Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

BotSim: LLM-Powered Malicious Social Botnet Simulation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that LLM-driven bots in a Reddit simulation evade most current bot detectors.

desk verdict Useful new LLM-bot simulation dataset with clear limitations; the performance-drop headline is partly by construction, but the resource is real and worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13420 v1 pith:DHSCDJNZ submitted 2024-12-18 cs.SI

Boyu Qiao , Kun Li , Wei Zhou , Shilong Li , Qianqian Lu , Songlin Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SI
keywords socialbotdetectionLLM-drivenbotsbotnetsimulationagent-basedRedditbenchmarkgraphneuralnetworksmisinformationSim-24
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that today's bot-detection methods, built and tested on older Twitter-era datasets, are not ready for large-language-model-driven bots, and that a new kind of benchmark is needed to develop better detectors. To show this, it introduces BotSim, a simulation framework in which GPT-4o-mini agents with assigned roles, goals, and background knowledge post, comment, and reply inside a Reddit-like environment built from real Reddit data. The resulting dataset, BotSim-24, pairs 1,907 real human accounts with 1,000 LLM-generated bot accounts and full interaction edges. Benchmarking 11 detection methods on six datasets, the paper finds that methods that score well on traditional datasets lose substantial accuracy and F1 on BotSim-24, with text-only methods dropping to near random guessing. The paper argues this gap signals an urgent need for detection strategies that exploit relational structure and anticipate more human-like bot behavior.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the BotSim simulation framework, built from four components: a social environment fed by real Reddit posts, comments, and timelines; an environment-perception module that turns observed content into prompts; an action list of user behaviors such as posting, commenting, reposting, and liking; and an agent decision center where the LLM integrates role, goal, memory, and background knowledge to choose actions. The dataset construction is driven by three disguise strategies derived from prior detection features — metadata disguise, textual-content disguise, and interaction disguise — so the bots are engineered specifically to defeat the kinds of signals older detectors rely on. The load-bearing data object is BotSim-24's interaction graph, with three directed edge types (first-level comment to post, second-level comment to post, and second-level to first-level comment), which lets graph models exploit structural differences that text and metadata no longer reveal. An edge-perturbation experiment that reverses edge directions to simulate human-to-bot interactions is what exposes the graph methods' reliance on the missing-edge artifact.

What would settle it

Collect verified LLM-driven bot accounts operating on Reddit in the wild, with genuine human replies to their posts, and run the same 11 detectors on them; if those detectors perform at their traditional-dataset levels, the BotSim-24 gap would be an artifact of the simulation rather than evidence of a new detection problem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that a carefully disguised LLM-driven bot population is substantially harder to separate from humans than the bot populations in existing benchmarks, even though the labels in BotSim-24 are fully reliable because every bot is generated by the simulation. The 11 baselines — metadata classifiers, text classifiers, and homogeneous and heterogeneous graph models — all lose ground on BotSim-24 relative to Cresci-15, Cresci-17, TwiBot-20, and MGTAB-22. The paper identifies the cause as camouflage in three feature families used by prior detectors: metadata statistics, textual content, and interaction patterns. It also shows that graph-based methods, especially heterogeneous graph models using comment-reply edges, hold up best, but it demonstrates through edge-perturbation experiments that this advantage depends on a structural artifact: BotSim-24 contains no directed edges from humans to bots, and adding such edges at realistic rates degrades their performance.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the assumption that bots generated by GPT-4o-mini under the authors' disguise prompts are representative enough of real-world LLM-driven bots that a performance drop on BotSim-24 means real detectors will struggle with real bots, and not just with this simulation's specific artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing detectors and benchmarks built on Twitter-era datasets will underestimate the threat from LLM-driven bots, so evaluation suites should include simulation-based datasets with reliable labels.
  • Metadata-only and text-only detection is no longer sufficient; interaction structure, especially heterogeneous comment-reply edges, becomes a key signal.
  • Graph-based detectors currently lead on BotSim-24, but their lead is partly an artifact of missing human-to-bot edges, so future benchmarks should include realistic bidirectional human-bot interaction data.
  • LLM-based detectors and human annotators both struggle to distinguish the simulated bots' text from human text, so labeling LLM bot behavior in the wild will require non-text signals or simulation-derived ground truth.
  • The BotSim framework can be adapted to other platforms and goal tasks, making it a reusable tool for generating up-to-date benchmarks as bot strategies evolve.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported performance gap may be inflated by the platform shift from Twitter to Reddit and by the smaller, cleaner dataset, since BotSim-24 is not a matched comparison on the same platform; a same-platform control would separate the effect of LLM human-likeness from the effect of domain shift.
  • If BotSim-24 becomes a widely used benchmark, detectors could overfit to its particular disguise strategies and its missing human-to-bot edges, so the benchmark's value depends on regularly regenerating it with new LLMs and new evasion tactics.
  • The edge-perturbation result suggests a testable prediction: as real human-bot interactions grow, current GNN-based detectors will lose accuracy, and detection methods that explicitly model interaction direction and reciprocity will become more important.
  • The framework could also be used adversarially, to probe which prompt and role configurations produce bots that evade detection, effectively giving platform defenders a way to anticipate evasion strategies before deployment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces BotSim, an LLM-driven simulation framework for creating malicious social botnets, and uses it to construct BotSim-24, a dataset with 1,000 GPT-4o-mini-generated bot accounts interacting with 1,907 real Reddit users across six subreddits. The authors benchmark 11 detection methods on BotSim-24 and on five existing Twitter-based bot datasets, reporting that metadata- and text-based methods perform markedly worse on BotSim-24 while graph-based methods retain relatively high accuracy. They conclude that current detection methods are inadequate against LLM-driven bots and that new detection strategies are urgently needed. The paper also reports LLM-based and human-annotation experiments suggesting that bot-generated text is hard to distinguish from human text.

Significance. If the central empirical claim were cleanly established, BotSim-24 would be a useful stress-test resource for the bot-detection community. The paper has real strengths: the simulation framework is described in detail, the code is released, the dataset includes profiles, text, and multi-type interaction edges, and the benchmark covers 11 baselines with five seeds and standard deviations. The dataset also includes community-level information that is absent from the five comparison datasets. However, the central claim that current detectors 'perform worse on BotSim-24' is weakened by three confounds: the dataset is adversarially constructed to evade the same feature families used by the benchmarked detectors, the evaluation is in-distribution with respect to the generating LLM and prompts, and the comparison datasets are all from Twitter while BotSim-24 is from Reddit, with no Reddit-based traditional-bot control. A further artifact is that BotSim-24 contains no human-to-bot edges, which the paper itself identifies as a structural signal that graph methods exploit.

major comments (4)
  1. [Bot Data Construction; Experiment Results] The performance drop on BotSim-24 is partly by construction. Section 'Bot Data Construction' states that disguise strategies are explicitly designed to target metadata features, textual content, and interaction patterns used by prior detectors, citing Yang et al. (2020), Qiao et al. (2023), and Li et al. (2023) — the latter two being the authors' own methods. The dataset is therefore intentionally built to evade the same families of detectors that are later benchmarked in Table 3. This does not invalidate the dataset, but it means the observed drop measures evasion of known detection features rather than the general inadequacy of current methods against arbitrary LLM-driven bots. To support the abstract's claim, the authors should add a control condition: for example, LLM-generated bots created without the disguise prompts, or a held-out set generated with different prompts and a different LLM, and show the performance gap is larger for the disguised version than for the non-adversarial version.
  2. [A.3 and Table 3] The comparison suffers from a platform-shift confound. All five baseline datasets (Cresci-15, Cresci-17, TwiBot-20, TwiBot-22, MGTAB-22) are collected from Twitter, while BotSim-24 is based on Reddit, as acknowledged in Appendix A.3. The paper provides no Reddit-based traditional-bot dataset or human-bot control to separate the effect of platform and data-collection differences from the effect of LLM-driven bot sophistication. A concrete test would be to evaluate the same 11 baselines on real Reddit bot accounts (e.g., accounts later suspended or labeled by moderators) or on a Reddit dataset with bots generated by simple rule-based methods. Without such a control, the reported performance gap in Table 3 could be due partly or wholly to domain shift rather than to the LLM-driven nature of the bots.
  3. [Experimental Analysis; A.4] The strong performance of graph-based methods is likely inflated by a structural artifact. Section 'Experimental Analysis' and Appendix A.4 state that BotSim-24 contains no directed edges from human to bot nodes, and the paper explicitly says this 'incomplete graph structure' enables GNNs to identify the intrinsic differences between human and bot accounts. Since both training and test bots come from the same simulation and hence share this missing-edge pattern, graph methods can exploit a structural shortcut that will not necessarily exist in real environments where human-bot interactions occur. The edge-perturbation experiment partially addresses this by randomly reversing edge directions, but random reversal does not reproduce realistic interaction dynamics. The authors should evaluate graph methods on a version of BotSim-24 that includes simulated or collected human-to-bot interactions, or at least report performance when the test set is generated from a different simulation run with a different interaction model.
  4. [Abstract; Table 3] The conclusion overstates the overall performance drop. Table 3 shows that graph-based methods still achieve relatively high scores on BotSim-24 (e.g., BotRGCN accuracy 89.9, F1 86.7; S-HGN accuracy 87.7, F1 83.1), while only metadata-based and text-based methods approach random-level performance. Thus the abstract's statement that 'detection methods effective on traditional bot datasets perform worse on BotSim-24' is too broad: the dataset is challenging for certain detector families, but not uniformly for current detectors. The conclusion should be revised to specify that the drop is concentrated in metadata- and text-based approaches, and that graph-based methods remain partially effective, which also weakens the 'urgent need for new detection strategies' formulation as a blanket claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [A.5] The human-annotation study is too small to support strong conclusions: it uses only three graduate students and 200 samples, and no confidence intervals or inter-annotator agreement statistics are reported. This should be described as a pilot study, with the statistical limitations acknowledged.
  2. [Table 1] The entry '2,4074' in the politics row of Table 1 appears to be a typo (likely '24,074'); please verify all numbers in the table.
  3. [Experiment Settings] There are several typographical errors and inconsistent notations, including 'the the Adaboost classifier', 'Weiet al.'s method', and the incomplete phrase 'Heter-GNN indicates GNNs' in the Table 3 caption. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [Table 4] The sampling procedure for Table 4 is underspecified: the paper says the authors 'randomly select the same number of humans and bots' from each dataset, but does not state whether the selection was repeated, how variance is handled, or whether the numbers are based on a single draw. Please report the procedure and any variance across draws.
  5. [Related Work] The related-work section would benefit from a more direct comparison with Yang and Menczer (2024), which also analyzes an LLM-powered botnet, and with the Chirper-based dataset of Li et al. (2023); currently the comparison is brief and does not discuss differences in evaluation methodology.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

BotSim-24's performance drop is partly built in: the dataset is constructed to camouflage exactly the metadata/text/interaction features the benchmark detectors use, so the 'urgent need' conclusion overreads a self-fulfilling stress test.

  1. self definitional [BotSim-24: LLM-driven Bot Detection Dataset > Bot Data Construction; Experiment > Experiment Results]
    "Our goal is to create highly human-like bot accounts, driven by LLMs and based on the BotSim framework, to challenge these detection algorithms. To achieve this, the bots must effectively disguise themselves in these key areas to evade detection. ... (1) Metadata Disguise: We statistically analyze six types of value-type metadata from real Reddit users ... We then use LLM to integrate this statistical information to generate human-like metadata for bot accounts."

    The bot accounts are constructed to match human statistics on the exact metadata features (post/comment counts, ratios, frequency, active SubReddits) that the metadata-based baselines use (Table 10). The paper then reports that metadata-based methods underperform 'due to its successful camouflage of metadata features.' Since the camouflage was put into the dataset by construction, the drop is a direct consequence of how BotSim-24 was defined rather than an independent discovery about LLM-bot detectability; the 'urgent need' conclusion is therefore partly self-fulfilling.

full rationale

The central circular step is the construction-evaluation loop: the dataset is explicitly built to camouflage the same feature families (metadata, text, interaction) that the benchmark uses as detection signals, so the reported performance collapse for those families is a designed property rather than an independent measurement. The paper is transparent about this: it states the goal is to 'challenge these detection algorithms' and later acknowledges the simulation 'lacks actual interactions between humans and bots.' That transparency and the open release of BotSim-24 mitigate the problem; the dataset remains useful as a deliberately adversarial stress test. However, the abstract's inference that current detectors 'perform worse' and that there is an 'urgent need for new detection strategies' generalizes from a self-fulfilling benchmark to real-world LLM bots without external validation. The self-citations to Qiao et al. 2023 and Li et al. 2023 are disclosed and are not the main problem; the main problem is that the dataset definition already encodes the expected failure. The GNN analysis and edge-perturbation experiment provide some independent content, but the headline empirical claim is partly circular. Score 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions: the authenticity of annotated human accounts, the representativeness of GPT-4o-mini-generated bots, and the comparability of Reddit and Twitter benchmarks. Hand-chosen parameters, such as the 30% goal-content ratio and the 80% annotator threshold, shape the dataset and the resulting detector performance. No new natural entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • goal_content_ratio = 30%
    In dataset construction (Appendix C.4, step 5), 30% of each bot's content is directly related to goal events and 70% to other news, a hand-chosen trade-off that affects bot detectability and the resulting benchmark difficulty.
  • annotator_threshold = 80%
    Accounts are retained as human only if more than 80% of five annotators agree (Appendix C.1, Account Annotation); this threshold shapes the human set and label quality.
  • bot_allocation_per_event = 250/201/549
    Bots are allocated to the three target events in proportion to collected news counts (Appendix C.4, step 1), influencing the dataset's topical mix.
  • LLM_backbone = GPT-4o-mini
    The dataset is generated by a single LLM; results may not generalize to other LLMs.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 1,907 Reddit accounts annotated by five annotators with 80% agreement are genuine human users.
    Account Annotation (Appendix C.1) relies on subjective annotator judgment; no independent verification is provided.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated bot content and behavior, conditioned on the disguise prompts and human-activity statistics, approximate real-world LLM-driven bots.
    The entire benchmark conclusion depends on this representativeness; the paper uses one LLM (GPT-4o-mini) and synthetic interactions.
  • domain assumption The performance drop on BotSim-24 is attributable to bot human-likeness rather than platform or distribution shift from Twitter to Reddit.
    No Reddit-based traditional bot dataset baseline is included, so platform shift is a confound for the stated interpretation.
  • domain assumption The three Reddit interaction types (C1-P, C2-P, C1-C2) capture the relevant relational signal for bot detection.
    The graph-based results rest on these edge types; other platforms or richer interactions might change results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BotSim: LLM-Powered Malicious Social Botnet Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DHSCDJNZ

@misc{pith2026241213420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BotSim: LLM-Powered Malicious Social Botnet Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DHSCDJNZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13420}
}
read the original abstract

Social media platforms like X(Twitter) and Reddit are vital to global communication. However, advancements in Large Language Model (LLM) technology give rise to social media bots with unprecedented intelligence. These bots adeptly simulate human profiles, conversations, and interactions, disseminating large amounts of false information and posing significant challenges to platform regulation. To better understand and counter these threats, we innovatively design BotSim, a malicious social botnet simulation powered by LLM. BotSim mimics the information dissemination patterns of real-world social networks, creating a virtual environment composed of intelligent agent bots and real human users. In the temporal simulation constructed by BotSim, these advanced agent bots autonomously engage in social interactions such as posting and commenting, effectively modeling scenarios of information flow and user interaction. Building on the BotSim framework, we construct a highly human-like, LLM-driven bot dataset called BotSim-24 and benchmark multiple bot detection strategies against it. The experimental results indicate that detection methods effective on traditional bot datasets perform worse on BotSim-24, highlighting the urgent need for new detection strategies to address the cybersecurity threats posed by these advanced bots.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13420 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall framework of BotSim. BotSim provides a list of commonly used actions for in￾formation dissemination across various OSNs. Future re￾search can select the appropriate actions based on specific needs and add new actions as required. Detailed description of the action list in Appendix B.2. Agent Decision Center The Agent Decision Center, as the core component of Bot￾Sim, integrates multidimensional informati… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The impact of different proportions of edge pertur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. BotSim-24 bot-human interaction edge illustra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The performance of human annotators in bot iden [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Statistics of the relationship between the number of users’ posts, the number of first-level comments, and the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Ratios of Post Number to Comment Number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The number of users participating in SubReddit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    AI@Meta. 2024. Llama 3 Model Card

    2024

  4. [4]

    M.; and Carley, K

    Beskow, D. M.; and Carley, K. M. 2018. Bot conversations are different: leveraging network metrics for bot detection in twitter. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 825--832. IEEE

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    E.; Guyon, I

    Boser, B. E.; Guyon, I. M.; and Vapnik, V. N. 1992. A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In Proceedings of the fifth annual workshop on Computational learning theory, 144--152

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Cresci, S. 2020. A decade of social bot detection. Communications of the ACM, 63(10): 72--83

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Cresci, S.; Di Pietro, R.; Petrocchi, M.; Spognardi, A.; and Tesconi, M. 2015. Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers. Decision Support Systems, 80: 56--71

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Cresci, S.; Di Pietro, R.; Petrocchi, M.; Spognardi, A.; and Tesconi, M. 2016. DNA-inspired online behavioral modeling and its application to spambot detection. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 31(5): 58--64

    2016

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Cresci, S.; Di Pietro, R.; Petrocchi, M.; Spognardi, A.; and Tesconi, M. 2017. The paradigm-shift of social spambots: Evidence, theories, and tools for the arms race. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion, 963--972

    2017

  2. [10]

    Feng, S.; Tan, Z.; Wan, H.; Wang, N.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, B.; Zheng, Q.; Zhang, W.; Lei, Z.; Yang, S.; et al. 2022. Twibot-22: Towards graph-based twitter bot detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 35254--35269

    2022

  3. [11]

    Feng, S.; Wan, H.; Wang, N.; Li, J.; and Luo, M. 2021 a . Twibot-20: A comprehensive twitter bot detection benchmark. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management, 4485--4494

    2021

  4. [12]

    Feng, S.; Wan, H.; Wang, N.; and Luo, M. 2021 b . BotRGCN: Twitter bot detection with relational graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, 236--239

    2021

  5. [13]

    Feng, S.; Wan, H.; Wang, N.; Tan, Z.; Luo, M.; and Tsvetkov, Y. 2024. What Does the Bot Say? Opportunities and Risks of Large Language Models in Social Media Bot Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00371

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Ferrara, E. 2023. Social bot detection in the age of ChatGPT: Challenges and opportunities. First Monday

    2023

  7. [15]

    Gallotti, R.; Valle, F.; Castaldo, N.; Sacco, P.; and De Domenico, M. 2020. Assessing the risks of ‘infodemics’ in response to COVID-19 epidemics. Nature human behaviour, 4(12): 1285--1293

    2020

  8. [16]

    Gao, C.; Lan, X.; Lu, Z.; Mao, J.; Piao, J.; Wang, H.; Jin, D.; and Li, Y. 2023. S \^ 3 : Social-network Simulation System with Large Language Model-Empowered Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14984

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gilani, Z.; Farahbakhsh, R.; Tyson, G.; Wang, L.; and Crowcroft, J. 2017. Of bots and humans (on twitter). In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017, 349--354

    2017

  10. [18]

    GLM, T.; Zeng, A.; Xu, B.; Wang, B.; Zhang, C.; Yin, D.; Rojas, D.; Feng, G.; Zhao, H.; Lai, H.; Yu, H.; Wang, H.; Sun, J.; Zhang, J.; Cheng, J.; Gui, J.; Tang, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, J.; Zhao, L.; Wu, L.; Zhong, L.; Liu, M.; Huang, M.; Zhang, P.; Zheng, Q.; Lu, R.; Duan, S.; Zhan...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Guglielmi, G. 2020. The next-generation bots interfering with the US election. Nature, 587(7832): 21--21

    2020

  12. [20]

    Hastie, T.; Rosset, S.; Zhu, J.; and Zou, H. 2009. Multi-class adaboost. Statistics and its Interface, 2(3): 349--360

    2009

  13. [21]

    A.; Epstein, D

    Himelein-Wachowiak, M.; Giorgi, S.; Devoto, A.; Rahman, M.; Ungar, L.; Schwartz, H. A.; Epstein, D. H.; Leggio, L.; and Curtis, B. 2021. Bots and misinformation spread on social media: Implications for COVID-19. Journal of medical Internet research, 23(5): e26933

    2021

  14. [22]

    N.; and Welling, M

    Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lee, K.; Eoff, B.; and Caverlee, J. 2011. Seven months with the devils: A long-term study of content polluters on twitter. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, volume 5, 185--192

    2011

  16. [24]

    Lepping, J. 2018. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery

    2018

  17. [25]

    Li, S.; Qiao, B.; Li, K.; Lu, Q.; Lin, M.; and Zhou, W. 2023. Multi-modal social bot detection: Learning homophilic and heterophilic connections adaptively. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 3908--3916

    2023

  18. [26]

    Li, S.; Yang, J.; and Zhao, K. 2023. Are you in a masquerade? exploring the behavior and impact of large language model driven social bots in online social networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10337

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Liu, Y.; Tan, Z.; Wang, H.; Feng, S.; Zheng, Q.; and Luo, M. 2023. Botmoe: Twitter bot detection with community-aware mixtures of modal-specific experts. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 485--495

    2023

  20. [28]

    Lv, Q.; Ding, M.; Liu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Feng, W.; He, S.; Zhou, C.; Jiang, J.; Dong, Y.; and Tang, J. 2021. Are we really making much progress? revisiting, benchmarking and refining heterogeneous graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge...

    2021

  21. [29]

    H.; and Abbaspour, M

    Moghaddam, S. H.; and Abbaspour, M. 2022. Friendship preference: Scalable and robust category of features for social bot detection. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 20(2): 1516--1528

    2022

  22. [30]

    Mou, X.; Wei, Z.; and Huang, X. 2024. Unveiling the truth and facilitating change: Towards agent-based large-scale social movement simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16333

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pacheco, D. 2024. Bots, Elections, and Controversies: Twitter Insights from Brazil's Polarised Elections. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, 2651--2659

    2024

  24. [32]

    S.; Popowski, L.; Cai, C.; Morris, M

    Park, J. S.; Popowski, L.; Cai, C.; Morris, M. R.; Liang, P.; and Bernstein, M. S. 2022. Social simulacra: Creating populated prototypes for social computing systems. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 1--18

    2022

  25. [33]

    Peng, H.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, H.; Bai, X.; Li, Y.; and Wang, S. 2022. Domain-aware federated social bot detection with multi-relational graph neural networks. In 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 1--8. IEEE

    2022

  26. [34]

    Qiao, B.; Li, K.; Zhou, W.; Yan, Z.; Li, S.; and Hu, S. 2023. Social bot detection based on window strategy. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), 2201--2206. IEEE

    2023

  27. [35]

    Qiao, B.; Zhou, W.; Li, K.; Li, S.; and Hu, S. 2024. Dispelling the Fake: Social Bot Detection Based on Edge Confidence Evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

    2024

  28. [36]

    Shi, S.; Qiao, K.; Chen, J.; Yang, S.; Yang, J.; Song, B.; Wang, L.; and Yan, B. 2023. Mgtab: A multi-relational graph-based twitter account detection benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01123

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sun, Y.; He, J.; Cui, L.; Lei, S.; and Lu, C.-T. 2024. Exploring the Deceptive Power of LLM-Generated Fake News: A Study of Real-World Detection Challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18249

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Veli c kovi \'c , P.; Cucurull, G.; Casanova, A.; Romero, A.; Lio, P.; and Bengio, Y. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wei, F.; and Nguyen, U. T. 2019. Twitter bot detection using bidirectional long short-term memory neural networks and word embeddings. In 2019 First IEEE International conference on trust, privacy and security in intelligent systems and applications (TPS-ISA), 101--109. IEEE

    2019

  32. [40]

    V.; Zhou, D.; et al

    Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; Xia, F.; Chi, E.; Le, Q. V.; Zhou, D.; et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 24824--24837

    2022

  33. [41]

    Yang, K.-C.; and Menczer, F. 2024. Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 4

    2024

  34. [42]

    A.; Ferrara, E.; Flammini, A.; and Menczer, F

    Yang, K.-C.; Varol, O.; Davis, C. A.; Ferrara, E.; Flammini, A.; and Menczer, F. 2019. Arming the public with artificial intelligence to counter social bots. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(1): 48--61

    2019

  35. [43]

    Yang, K.-C.; Varol, O.; Hui, P.-M.; and Menczer, F. 2020. Scalable and generalizable social bot detection through data selection. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, 1096--1103

    2020

  36. [44]

    Zhang, Y.; Sharma, K.; Du, L.; and Liu, Y. 2024. Toward Mitigating Misinformation and Social Media Manipulation in LLM Era. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, 1302--1305

    2024

  37. [45]

    Zhou, X.; Zhu, H.; Mathur, L.; Zhang, R.; Yu, H.; Qi, Z.; Morency, L.-P.; Bisk, Y.; Fried, D.; Neubig, G.; et al. 2023. Sotopia: Interactive evaluation for social intelligence in language agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11667

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.