Deep Learning-Based Truthful and Deceptive Hotel Reviews
-
Published:2024-05-26
Issue:11
Volume:16
Page:4514
-
ISSN:2071-1050
-
Container-title:Sustainability
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Sustainability
Author:
Gupta Devbrat1ORCID, Bhargava Anuja1ORCID, Agarwal Diwakar1ORCID, Alsharif Mohammed H.2ORCID, Uthansakul Peerapong3ORCID, Uthansakul Monthippa3, Aly Ayman A.4ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Department of Electronics & Communication, GLA University, Mathura 281406, India 2. Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Electronics and Information Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea 3. School of Telecommunication Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand 4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Taif University, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
For sustainable hospitality and tourism, the validity of online evaluations is crucial at a time when they influence travelers’ choices. Understanding the facts and conducting a thorough investigation to distinguish between truthful and deceptive hotel reviews are crucial. The urgent need to discern between truthful and deceptive hotel reviews is addressed by the current study. This misleading “opinion spam” is common in the hospitality sector, misleading potential customers and harming the standing of hotel review websites. This data science project aims to create a reliable detection system that correctly recognizes and classifies hotel reviews as either true or misleading. When it comes to natural language processing, sentiment analysis is essential for determining the text’s emotional tone. With an 800-instance dataset comprising true and false reviews, this study investigates the sentiment analysis performance of three deep learning models: Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Recurrent Neural Network (RNN). Among the training, testing, and validation sets, the CNN model yielded the highest accuracy rates, measuring 98%, 77%, and 80%, respectively. Despite showing balanced precision and recall, the LSTM model was not as accurate as the CNN model, with an accuracy of 60%. There were difficulties in capturing sequential relationships, for which the RNN model further trailed, with accuracy rates of 57%, 57%, and 58%. A thorough assessment of every model’s performance was conducted using ROC curves and classification reports.
Funder
Suranaree University of Technology Thailand Science Research and Innovation National Science, Research and Innovation Fund Taif University, Saudi Arabia
Reference29 articles.
1. Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., and Hancock, J.T. (2011). Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination. arXiv. 2. Ott, M., Cardie, C., and Hancock, J.T. (2013, January 9–14). Negative Deceptive Opinion Spam. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Atlanta, GA, USA. Available online: https://aclanthology.org/N13-1053. 3. Métais, E., Meziane, F., Vadera, S., Sugumaran, V., and Saraee, M. (2019). Natural Language Processing and Information Systems, Springer International Publishing. 4. Content analysis of fake consumer reviews by survey-based text categorization;Moon;Int. J. Res. Mark.,2021 5. Illusions of truth—Experimental insights into human and algorithmic detections of fake online reviews;Plotkina;J. Bus. Res.,2020
|
|