See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336336912

Identifying Fake Facebook Profiles Using Data Mining Techniques

Article  in  Journal of ICT Research and Applications · September 2019

DOI: 10.5614/itbj.ict.res.appl.2019.13.2.2

CITATIONS READS

2 530

2 authors:

Mohammed Basil Albayati Ahmad Altamimi

Applied Science Private University Applied Science Private University
4 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Securing OLAP CUBES View project

OLAP Security View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmad Altamimi on 20 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 J. ICT Res. Appl. Vol. 13, No. 2, 2019, 107-117 107

Identifying Fake Facebook Profiles Using Data Mining

Techniques
Mohammed Basil Albayati* & Ahmad Mousa Altamimi
Department of Computer Science,
Applied Science Private University, Al Arab St. 21 Amman 11931, Jordan
*E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. Facebook, the popular online social network, has changed our lives.
Users can create a customized profile to share information about themselves with
others that have agreed to be their ‘friend’. However, this gigantic social network
can be misused for carrying out malicious activities. Facebook faces the problem
of fake accounts that enable scammers to violate users’ privacy by creating fake
profiles to infiltrate personal social networks. Many techniques have been
proposed to address this issue. Most of them are based on detecting fake
profiles/accounts, considering the characteristics of the user profile. However,
the limited profile data made publicly available by Facebook makes it ineligible
for applying the existing approaches in fake profile identification. Therefore, this
research utilized data mining techniques to detect fake profiles. A set of
supervised (ID3 decision tree, k-NN, and SVM) and unsupervised (k-Means and
k-medoids) algorithms were applied to 12 behavioral and non-behavioral
discriminative profile attributes from a dataset of 982 profiles. The results
showed that ID3 had the highest accuracy in the detection process while k-
medoids had the lowest accuracy.

Keywords: Facebook; fake profiles; machine learning; supervised algorithms;

unsupervised algorithms.

1 Introduction
In 2003, Mark Zuckerberg started work on a new concept, which eventually
turned into the global social network known as Facebook. Since then, Facebook
has expanded over the whole world, reaching more than 2.3 billion monthly
active users as of December 2018 [1]. A tool such as this changes the way
people interact with each other.

Facebook removes communication boundaries so that people can easily connect

with others to share life events, stories, or social activities with high availability,
reliability, and accessibility [2,3]. This has resulted in a huge number of
registered users subscribed to this network [4]. According to the American
Academy of Pediatrics, 84% of adolescents in America have a Facebook
account, with a total of 2.2 billion users worldwide according to the latest
official announcements [5-7]. Facebook being the preferred communication

Received October 13th, 2018, Revised December 12th, 2018, Accepted for publication August 20th, 2019.
Copyright © 2019 Published by ITB Journal Publisher, ISSN: 2337-5787, DOI: 10.5614/itbj.ict.res.appl.2019.13.2.2
108 Mohammed Basil Albayati & Ahmad Mousa Altamimi.

platform for so many people, the privacy of users can be the target of scammers
[3], for example by creating fake profiles using false information to impersonate
the victim in order to steal valuable information or using the user’s contacts for
abusive actions such as financial fraud [8,9].

This work aimed to address this problem by utilizing data-mining techniques to

detect fake profiles on Facebook. Three supervised algorithms (k-NN, SVM,
and ID3 Decision Tree) and two unsupervised algorithms (k-Means, and k-
medoids) were implemented using RapidMiner Studio [10] on a set of 12
profile attributes and a dataset of 982 profiles (781 real and 201 fake) to validate
the conceptual idea. The results showed that the supervised algorithms
outperformed the unsupervised algorithms with respect to accuracy. More
details about the obtained experimental results are given in Section 4.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents related works,
the material and methodology are discussed in Section 3, while Section 4
illustrates the experiment and the obtained results. In Section 5, a discussion
about the experimental results is given. Finally, the conclusion of this paper is
given in Section 6.

2 Related Works
Many approaches have been proposed for detecting the phenomenon of fake
profiles on online social networks. Most of them employed supervised
algorithms to analyze fake profiles from different perspectives. The authors of
[11] proposed a model that employs supervised algorithms (SVM, Naïve Bayes,
and Decision Tree) to exploit profile attributes (e.g. ‘number of friends’,
‘education and work’, ‘gender’, and others). The proposed model was
implemented using Python scripts on a dataset of 975 profiles extracted from
one Facebook account. However, collecting profiles from one account may lead
to inaccurate results and may give mistaken observations.

In contrast, the authors of [12] collected their dataset using the Facebook API.
The dataset consisted mainly of behavioral attributes (‘user online activities’
and ‘user interactions’). These attributes were characterized through a set of 17
attributes, after which a total of 12 supervised machine-learning techniques
were applied to the dataset. The results showed an accuracy of 79%, which is
not sufficient. The works [13,14] used a similar approach. Ref. [13] for example
utilized three supervised algorithms (Naive Bayes, Jrip, and Decision Tree J48)
to identify spam profiles on Facebook and Twitter based on a set of 14 generic
features (attributes). Moreover, the algorithms were also used to discover the
impact of each attribute on the classification process. On the other hand, Ref.
[14] proposed add-on software implemented in the Firefox browser. SW utilized
 Mining Techniques for Detecting Fake Facebook Profiles 109

eight supervised algorithms on a set of fifteen connection features to detect fake

profiles on Facebook. None of these works considered unsupervised techniques.

Unsupervised techniques have been considered in [15,16]. Ref. [15]

investigated three unsupervised methods to predict whether multiple accounts
belong to the same Facebook user. Ref. [16] presents an anomaly detection
model that aggregates three major types of attributes (temporal, spatial, spatio-
temporal features) to calculate a fourth one (multiple features) represented as
one vector passed to the proposed approach. To test their conceptual idea, three
popular networks (Facebook, Yelp, and Twitter) were considered. The results
showed an accuracy of 66%.

Our work is different from the presented related works in several aspects.
Firstly, our work utilized both supervised and unsupervised learning techniques
in order to detect fake Facebook profiles. Secondly, most of the presented works
utilized behavioral-based attributes, for example [13,14], whereas other works
used non-behavioral attributes, for example [17] for detecting fake LinkedIn
profiles using supervised mining techniques. In this work, the two types of
attributes (behavioral and non-behavioral) were considered using both
supervised and unsupervised techniques.

3 Methodology

In this research, supervised and unsupervised machine-learning techniques were

utilized to build a model with different attributes and predefined labels of
known classes (fake and real). This facilitates the classification or prediction of
unlabeled new data. To do so, 12 of the behavioral and non-behavioral attributes
listed in Tables 1-3 were considered in our model, using a dataset consisting of
982 profiles. The data were pre-processed, and missing values were handled
using the k-NN algorithm. These were imputed by finding the k-nearest
neighbor of the current missing value in the dataset based on the other available
information.

Table 1 Attributes previously used.

Attribute Type References
Education, Workplace, Non-Behavioural \ Profile Content
[12]
Introduction "Bio." Attributes
No. of tags Behavioural \ Numerical Attributes [13] [12]
No. of Mutual Friends Behavioural \ Numerical Attributes [18]
No. of posts
Behavioural \ Numerical Attributes [12] [16]
(Wall Activities)
No. of Pages Behavioural \ Numerical Attributes [14] [19]
 110 Mohammed Basil Albayati & Ahmad Mousa Altamimi.

Table 2 The new employed attributes.

Attribute Type
Profile Picture Non-Behavioural \ Profile Content Attributes
Living Place Non-Behavioural \ Profile Content Attributes
Check-In Non-Behavioural \ Profile Content Attributes
Family Member/ Relationsh Non-Behavioural \ Profile Content Attributes
No. of Groups Behavioural \ Numerical Attributes

Table 3 Attributes used in the FFPD model.

Attribute Description Justification
Visual identification of Real users use their real pictures
Profile Picture*
the user. more often than fake users.
Real users more often use their
Workplace or job title's
Work place real workplace information than
information,
fake users.
Attended (school, Real users mentioned their
college, education information in their
Education
university…etc.) Facebook profiles more often than
information. fake users.
Living place address Real users more often use their
Living Place* (city, town, state…etc.) real living place information than
information. fake users
Information for Real users check into places in
Check In* announcing user their Facebook's profiles more
location. often than fake users.
Social online activities Real users have more online
No. of Posts
shared on Facebook activities than fake users.
Identify the user by
Real Users tagged more often
No. of Tags someone else on his/ her
than fake users.
wall.
Real users are more often write
Introduction information
Introduction "Bio." something about themselves than
about Facebook's users.
fake users.
Number of the people Real users have more mutual
No. of Mutual who are Facebook friends with target profile than
Friends friends with both users fake users, hence gives profile
and the target profiles. more incredibility.
Real users usually liked more
No. of Pages Number of pages liked.
pages than fake users.
Number of groups Real users usually join groups
No. of Groups*
joined. more than fake users.
Family\ Social relation Real users share their real social
Relationship* Information\Status relation status than fake users.
Note: the * indicates the new attributes introduced in this work.
 Mining Techniques for Detecting Fake Facebook Profiles 111

After preparing the dataset, a set of supervised and unsupervised mining

algorithms (k-NN, SVM, ID3 Decision Tree, k-Means, and k-medoids) were
implemented using RapidMiner Studio v.8.0.1. In supervised mining, the
classifier is trained with known class data (fake and real). However, for
unsupervised mining, statistically significant measures were defined for each
cluster. Accordingly, profiles with similar attributes were grouped together in
the same cluster, while the other profiles were grouped together in a different
cluster.

4 Experiment and Results

Before discussing the obtained results, a brief description of the used dataset is
given, followed by the performance metrics.

4.1 Dataset Description

A total of 906 profiles were collected for use in the experiments. Of those, 125
profiles were excluded because they were irrelevant or duplicates. This resulted
in 781 real profiles, among which 19 profiles were found to be fake, so these
were labeled in the dataset as fake. To collect more fake profiles, 250 more
profiles were purchased. However, only 182 profiles of those were considered
as some profiles were found deactivated or blocked. This resulted in 201 fake
profiles. Thus, the collection process resulted in a total of 982 profiles (781 real
and 201 fake). Out of this total, 86 (61 real and 25 fake) had values missing
from some of their attributes. A k-NN model for data imputation was employed
for handling the missing values. Finally, manual labeling was applied to the
collected dataset to label profiles as fake or real for training and testing
purposes.

4.2 Performance Metrics

A group of common metrics can be applied in the validation process. In this
work, the following metrics were used, taken from [19]:
1. Accuracy: Measure the performance of the detection model
Accuracy = (correct predictions) / (total examples).
2. Recall: true positive rate
Recall = (true positive predictions) / (positive examples),
3. Precision: Measure the probability that the positive predication is correct
Precision = (true positive predictions) / (positive predictions).
4. Specificity: true negative rates
Specificity = (true negative predictions) / (negative examples).
112 Mohammed Basil Albayati & Ahmad Mousa Altamimi.

4.3 Experimental Results

4.3.1 Supervised Algorithms Experiment

After handling the missing values using the k-NN estimator, the supervised
algorithms were applied to the 982 profiles. Table 4 shows the results for the
supervised algorithms.

Table 4 Results of supervised algorithms.

Metrics Accuracy Precision Recall Specificity
ID3 0.9776 0.9872 0.9846 0.9502
0.9154
SVM 0.9572 0.9780 0.9680
0.9403
K-NN with
k=3
0.9145 0.9520 0.9398 0.8159

4.3.2 Unsupervised Algorithms Experiment

Following the same approach, the unsupervised algorithms were applied using
the same dataset. It is important to note that the training data were an unlabeled
dataset, which made evaluation problematic because there was nothing to which
the model’s results could be meaningfully compared. Thus, there was no
straightforward way to evaluate the accuracy of the applied algorithm [20]. To
evaluate the clustering techniques, we formed an evaluating model using
RapidMiner’s special operators, which can be exploited in flexible ways. For
example, the operator Map Clustering on Labels maps clustering and prediction
processes by adjusting the given clusters with class labels. This let us adjust the
dataset and evaluate our model. Both algorithms were applied to (k = 2) or 2
clusters (C0, C1), where C0 represents the real profiles, while C1 represents the
fake profiles. The k-Means algorithm partitioned the dataset and showed an
accuracy of 0.6731, while k-medoids showed an accuracy of 0.6701, as shown
in Table 5.

Table 5 Results of unsupervised algorithms.

Actual States Real Fake Clusters
Real 661 201 C0
Algorithm Predicted States
Fake 120 0 C1
Accuracy Precision Recall Specificity
k-Means 0.6731 0.7668 84.64% 0.0000
k-medoids 0.6701 0.8840 0.6735 0.6567
 Mining Techniques for Detecting Fake Facebook Profiles 113

5 Discussion
As shown in the previous section, the supervised algorithms outperformed the
unsupervised algorithms. However, before justifying these results, some
important points should be mentioned. Firstly, the model depends on the
informative attributes to make a decision. These attributes are illustrated in
Figure 1. As can be seen, the ‘mutual friends’ attribute is the most informative,
while the ‘introduction’ attribute is the least informative. Secondly, we note that
some attributes had the same values in both real and fake profiles. For example,
fake profiles typically have zero tags, zero posts, and high liking activity.
Unfortunately, many real profiles have the same values, which misleads the
classification techniques.

Figure 1 Information gain of the attributes.

Figure 2 (1-5) illustrates the histogram charts for the interfered attributes with
respect to the two-class labels (fake and real). Thus, the algorithm that is
capable of handling the interfered attributes correctly will make the most
accurate decisions. Accordingly, in the next subsections, we will justify the
performance by explaining how each technique resolved the interfered
attributes.
114 Mohammed Basil Albayati & Ahmad Mousa Altamimi.

Figure 2 Attribute distribution.

5.1 Why the Supervised Algorithms Outperformed the

Unsupervised Algorithms
The supervised algorithms outperformed the unsupervised algorithms because
the training set was already labeled in the case of supervised techniques, which
makes an essential difference in the detection process. This process minimizes
the interference factor in the attributes and gives the model the necessary
experience in the detection process. However, the unsupervised techniques deal
with all profiles as a single unit without class labels to separate the dataset. This
makes interference detection more difficult, as the attributes not only have to be
labeled in fake and real profiles but also in profiles of the same class. This
distracts the detection model and groups the profiles with similar attributes in
clusters, ignoring any profile with interfered attributes.
 Mining Techniques for Detecting Fake Facebook Profiles 115

Moreover, the unsupervised algorithms had low accuracy rates because these
clustering techniques handle the dataset as a single unit and group profiles with
similar attributes in one cluster. Because of this, a problem with the interfered
attributes emerged, where some of the informative attributes were not clustered
into different clusters. Thus, these techniques could not correctly cluster profiles
into fake and real.

5.2 Why Did the Supervised Algorithms Have a High Accuracy

Rate?
The supervised algorithms have a high accuracy rate because they use the k-NN
estimator, which has proved its efficiency in handling missing values. The k-
NN estimator inputs data by assigning values from the k-most similar profiles to
the missing values. This can be seen from the experiment, where the model
exhibited stable performance with nearly identical accuracy for all algorithms.
We note that most of the missing values were in the ‘groups’ and ‘likes’
attributes, which had the highest interference factor. k-NN excludes these
attributes from the calculation process, which positively affects the accuracy
rate.

6 Conclusion
This work considered the detection of fake Facebook profiles using data-mining
techniques. A model was proposed that utilizes 5 supervised and unsupervised
techniques with 12 discriminative (behavioral and non-behavioral) attributes.
RapidMiner Studio 8.0.1 was employed to conduct an experiment to evaluate
the accuracy of the model based on a dataset with 982 profiles (781 real, and
201 fake). The supervised algorithms outperformed the unsupervised algorithms
and showed high and promising accuracy rates in all experiments. More
specifically, the ID3 decision tree exhibited the highest accuracy among all
algorithms and all unsupervised algorithms showed a relatively similar low
accuracy. A deep explanation of these results was given at the end of this paper.

Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the Applied Science Private University, Amman-
Jordan, for the full financial support granted to cover the publication fee of this
research article.
116 Mohammed Basil Albayati & Ahmad Mousa Altamimi.

References
[1] Smith, A.N., Fischer, E. & Yongjian, C., How Does Brand-related User-
generated Content Differ Across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), pp. 102-113, 2012.
[2] Romero, D.M., Galuba, W., Asur, S. & Bernardo, A., Influence, and
Passivity in Social Media, in Proceedings of the 20th International
Conference Companion on World Wide Web, ACM, pp. 113-114,2011.
[3] Obar, J.A. & Wildman, S.S., Social Media Definition, and The
Governance Challenge: An Introduction to the Special Issue, 2015. DOI:
10.1016/j.telpol.2015.07.014.
[4] Kaplan, A.M. & Haenlein, M., Users of the World, Unite! The
Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media, Business Horizons, 53(1),
pp. 59-68, 2010.
[5] Eugene, A., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A. & Mishne, G., Finding
High-Quality Content in Social Media, In Proceedings of the 2008
International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ACM, pp.
183-194, 2008
[6] O’Keeffe, Schurgin, G. & Pearson, K.C., The Impact of Social Media on
Children, Adolescents, and Families, Pediatrics. 127(4), pp. 800-804,
2011.
[7] Qian, T., Gu, B. & Whinston, A.B., Content Contribution for Revenue
Sharing and Reputation in Social Media: A Dynamic Structural Model,
Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(2), pp. 41-76, 2012.
[8] Kontaxis, Georgios, Polakis, I., Ioannidis, S. & Markatos, E.P., Detecting
Social Network Profile Cloning, In Pervasive Computing and
Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2011 IEEE
International Conference on, pp. 295-300. IEEE, 2011.
[9] Wani, M.A, Jabin, S. & Ahmad, N., A Sneak into the Devil’s Colony-
Fake Profiles in Online Social Networks, arXiv preprint
arXiv:1705.09929 ,2017.
[10] RapidMiner. https://rapidminer.com/ (3rd August 2019).
[11] Kumar, N. & Reddy, R.N., Automatic Detection of Fake Profiles in
Online Social Networks." Ph.D. diss., National Institute of Technology
Rourkela, 2012.
[12] Gupta, A. & Kaushal, R., Towards Detecting Fake User Accounts in
Facebook, In Asia Security and Privacy (ISEASP), 2017 ISEA, pp. 1-6.
IEEE, 2017.
[13] Ahmed, F. & Abulaish, M., A Generic Statistical Approach for Spam
Detection in Online Social Networks, Computer Communications,
36(10), pp. 1120-1129, 2013.
 Mining Techniques for Detecting Fake Facebook Profiles 117

[14] Fire, M., Kagan, D., Elyashar & Elovici, Y, Friend or Foe? Fake Profile
Identification in Online Social Networks, Social Network Analysis and
Mining, 4(1), pp. 194-210, 2014.
[15] Xiaoyun, W., Lai, C.M., Hong, Y., Hsieh, C.J. & Wu, S.F., Multiple
Accounts Detection on Facebook Using Semi-Supervised Learning on
Graphs, arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09838, 2018.
[16] Bimal, V., Bashir, M.A., Crovella, M., Guha, S., Gummadi, K.P.,
Krishnamurthy, B. & Mislove, A., Towards Detecting Anomalous User
Behavior in Online Social Networks, In USENIX Security Symposium,
pp. 223-238, 2014.
[17] Shalinda, A. & Dutta, K., Identifying Fake Profiles in LinkedIn,
In PACIS, pp. 278. 2014.
[18] Nazir. A., Raza, S., Chuah, C.N., Schipper, B. & Davis, C.A.,
Ghostbusting Facebook: Detecting and Characterizing Phantom Profiles
in Online Social Gaming Applications, In WOSN, 2010.
[19] Yousuf, B.S. & Abulaish, M., Community-Based Features for Identifying
Spammers in Online Social Networks, In Advances in Social Networks
Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 2013 IEEE/ACM International
Conference on, pp. 100-107. IEEE, 2013.
[20] Jiawei, H., Pei, J. & Kamber, M., Data Mining: Concepts and
Techniques, Elsevier, 2011.
[21] Karel, H., Templ, M. & Filzmoser, P., Imputation of Missing Values for
Compositional Data Using Classical and Robust Methods,
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 54(12), pp. 3095-3107, 2010.

View publication stats