A Survey on Fake Review Detection: From Pre-trained Language Models to Large Language Models
Organizations: Guizhou University of Finance and Economics · Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang, China · Harbin Institute of Technology · Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), Shenzhen, China ·
Abstract
Online reviews shape consumer decisions, platform governance, and corporate reputation.Fake reviews compromise this information channel by injecting deceptive evidence into rating systems, recommendation pipelines, and public trust mechanisms.The rise of large language models, or LLMs, has changed the problem in two directions.LLMs can generate fluent and context-aware deceptive reviews, while pre-trained language models, or PLMs, and LLMs also provide stronger semantic representations for detection.This survey reviews fake review detection from an information fusion perspective, covering 211 studies published from 2018 to early 2026.We organize existing work by evidence source and fusion level, covering review text, sentiment, rating behavior, temporal metadata, user-product graphs, multimodal content, external knowledge, and LLM-generated signals.We trace the development from traditional machine learning and deep learning to PLM-based and LLM-based methods, and examine how different approaches combine textual, behavioral, structural, and multimodal evidence.We also analyze reported performance trends on widely used Amazon, Yelp, and OpSpam benchmark families, while noting the limitations caused by different label construction procedures, data splits, and evaluation protocols.Finally, we identify open problems in adversarial generation, cross-domain transfer, uncertainty-aware fusion, missing-source robustness, interpretability, and trustworthy evaluation for AI-generated deceptive content.
Figures & tables
| Survey | Year | Traditional | DL | PLM | LLM | LLM Paradigms | Scope |
| Dewang and Singh [39] | 2018 | Feature engineering, reviewer behavior, graph-based methods, traditional ML, datasets, evaluation | |||||
| Vidanagama et al. [220] | 2020 | Linguistic, behavioral and metadata features, traditional ML, early DL methods, datasets and evaluation | |||||
| Li et al. [106] | 2020 | Systematic review of machine learning-based fake review detection, feature engineering, datasets, evaluation metrics, hospitality applications | |||||
| Mohawesh et al. [137] | 2021 | Feature engineering, traditional ML, deep learning, datasets, evaluation, challenges | |||||
| Paul and Nikolaev [156] | 2021 | Systematic review of feature engineering, reviewer behavior, graph-based methods, ML, DL, benchmark datasets, evaluation metrics, research challenges | |||||
| Mewada and Dewang [131] | 2022 | Feature engineering, traditional ML, deep learning, datasets, evaluation metrics |
| Model | Ref. | Dataset | Acc. | P | R | F1 |
| Rule-Based or Platform-Derived Labels | ||||||
| DKG-FRD | [ 53 ] | Amazon | 0.9341 | – | 0.9412 | 0.9304 |
| EBC-MD | [ 219 ] | Amazon | 0.8898 | 0.8869 | 0.9090 | 0.8979 |
| MINS | [ 147 ] | Amazon | 0.8900 | – | – | – |
| RF | [ 78 ] | Amazon | 0.8600 | – | – | – |
| Amazon Mechanical Turk Annotation | ||||||
| Model | Ref. | Dataset | Acc. | P | R | F1 | AUC |
| Rule-Based or Platform-Derived Labels | |||||||
| Bi-LSTM | [ 19 ] | Amazon | 0.9630 | – | – | – | – |
| CNN | [ 71 ] | Amazon | 0.8130 | – | – | 0.8060 | 0.8790 |
| CNN | [ 200 ] | Amazon | 0.9500 | – | – | 0.9500 | – |
| DFFNN | [ 71 ] | Amazon | 0.8280 | – | – | 0.8250 | 0.8930 |
| DHMFRD-TER | [ 47 ] | Amazon | 0.9880 | 0.9880 | 0.9860 | 0.9870 | – |
| Model | Ref. | Dataset | Acc. | P | R | F1 | AUC |
| Human Annotation or Curated Benchmarks | |||||||
| A-LSTM | [ 238 ] | Yelp | 0.9090 | 0.8870 | 0.8790 | – | – |
| HIN-RNN | [ 194 ] | Yelp | – | 0.8100 | 0.8200 | 0.8100 | – |
| Meta-MGDN | [ 258 ] | Yelp | – | – | – | – | 0.8150 |
| ScoreGAN | [ 193 ] | Yelp | 0.8476 | 0.6516 | – | – | 0.8878 |
| CNN | [ 71 ] | Yelp-Doctor | 0.8835 | – | – | 0.9100 | 0.9460 |
| Dataset | Ref. | Total Reviews | Domain | Available Information | Typical Usage |
| Amazon | [ 92 ] | 5.4M+ | E-commerce | Text, rating, product information, reviewer ID, timestamp | Traditional ML, feature engineering, behavioral analysis |
| OpSpam | [ 151 , 150 ] | 1,600 (positive) 1,600 (negative) | Hotel | Review text | Text-based fake review detection, PLM evaluation, cross-domain studies |
| Yelp-CHI | [ 142 ] | 67,395 | Restaurant (Chicago) | Text, rating, reviewer profile, business information | Behavior-aware detection, feature engineering |
| Yelp-NYC | [ 166 ] | 359,052 | Restaurant (New York City) | Text, rating, reviewer, business, social interactions | Graph learning, reviewer relation modeling, GNN-based detection |
| Yelp-ZIP | [ 166 ] | 608,598 | Restaurant (ZIP-code regions) | Text, rating, reviewer, business, graph structure | Heterogeneous graph learning, graph neural networks |
| Dianping | [ 100 ] | 2.1M | Restaurant | Text, rating, reviewer, timestamp | Weakly supervised learning, PU learning, large-scale evaluation |
| Construction Method | Dataset | Label Construction | Main Limitation | Potential Impact |
| Rule-based Techniques | ||||
| Rule-based | Amazon [ 92 ] | Duplicate and near-duplicate reviews are treated as spam proxies, supplemented by manually identified Type-2 and Type-3 spam. | Duplicate reviews represent only a subset of deceptive reviews and cannot capture sophisticated opinion spam. | Models may overfit duplicate patterns rather than genuine deceptive behavior, limiting generalization to real-world scenarios. |
| Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) | ||||
| AMT | OpSpam [ 151 ] | Truthful hotel reviews are collected from TripAdvisor, while deceptive reviews are generated by Amazon Mechanical Turk workers under controlled instructions. | Artificially generated deceptive reviews differ from naturally occurring spam and contain only positive reviews. | Models may learn AMT writing styles instead of authentic deception cues, reducing ecological validity. |
| AMT | Negative OpSpam [ 150 ] | Truthful negative reviews are collected from online travel websites, while deceptive negative reviews are written by AMT workers. | Still relies on simulated deception despite including negative opinions. | Supports sentiment-balanced evaluation but remains different from real-world spam campaigns. |
| Filtering Algorithms | ||||
| Dataset | Label Construction Characteristics | Known Dataset Bias | Reported Generalization Issues | Benchmark Considerations |
| Amazon | Spam labels are primarily inferred from duplicate and near-duplicate reviews, with limited manually verified spam cases. | Biased toward duplicate-review patterns and Amazon-specific review behaviors. | Cross-platform generalization remains largely unexplored. | Large-scale benchmark, but heuristic labels cannot fully represent genuine deceptive reviews. |
| OpSpam | Truthful reviews are collected from TripAdvisor, whereas deceptive reviews are generated by Amazon Mechanical Turk workers under controlled settings. | Limited to hotel reviews with experimentally generated deception. | Models trained on AMT-generated reviews may not transfer well to naturally occurring opinion spam. | Widely adopted gold-standard benchmark for text-based deception detection despite its synthetic nature. |
| Yelp-CHI | Labels are obtained from Yelp’s proprietary filtering system by distinguishing filtered and recommended reviews. | Restaurant-domain dataset relying on Yelp-specific filtering mechanisms. | Cross-domain and cross-platform robustness remains limited. | Provides realistic user behaviors, although ground-truth labels depend on an undisclosed filtering algorithm. |
| Yelp-NYC / Yelp-ZIP | Platform-filtered reviews are regarded as deceptive while recommended reviews are treated as truthful. | Platform-specific reviewer interactions and graph structures dominate the data distribution. | Models may rely on Yelp-specific relational patterns instead of domain-independent deception cues. | Large-scale benchmark widely used for graph-based fake review detection. |
| Dianping | Platform-filtered reviews are treated as positive samples, while remaining reviews are considered unlabeled for positive-unlabeled learning. | Chinese restaurant reviews with language- and platform-specific behavioral characteristics. | Cross-language and cross-platform transferability has not been extensively validated. | Representative benchmark for weakly supervised and PU-learning settings rather than fully supervised learning. |
| Opinion Dataset | Labels are manually assigned based on review content, reviewer profiles, and historical behaviors. | Small-scale dataset with limited domain diversity. | Limited evidence for large-scale or cross-domain evaluation. | Provides relatively reliable manual annotations but is unsuitable for training large neural models. |
| Model | Ref. | Dataset | Acc. | P | R | F1 |
| Rule-Based or Platform-Derived Labels | ||||||
| MBO-DeBERTa | [ 60 ] | Amazon | 0.7800 | 0.7700 | 0.7800 | 0.7700 |
| DeBERTa-v3 | [ 143 ] | Amazon | 0.9500 | – | – | 0.9800 |
| Amazon Mechanical Turk Annotation | ||||||
| BERT | [ 169 ] | OpSpam | 0.9100 | – | – | 0.9300 |
| MBO-DeBERTa | [ 60 ] | OpSpam | 0.9100 | 0.9100 | 0.9000 | 0.9000 |
| Model | Ref. | Dataset | Acc. | P | R | F1 | AUC |
| Rule-Based or Platform-Derived Labels | |||||||
| BiLSTM_Word2Vec | [ 230 ] | Amazon | 0.9846 | 0.9873 | 0.9794 | 0.9833 | – |
| BiLSTM | [ 144 ] | Amazon | 0.7730 | 0.7680 | 0.7700 | 0.7580 | – |
| Hybrid | [ 7 ] | Amazon | – | 0.8640 | 0.7560 | 0.8030 | 0.9180 |
| KE-MLLM | [ 30 ] | Amazon | 0.9320 | 0.8950 | 0.9080 | 0.9280 | – |
| XSMF-LLMIC | [ 229 ] | Amazon | 0.9375 | – | – | 0.9378 | 0.9412 |