skip to main content
10.1145/3308560.3316604acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An Anatomy of a Lie:

Published:13 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Automated detection of text with misrepresentations such as fake reviews is an important task for online reputation management. The dataset of customer complaints - emotionally charged texts which are very similar to reviews and include descriptions of problems customers experienced with certain businesses – is presented. It contains 2746 complaints about banks and provides clear ground truth, based on available factual knowledge about the financial domain. Among them, 400 texts were manually tagged. Initial experiments were performed in order to explore the links between implicit cues of the rhetoric structure of texts and the validity of arguments, and also how truthful/deceptive are these texts.

References

  1. Abbott, R., Ecker, B., Anand, P., and Walker, M.A. (2016). “Internet argument corpus 2.0: An sql schema for dialogic social media and the corpora to go with it”. Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Feng, S., Banerjee, R., and Choi, Y. (2012a). “Syntactic stylometry for deception detection”. ACL 12, Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: 171-175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Feng, S., Xing, L., Gogar, A., and Choi, Y. (2012b). “Distributional footprints of deceptive product reviews”. Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 98-105.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Fornaciari, T. and Poesio, M. (2014). “Identifying fake Amazon reviews as learning from crowds”. Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: 279-287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Galitsky, B., Ilvovsky, D., and Pisarevskaya, D. (2018). “Argumentation in text: Discourse structure matters”. CICLing 2018 (unpublished).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Hai, Z., Zhao, P., Cheng, P., Yang, P., Li, X.-L., and Li, G. (2016). “Deceptive review spam detection via exploiting task relatedness and unlabeled data”. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: 1817-1826.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jindal, N. and Liu B. (2008). “Opinion spam and analysis”. Proceedings of International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM-2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Mann, W.C. and Thompson S.A. (1987). “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and Construction of Text Structures”. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Mukherjee, A., Venkataraman, V., Liu, B., and Glance, N. (2013a). “What Yelp fake review filter might be doing?” Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mukherjee, A., Venkataraman, V., Liu, B., and Glance, N. (2013b). “Fake review detection: classification and analysis of real and pseudo reviews”. Tech. rep. uic-cs-2013-03. University of Illinois at Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Oraby, S., Reed, L., Compton, R., Riloff, E., Walker, M., and Whittaker, S. (2015). “And that's a fact: Distinguishing factual and emotional argumentation in online dialogue”. NAACL HLT 2015 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Ott, M., Cardie, C., and Hancock, J.T. (2013). “Negative deceptive opinion spam”. NAACLHLT 2013, Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: 497-501.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., and Hancock, J.T. (2011). “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: 309-319. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Rayana, S. and Akoglu, L. (2015). “Collective opinion spam detection: Bridging review networks and metadata”. Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ACM: 985-994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Stab, S. and Gurevych, I. (2017). “Recognizing insufficiently supported arguments in argumentative essays”. Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2017): 980-990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Sun, C., Du, Q., and Tian, G. (2016). “Exploiting product related review features for fake review detection”. Mathematical Problems in Engineering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Yao, W., Dai, Z., Huang, R., and Caverlee, J. (2017). “Online deception detection refueled by real world data collection”. Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing: 793-802.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Grasso, F. (2003). “Characterizing Rhetoric Argumentation”. PhD Thesis Heriot-Watt University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Galitsky, B., Ilvovsky, D., and Makhalova, T. (2019). “Enabling a Bot with Understanding Argumentation and Providing Arguments”. Developing Enterprise Chatbots, Springer Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Joty, S., Carenini, G., Ng, R.T., and Mehdad, Y. (2013). “Combining intra-and multisentential rhetorical parsing for document-level discourse analysis”. ACL (1): 486-496.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Surdeanu, M., Hicks, T., and Valenzuela-Escarcega, M.A. (2015). “Two Practical Rhetorical Structure Theory Parsers”. NAACL HLT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ganter, B. and Kuznetsov, S.O. (2001). “Pattern Structures and Their Projections”. ICCS, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Springer), Vol. 2120: 129-142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Galitsky, B. (2019). “Rhetorical Agreement: Maintaining Cohesive Conversations”. Developing Enterprise Chatbots, Springer – Cham, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Github (2019). Ultimate Deception Dataset https://github.com/bgalitsky/relevance-based-on-parse-trees/blob/master/examples/ultimateDeceptionAutoTagged.csv.zip.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Galitsky, B. (2019). “A Content Management System for Chatbots”. Developing Enterprise Chatbots. Springer Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Galitsky, B. and Kuznetsov, S.O. (2008). “Learning communicative actions of conflicting human agents”. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell, 20(4): 277–317. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Galitsky, B., Ilvovsky, D., and Kuznetsov, S.O. (2018). “Detecting logical argumentation in text via communicative discourse tree". J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell., 30(5): 1-27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. An Anatomy of a Lie:
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          WWW '19: Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference
          May 2019
          1331 pages
          ISBN:9781450366755
          DOI:10.1145/3308560

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 13 May 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format