pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.01257 · v2 · submitted 2024-08-02 · 💻 cs.SI · cs.AI· cs.CY· cs.HC· cs.LG

Detection and Characterization of Coordinated Online Behavior: A Survey

Lorenzo Mannocci , Michele Mazza , Anna Monreale , Maurizio Tesconi , Stefano Cresci This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 22:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SI cs.AIcs.CYcs.HCcs.LG
keywords coordinated online behaviorsocial media coordinationdisinformation detectionsurveyframework proposalonline manipulationdetection methods
0
0 comments X

The pith

A survey reconciles definitions of coordinated online behavior and proposes a framework to guide detection and characterization efforts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper collects and organizes research on coordinated online behavior, which can support both constructive communities and harmful campaigns like disinformation. It brings together industry and academic definitions to create a common ground. From this, the authors build a comprehensive framework for studying such behavior and review methods for detecting and characterizing it. By identifying open challenges, the work aims to direct future research in this area.

Core claim

The central claim is that a unified framework, built by reconciling industry and academic definitions of coordinated online behavior, allows for a systematic review and critical discussion of detection and characterization methods, revealing open challenges and promising research directions.

What carries the argument

The comprehensive framework to study coordinated online behavior, which serves to categorize and integrate various definitions, detection methods, and characterization approaches.

If this is right

  • Standardized definitions enable more consistent research across academic and industry settings.
  • Detection methods can be evaluated and compared within the proposed categories.
  • Characterization techniques become more structured for analyzing coordinated activities.
  • Open challenges guide the development of new tools for addressing online manipulation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Applying the framework to emerging platforms could reveal new coordination patterns not covered in current literature.
  • Integration with machine learning advancements might improve the scalability of detection methods discussed.
  • Policymakers could use the framework to design regulations targeting specific types of coordinated behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The existing body of work on coordinated online behavior is sufficiently mature and representative to allow a comprehensive categorization and framework proposal without significant omissions.

What would settle it

Discovery of a major coordinated behavior phenomenon or detection method that does not fit into any category of the proposed framework would challenge its comprehensiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.01257 by Anna Monreale, Lorenzo Mannocci, Maurizio Tesconi, Michele Mazza, Stefano Cresci.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Coordination is a fundamental aspect of online human interactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Taxonomy of coordinated online behavior ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The analytical process of studying coordinated online behavior, involving the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Main steps of the network science methods for the detection of coordinated online behavior. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Differences between social (A), interaction (B), and coordination (C) networks. Solid black edges represent actions on the online platform, while dashed colored edges show how actions are translated into edges in the corresponding type of network. Coordination networks are typically undirected and link users performing similar actions at around the same time. Differently to social and interaction networks,… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of works focused on different types of coordinated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Coordination is a fundamental aspect of life. The advent of social media has made it integral also to online human interactions, such as those that characterize thriving online communities and social movements. At the same time, coordination is also core to effective disinformation, manipulation, and hate campaigns. This survey collects, categorizes, and critically discusses the body of work produced as a result of the growing interest on coordinated online behavior. We reconcile industry and academic definitions, propose a comprehensive framework to study coordinated online behavior, and review and critically discuss the existing detection and characterization methods. Our analysis identifies open challenges and promising directions of research, serving as a guide for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers in understanding and addressing the complexities inherent to online coordination.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a survey that collects, categorizes, and critically discusses research on coordinated online behavior. It reconciles industry and academic definitions of coordination, proposes a comprehensive framework for studying such behavior, reviews existing detection and characterization methods, and identifies open challenges and promising research directions to guide scholars, practitioners, and policymakers.

Significance. If the proposed framework is robustly derived and the review is representative, the work could standardize terminology and provide a useful synthesis for an emerging interdisciplinary area. The manuscript earns credit for explicitly attempting to bridge industry and academic perspectives and for structuring the discussion around both detection and characterization methods rather than detection alone.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: the claim of delivering a 'comprehensive framework' and review without 'significant omissions' is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the text provides no description of literature search strategy, databases queried, time window, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. This omission prevents readers from assessing whether the categorization and framework are representative of the field.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the survey 'critically discusses' methods, but the provided text does not illustrate the depth of that critique (e.g., no explicit comparison of false-positive rates or scalability across cited approaches). Adding one or two concrete examples of critical analysis would strengthen the claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the recommendation of minor revision. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: the claim of delivering a 'comprehensive framework' and review without 'significant omissions' is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the text provides no description of literature search strategy, databases queried, time window, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. This omission prevents readers from assessing whether the categorization and framework are representative of the field.

    Authors: We agree that explicitly describing the literature search process is necessary to substantiate claims of comprehensiveness. In the revised version we will insert a dedicated 'Survey Methodology' subsection (placed after the introduction) that details: (i) the databases and repositories queried (Google Scholar, Scopus, arXiv, ACM Digital Library, and selected conference proceedings), (ii) the time window (2010–2024), (iii) the Boolean search strings and keywords employed, and (iv) the inclusion/exclusion criteria together with the number of papers screened and retained. This addition will allow readers to evaluate the representativeness of the proposed framework and categorization. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: survey of external literature

full rationale

This is a survey paper that collects, categorizes, and critically discusses an existing body of external work on coordinated online behavior. It reconciles industry/academic definitions and proposes a framework based on reviewed literature, without any derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions that reduce to self-referential content. No load-bearing self-citations or self-definitional steps are present; the central claims rest on synthesis of independent prior research. The weakest assumption (representativeness of the literature) is standard for surveys and does not create internal circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced; the paper relies on standard literature review practices.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5667 in / 894 out tokens · 14252 ms · 2026-05-23T22:36:44.505309+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 143 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Iuliia Alieva, Lynnette H. X. Ng, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2022. Investigating the spread of Russian disinformation about biolabs in Ukraine on Twitter using social network analysis. In IEEE BigData. 1770–1775

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Hans Asenbaum. 2018. Cyborg activism: Exploring the reconfigurations of democratic subjectivity in Anonymous. New Media & Society 20, 4 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Dennis Assenmacher, Lena Adam, Heike Trautmann, and Christian Grimme. 2020. Towards real-time and unsupervised campaign detection in social media. In AAAI FLAIRS. 303–307

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Pohl, Heike Trautmann, and Christian Grimme

    Dennis Assenmacher, Lena Clever, Janina S. Pohl, Heike Trautmann, and Christian Grimme. 2020. A two-phase framework for detecting manipulation campaigns in social media. In HCII. 201–214

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Helmy H. Baligh. 1986. Decision rules and transactions, organizations and markets. Management Science 32, 11 (1986), 1480–1491

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Baligh and Richard M

    Helmy H. Baligh and Richard M. Burton. 1981. Describing and designing organizational structures and processes. International Journal of Policy Analysis and Information Systems 5, 4 (1981), 251–266

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Fabio Barbero, Sander op den Camp, et al. 2023. Multi-modal embeddings for isolating cross-platform coordinated information campaigns on social media. In MISDOOM. 14–28

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Daniele Bellutta and Kathleen M. Carley. 2023. Investigating coordinated account creation using burst detection and network analysis. Journal of Big Data 10, 1 (2023), 1–17

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Lance Bennett and Alexandra Segerberg

    W. Lance Bennett and Alexandra Segerberg. 2012. The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society 15, 5 (2012), 739–768

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    Borgatti

    Stephen P. Borgatti. 2005. Centrality and network flow. Social Networks 27, 1 (2005), 55–71

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    D. A. Broniatowski. 2021. Towards statistical foundations for detecting coordinated inauthentic behavior on Facebook . Technical Report. Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics, The George Washington University

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Axel Bruns, Tim Highfield, and Jean Burgess. 2013. The Arab Spring and social media audiences: English and Arabic Twitter users and their networks. American Behavioral Scientist 57, 7 (2013), 871–898

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Keith Burghardt, Ashwin Rao, Georgios Chochlakis, Baruah Sabyasachee, Siyi Guo, Zihao He, Andrew Rojecki, Shrikanth Narayanan, and Kristina Lerman. 2024. Socio-linguistic characteristics of coordinated inauthentic accounts. In AAAI ICWSM, Vol. 18. 164–176

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Cheng Cao, James Caverlee, Kyumin Lee, Hancheng Ge, and Jin-Wook Chung. 2015. Organic or organized?: Exploring URL sharing behavior. In ACM CIKM. 513–522

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Valerio Capraro and Matjaž Perc. 2024. In search of the most cooperative network. Nature Computational Science 4, 4 (2024), 257–258

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Matthias Carnein, Dennis Assenmacher, and Heike Trautmann. 2017. Stream clustering of chat messages with applications to Twitch streams. In ER. 79–88

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Victor Chomel, Maziyar Panahi, and David Chavalarias. 2023. Manipulation during the French presidential campaign: Coordinated inauthentic behaviors and astroturfing analysis on text and images. In CNA. 121–134. Manuscript submitted to ACM 32 Mannocci et al

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Lorenzo Cima, Lorenzo Mannocci, Marco Avvenuti, Maurizio Tesconi, and Stefano Cresci. 2024. Coordinated behavior in information operations on Twitter. IEEE Access 11 (2024), 61568–61585

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Matteo Cinelli, Stefano Cresci, Walter Quattrociocchi, Maurizio Tesconi, and Paola Zola. 2022. Coordinated inauthentic behavior and information spreading on Twitter. Decision Support Systems 160 (2022), 113819

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Aaron Clauset, Mark EJ Newman, and Cristopher Moore. 2004. Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E 70, 6 (2004), 066111

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    Stefano Cresci. 2020. A decade of social bot detection. Commun. ACM 63, 10 (2020), 72–83

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Stefano Cresci, Fabrizio Lillo, Daniele Regoli, Serena Tardelli, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2018. $FAKE: Evidence of spam and bot activity in stock microblogs on Twitter. In AAAI ICWSM. 580–583

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Stefano Cresci, Fabrizio Lillo, Daniele Regoli, Serena Tardelli, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2019. Cashtag Piggybacking: Uncovering spam and bot activity in stock microblogs on Twitter. ACM Transactions on the Web 13, 2 (2019), 11:1–11:27

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    Stefano Cresci, Kai-Cheng Yang, Angelo Spognardi, Roberto Di Pietro, Filippo Menczer, and Marinella Petrocchi. 2024. Demystifying misconceptions in social bots research. arXiv:2303.17251

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Adya Danaditya, Lynnette H. X. Ng, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2022. From curious hashtags to polarized effect: Profiling coordinated actions in Indonesian Twitter discourse. Social Network Analysis and Mining 12, 1 (2022), 105

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Bart De Clerck, Juan Carlos Fernandez Toledano, Filip Van Utterbeeck, and Luis EC Rocha. 2024. Detecting coordinated and bot-like behavior in Twitter: the Jürgen Conings case. EPJ Data Science 13, 1 (2024), 40

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Priyanka Dey, Luca Luceri, and Emilio Ferrara. 2024. Coordinated activity modulates the behavior and emotions of organic users: A case study on tweets about the Gaza conflict. In ACM WWW. 682–685

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Di Marco, Sara Brunetti, Matteo Cinelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi

    N. Di Marco, Sara Brunetti, Matteo Cinelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2024. Post-hoc evaluation of nodes influence in information cascades: The case of coordinated accounts. arXiv:2401.01684

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Carlotta Dotto, Seb Cubbon, Stefano Cresci, Serena Tardelli, and Leonardo Nizzoli. 2021. How to improve our analysis of ‘coordinated inauthentic behavior’. https://medium.com/1st-draft/how-to-improve-our-analysis-of-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior-a4ec62ce9bff (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    coordinated inauthentic behaviour

    Evelyn Douek. 2020. What does “coordinated inauthentic behaviour” actually mean? https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/coordinated-inauthentic- behavior-facebook-twitter.html. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Auriant Emeric and Chomel Victor. 2023. Interpretable cross-platform coordination detection on social networks. In CNA. 143–155

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Keeley Erhardt and Dina Albassam. 2023. Detecting the hidden dynamics of networked actors using temporal correlations. In ACM WWW. 1214–1217

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Keeley Erhardt and Alex Pentland. 2024. Hidden messages: mapping nations’ media campaigns. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 30, 2 (2024), 161–172

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Fatima Ezzeddine, Omran Ayoub, Silvia Giordano, Gianluca Nogara, Ihab Sbeity, Emilio Ferrara, and Luca Luceri. 2023. Exposing influence campaigns in the age of LLMs: A behavioral-based AI approach to detecting state-sponsored trolls. EPJ Data Science 12, 1 (2023), 46

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Facebook. 2018. Coordinated inauthentic behavior explained. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/12/inside-feed-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Facebook. 2018. Removing bad actors from Facebook. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/07/removing-bad-actors-on-facebook/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Facebook. 2019. How we respond to inauthentic behavior on our platforms: Policy update. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/inauthentic- behavior-policy-update/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Facebook. 2019. Inauthentic behavior. https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/inauthentic-behavior/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Facebook. 2019. Removing coordinated inauthentic behavior in UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/08/cib-uae-egypt- saudi-arabia/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Facebook. 2021. Advancing our policies on online bullying and harassment. https://about.fb.com/news/2021/10/advancing-online-bullying- harassment-policies/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Facebook. 2021. Removing new types of harmful networks. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/inauthentic-behavior-policy-update/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Camille Francois, Vladimir Barash, and John Kelly. 2023. Measuring coordinated versus spontaneous activity in online social movements. New Media & Society 25, 11 (2023), 3065–3092

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Loffredo

    Diego Garlaschelli and Maria I. Loffredo. 2008. Maximum likelihood: Extracting unbiased information from complex networks. Physical Review E 78 (2008), 015101. Issue 1

    work page 2008

  44. [44]

    Piyush Ghasiya and Kazutoshi Sasahara. 2022. Rapid sharing of Islamophobic hate on Facebook: The case of the Tablighi Jamaat controversy. Social Media + Society 8, 4 (2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    Fabio Giglietto, Giada Marino, Roberto Mincigrucci, and Anna Stanziano. 2023. A workflow to detect, monitor, and update lists of coordinated social media accounts across time: The case of the 2022 Italian election. Social Media + Society 9, 3 (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Fabio Giglietto, Nicola Righetti, Luca Rossi, and Giada Marino. 2020. Coordinated link sharing behavior as a signal to surface sources of problematic information on Facebook. In ACM SMSociety. 85–91. Manuscript submitted to ACM Detection and Characterization of Coordinated Online Behavior: A Survey 33

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    Fabio Giglietto, Nicola Righetti, Luca Rossi, and Giada Marino. 2020. It takes a village to manipulate the media: Coordinated link sharing behavior during 2018 and 2019 Italian elections. Information, Communication & Society 23, 6 (2020), 867–891

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Fabio Giglietto, Massimo Terenzi, Giada Marino, Nicola Righetti, and Luca Rossi. 2020. Adapting to mitigation efforts: Evolving strategies of coordinated link sharing on Facebook. SSRN:3775469

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Google. 2020. Updates about government-backed hacking and disinformation. https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/updates-about- government-backed-hacking-and-disinformation/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Timothy Graham, Axel Bruns, Guangnan Zhu, and Rod Campbell. 2020. Like a virus: The coordinated spread of coronavirus disinformation . Technical Report. Centre for Responsible Technology, The Australia Institute

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Timothy Graham, Sam Hames, and Elizabeth Alpert. 2024. The coordination network toolkit: A framework for detecting and analysing coordinated behaviour on social media. Journal of Computational Social Science (2024), 1–22

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Anatoliy Gruzd, Philip Mai, and Felipe B. Soares. 2022. How coordinated link sharing behavior and partisans’ narrative framing fan the spread of COVID-19 misinformation and conspiracy theories. Social Network Analysis and Mining 12, 1 (2022), 118

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    Bing He, Mustaque Ahamad, and Srijan Kumar. 2021. PETGEN: Personalized text generation attack on deep sequence embedding-based classification models. In ACM KDD

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Howard, Aiden Duffy, Deen Freelon, Muzammil M

    Philip N. Howard, Aiden Duffy, Deen Freelon, Muzammil M. Hussain, Will Mari, and Marwa Maziad. 2011. Opening closed regimes: What was the role of social media during the Arab Spring? SSRN:2595096

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    Kristina Hristakieva, Stefano Cresci, Giovanni Da San Martino, Mauro Conti, and Preslav Nakov. 2022. The spread of propaganda by coordinated communities on social media. In ACM WebSci. 191–201

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Roberto Interdonato, Matteo Magnani, Diego Perna, Andrea Tagarelli, and Davide Vega. 2020. Multilayer network simplification: Approaches, models and methods. Computer Science Review 36 (2020), 100246

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    Rendsvig

    Laura Jahn and Rasmus K. Rendsvig. 2023. Towards detecting inauthentic coordination in Twitter likes data. arXiv:2305.07384

    work page arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Rendsvig, and Jacob Stærk-Østergaard

    Laura Jahn, Rasmus K. Rendsvig, and Jacob Stærk-Østergaard. 2023. Detecting coordinated inauthentic behavior in likes on social media: Proof of concept. arXiv:2305.07350

    work page arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Maurice Jakesch, Kiran Garimella, Dean Eckles, and Mor Naaman. 2021. Trend alert: A cross-platform organization manipulated Twitter trends in the Indian general election. In ACM CSCW. 1–19

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    Julian Jaursch, Jakob Ohme, and Ulrike Klinger. 2024. Enabling research with publicly accessible platform data: Early DSA compliance issues and suggestions for improvement. Technical Report. Weizenbaum Institute

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    Keller, David Schoch, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang

    Franziska B. Keller, David Schoch, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang. 2017. How to manipulate social media: Analyzing political astroturfing using ground truth data from South Korea. In AAAI ICWSM. 564–567

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    Keller, David Schoch, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang

    Franziska B. Keller, David Schoch, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang. 2020. Political astroturfing on Twitter: How to coordinate a disinformation campaign. Political Communication 37, 2 (2020), 256–280

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Baris Kirdemir, Oluwaseyi Adeliyi, and Nitin Agarwal. 2022. Towards characterizing coordinated inauthentic behaviors on YouTube. In ROMCIR. 100–116

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Charles Kriel and Alexa Pavliuc. 2019. Reverse engineering Russian Internet Research Agency tactics through network analysis. Defence Strategic Communication 6 (2019)

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    Aytalina Kulichkina, Nicola Righetti, and Annie Waldherr. 2024. Protest and repression on social media: Pro-Navalny and pro-government mobilization dynamics and coordination patterns on Russian Twitter. New Media & Society (2024)

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Kyumin Lee, James Caverlee, Zhiyuan Cheng, and Daniel Z. Sui. 2013. Campaign extraction from social media. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 5, 1 (2013), 9:1–9:28

    work page 2013

  67. [67]

    Linhares, José M

    Renan S. Linhares, José M. Rosa, Carlos H. G. Ferreira, Fabricio Murai, Gabriel Nobre, and Jussara Almeida. 2022. Uncovering coordinated communities on Twitter during the 2020 US election. In IEEE/ACM ASONAM. 80–87

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    Sahil Loomba, Alexandre De Figueiredo, Simon J Piatek, Kristen De Graaf, and Heidi J Larson. 2021. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour 5, 3 (2021), 337–348

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Edoardo Loru, Matteo Cinelli, Maurizio Tesconi, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2023. The influence of coordinated behavior on toxicity. arXiv:2310.01283

    work page arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Aiello, Laura Alessandretti, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Michele Starnini, and Andrea Baronchelli

    Lorenzo Lucchini, Luca M. Aiello, Laura Alessandretti, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Michele Starnini, and Andrea Baronchelli. 2022. From Reddit to Wall Street: The role of committed minorities in financial collective action. Royal Society Open Science 9, 4 (2022), 211488

    work page 2022

  71. [71]

    Luca Luceri, Silvia Giordano, and Emilio Ferrara. 2020. Detecting troll behavior via inverse reinforcement learning: A case study of Russian trolls in the 2016 US election. In AAAI ICWSM. 417–427

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    Luca Luceri, Valeria Pantè, Keith Burghardt, and Emilio Ferrara. 2024. Unmasking the Web of deceit: Uncovering coordinated activity to expose information operations on Twitter. In ACM WWW

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    Thomas Magelinski and Kathleen M. Carley. 2020. Detecting coordinated behavior in the Twitter campaign to reopen America . Technical Report. School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    Thomas Magelinski, Lynnette H. X. Ng, and Kathleen Carley. 2022. A synchronized action framework for detection of coordination on social media. Journal of Online Trust and Safety 1, 2 (2022)

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    Matteo Magnani, Obaida Hanteer, Roberto Interdonato, Luca Rossi, and Andrea Tagarelli. 2021. Community detection in multiplex networks. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 3 (2021), 1–35. Manuscript submitted to ACM 34 Mannocci et al

    work page 2021

  76. [76]

    Thomas W. Malone. 1987. Modeling coordination in organizations and markets. Management Science 33, 10 (1987), 1317–1332

    work page 1987

  77. [77]

    Thomas W. Malone. 1988. What is coordination theory? Technical Report 182. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management

    work page 1988

  78. [78]

    Malone and Kevin Crowston

    Thomas W. Malone and Kevin Crowston. 1990. What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems?. InACM CSCW. 357–370

    work page 1990

  79. [79]

    Malone and Stephen A

    Thomas W. Malone and Stephen A. Smith. 1988. Modeling the performance of organizational structures. Operations Research 36, 3 (1988), 421–436

    work page 1988

  80. [80]

    Zaidi, Shanika Karunasekera, and Christopher Leckie

    Isura Manchanayaka, Zainab R. Zaidi, Shanika Karunasekera, and Christopher Leckie. 2024. Identifying coordinated activities on online social networks using contrast pattern mining. In IEEE IJCNN

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.