibly null—when user’s review does not match the majority. Therefore, it is able (1) to overcome the bias introduced into reputation rankings by fraud reviews in ORSs, as well as (2) to mitigate potential biased problems derived from the use of numerical ratings. We exhaustively test the performance of the mechanism by using two different well-known existing datasets Flixster and HetRec2011—real world datasets on movie reviews, aiming to test the performance of the mechanism as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of iPWRM when fraud comes into play.

[1]  M. Lewis-Beck,et al.  Citizen Forecasting: Can Voters See into the Future? , 1989, British Journal of Political Science.

[2]  Bin Gu,et al.  Do online reviews matter? - An empirical investigation of panel data , 2008, Decis. Support Syst..

[3]  Eric K. Clemons,et al.  Do Online Reviews Reflect a Product's True Perceived Quality? - An Investigation of Online Movie Reviews Across Cultures , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  Ling Liu,et al.  Manipulation of online reviews: An analysis of ratings, readability, and sentiments , 2012, Decis. Support Syst..

[5]  M. Kendall A NEW MEASURE OF RANK CORRELATION , 1938 .

[6]  D. Iacobucci,et al.  Dynamic Effects among Movie Ratings, Movie Revenues, and Viewer Satisfaction , 2010 .

[7]  Ee-Peng Lim,et al.  Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors , 2010, CIKM.

[8]  Shilad Sen,et al.  Rating: how difficult is it? , 2011, RecSys '11.

[9]  Paul Resnick,et al.  Reputation systems , 2000, CACM.

[10]  Audun Jøsang,et al.  A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[11]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Opinion Fraud Detection in Online Reviews by Network Effects , 2013, ICWSM.

[12]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Fair Seeding in Knockout Tournaments , 2011, TIST.

[13]  Bing Liu,et al.  Opinion spam and analysis , 2008, WSDM '08.

[14]  Devavrat Shah,et al.  Iterative ranking from pair-wise comparisons , 2012, NIPS.

[15]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Worst-case equilibria , 1999 .

[16]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  Review spam detection via temporal pattern discovery , 2012, KDD.

[17]  Noël Crespi,et al.  Characterization of cross-posting activity for professional users across major OSNs , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM).

[18]  Ling Liu,et al.  Fraud Detection in Online Consumer Reviews , 2008, Decis. Support Syst..

[19]  Lora Aroyo,et al.  Using Centrality Measures to Predict Helpfulness-Based Reputation in Trust Networks , 2017, ACM Trans. Internet Techn..

[20]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  FIRE: An Integrated Trust and Reputation Model for Open Multi-Agent Systems , 2004, ECAI.

[21]  Jamal Bentahar,et al.  CRM : An efficient trust and reputation model for agent computing , 2011 .

[22]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems , 2006, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[23]  H. Raghav Rao,et al.  Foreword: Information Systems Frontiers , 2015, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[24]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Trust in multi-agent systems , 2004, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[25]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Leveraging Position Bias to Improve Peer Recommendation , 2014, PloS one.

[26]  W. Herman,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of the Relative Risk of Mortality for Type 1 Diabetes Patients Compared to the General Population: Exploring Temporal Changes in Relative Mortality , 2014, PloS one.

[27]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Incentives for expressing opinions in online polls , 2008, EC '08.

[28]  Eric Bonabeau,et al.  Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  Chrysanthos Dellarocas,et al.  Mechanisms for coping with unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior in online reputation reporting systems , 2000, ICIS.

[30]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  TRAVOS: Trust and Reputation in the Context of Inaccurate Information Sources , 2006, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[31]  Eric K. Clemons,et al.  Do Online Reviews Reflect a Product's True Perceived Quality? - An Investigation of Online Movie Reviews Across Cultures , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[32]  Ramón Hermoso,et al.  On the inaccuracy of numerical ratings: dealing with biased opinions in social networks , 2014, Information Systems Frontiers.

[33]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  On the complexity of schedule control problems for knockout tournaments , 2009, AAMAS.

[34]  Thomas A. Rietz,et al.  Wishes, expectations and actions: a survey on price formation in election stock markets , 1999 .

[35]  Ravi Kumar,et al.  Para 'Normal' Activity: On the Distribution of Average Ratings , 2013, ICWSM.

[36]  Jordi Sabater-Mir,et al.  REGRET: reputation in gregarious societies , 2001, AGENTS '01.

[37]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Introduction to multiagent systems , 2001 .

[38]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Dwelling on the Negative: Incentivizing Effort in Peer Prediction , 2013, HCOMP.

[39]  Qinghua Zhu,et al.  Towards effective online review systems in the Chinese context: A cross-cultural empirical study , 2013, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl..

[40]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Forecasting uncertain events with small groups , 2001, EC '01.

[41]  D. Prelec A Bayesian Truth Serum for Subjective Data , 2004, Science.

[42]  R. Srikant,et al.  A game theory based reputation mechanism to incentivize cooperation in wireless ad hoc networks , 2010, Ad Hoc Networks.

[43]  Yao Wang,et al.  Toward Trust and Reputation Based Web Service Selection : A Survey , 2007 .

[44]  Jordi Sabater-Mir,et al.  Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review , 2013, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[45]  Xiaoqi Liu,et al.  Research on the interactive effects of online scores , 2014, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl..

[46]  Ramón Hermoso,et al.  From blurry numbers to clear preferences: A mechanism to extract reputation in social networks , 2014, Expert Syst. Appl..

[47]  Sumit Chopra,et al.  Two of a Kind or the Ratings Game? Adaptive Pairwise Preferences and Latent Factor Models , 2010, ICDM.

[48]  Derek L. Hansen,et al.  A method for computing political preference among Twitter followers , 2014, Soc. Networks.

[49]  Audun Jøsang,et al.  AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) , 2017 .

[50]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  An evidential model of distributed reputation management , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[51]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  An efficient and versatile approach to trust and reputation using hierarchical Bayesian modelling , 2012, Artif. Intell..