KE-MLLM: A Knowledge-Enhanced Multi-Sensor Learning Framework for Explainable Fake Review Detection
Source abstract
Abstract
The proliferation of fake reviews on e-commerce and social platforms has severely undermined consumer trust and market integrity, necessitating robust and interpretable real-time detection mechanisms with multi-sensor data fusion capabilities. While traditional machine learning approaches have shown promise in identifying fraudulent reviews, they often lack transparency and fail to leverage the rich contextual knowledge embedded in large-scale datasets. In this paper, we propose KE-MLLM (Knowledge-Enhanced Multimodal Large Language Model), a unified framework that integrates knowledge-enhanced prompting with parameter-efficient fine-tuning for explainable fake review detection. Our approach employs LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) to fine-tune lightweight large language models (LLaMA-3-8B) on review text, while incorporating multimodal behavioral sensor signals including temporal patterns, user metadata, and social network characteristics for comprehensive anomaly sensing. To address the critical need for interpretability in fraud detection systems, we implement a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning module that generates human-understandable explanations for classification decisions, highlighting linguistic anomalies, sentiment inconsistencies, and behavioral red flags. We enhance the model’s discriminative capability through a knowledge distillation strategy that transfers domain-specific expertise from larger teacher models while maintaining computational efficiency suitable for edge sensing devices. Extensive experiments on two benchmark datasets—YelpChi and Amazon Reviews from the DGL Fraud Dataset—show that KE-MLLM achieves strong performance, reaching an F1-score of 94.3% and an AUC-ROC of 96.7% on YelpChi and outperforming the strongest baseline in our comparison by 5.8 and 4.2 percentage points, respectively. Furthermore, human evaluation indicates that the generated explanations achieve 89.5% consistency with expert annotations, suggesting that the framework can improve the interpretability and practical usefulness of automated fraud detection systems. The proposed framework provides a useful step toward more accurate and interpretable fake review detection and offers a practical reference for building more transparent and accountable AI systems in high-stakes applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Spam and Phishing Detection · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
SC Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
College of Computing and Information Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1SS, UK
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. How valuable is word of mouth?
2. Fake it till you make it: Reputation, competition, and Yelp review fraud10.1287/mnsc.2015.2304 ↗
3. Learning from the crowd: Regression discontinuity estimates of the effects of an online review database10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02512.x ↗
4. Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., and Hancock, J.T. (2011). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. arXiv.
5. What yelp fake review filter might be doing?10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14389 ↗
6. Wang, W.Y. (2017). “liar, liar pants on fire”: A new benchmark dataset for fake news detection. arXiv.10.18653/v1/P17-2067 ↗
7. Dewang, R.K., and Singh, A.K. (2015, January 25–27). Identification of fake reviews using new set of lexical and syntactic features. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computer and Communication Technology 2015, Allahabad, India.10.1145/2818567.2818589 ↗
8. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 ↗
9. Language models are few-shot learners
10. Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., and Azhar, F. (2023). Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv.
11. Rayana, S., and Akoglu, L. (2015, January 10–13). Collective opinion spam detection: Bridging review networks and metadata. Proceedings of the 21th ACM Sigkdd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Sydney, NSW, Australia.10.1145/2783258.2783370 ↗
12. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models
13. Explainability for large language models: A survey
14. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models
15. Multimodal fusion for multimedia analysis: A survey10.1007/s00530-010-0182-0 ↗
16. Kumar, S., and Shah, N. (2018). False information on web and social media: A survey. arXiv.
17. Dou, Y., Liu, Z., Sun, L., Deng, Y., Peng, H., and Yu, P.S. (2020, January 19–23). Enhancing graph neural network-based fraud detectors against camouflaged fraudsters. Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, Virtual.10.1145/3340531.3411903 ↗
18. Attention is all you need
19. European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”
20. Cresci, S., Di Pietro, R., Petrocchi, M., Spognardi, A., and Tesconi, M. (2017, January 3–7). The paradigm-shift of social spambots: Evidence, theories, and tools for the arms race. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, Perth, Australia.10.1145/3041021.3055135 ↗
21. Cheng, D., Zou, Y., Xiang, S., and Jiang, C. (2025). Graph neural networks for financial fraud detection: A review. Front. Comput. Sci., 19.10.1007/s11704-024-40474-y ↗
22. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective10.1145/3137597.3137600 ↗
23. Li, J., Ott, M., Cardie, C., and Hovy, E. (2014). Towards a general rule for identifying deceptive opinion spam. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/v1/P14-1147 ↗
24. An overview of online fake news: Characterization, detection, and discussion10.1016/j.ipm.2019.03.004 ↗
25. Wiegreffe, S., and Pinter, Y. (2019, January 3–7). Attention is not not Explanation. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Hong Kong, China.10.18653/v1/D19-1002 ↗
26. Li, A., Qin, Z., Liu, R., Yang, Y., and Li, D. (2019, January 3–7). Spam review detection with graph convolutional networks. Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Beijing, China.10.1145/3357384.3357820 ↗
27. Liu, Y., Ao, X., Qin, Z., Chi, J., Feng, J., Yang, H., and He, Q. (2021, January 19–23). Pick and choose: A GNN-based imbalanced learning approach for fraud detection. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, Ljubljana, Slovenia.10.1145/3442381.3449989 ↗
28. Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., and Glance, N. (2012, January 16–20). Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, Lyon, France.10.1145/2187836.2187863 ↗
29. Attention-based BiLSTM with positional embeddings for fake review detection10.1186/s40537-025-01130-9 ↗
30. Jain, S., and Wallace, B.C. (2019). Attention is not explanation. arXiv.
31. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). “Why should i trust you?” Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
32. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions
33. Barbieri, F., Anke, L.E., and Camacho-Collados, J. (2022, January 20–25). XLM-T: Multilingual language models in Twitter for sentiment analysis and beyond. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Marseille, France.
34. Wiegreffe, S., Hessel, J., Swayamdipta, S., Riedl, M., and Choi, Y. (2022, January 10–15). Reframing human-AI collaboration for generating free-text explanations. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Online.10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.47 ↗
35. Lampinen, A., Dasgupta, I., Chan, S., Mathewson, K., Tessler, M., Creswell, A., McClell, J., Wang, J., and Hill, F. (2022). Can language models learn from explanations in context?. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.38 ↗
36. Lima: Less is more for alignment
37. Houlsby, N., Giurgiu, A., Jastrzebski, S., Morrone, B., De Laroussilhe, Q., Gesmundo, A., Attariyan, M., and Gelly, S. (2019). Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR.
38. Pfeiffer, J., Kamath, A., Rücklé, A., Cho, K., and Gurevych, I. (2021, January 19–23). Adapterfusion: Non-destructive task composition for transfer learning. Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, Online.10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.39 ↗
39. Lester, B., Al-Rfou, R., and Constant, N. (2021). The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.243 ↗
40. Li, X.L., and Liang, P. (2021). Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.353 ↗
41. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms10.52202/075280-0441 ↗
42. Zhao, W.X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., Min, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., and Dong, Z. (2023). A survey of large language models. arXiv.