Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 114 references

What is a Social Media Bot? A Global Comparison of Bot and Human Characteristics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Across seven Twitter datasets spanning about 200 million users, the paper claims that roughly 20% of social media chatter comes from bots and that bots differ from humans consistently in language use, identity presentation, and…

desk verdict A large, genuinely useful descriptive dataset and a solid definitional synthesis, but the headline bot-human differences rest on BotHunter labels that overlap with the very features compared, and the paper overreaches from event-specific samples to a universal 20% claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00855 v2 pith:5ZRZFONM submitted 2025-01-01 cs.CY cs.AIcs.SI

Lynnette Hui Xian Ng , Kathleen M. Carley This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.SI
keywords socialmediabotsbotdetectionbot-humancomparisonpsycholinguisticcuesnetworkanalysisidentitypresentationHunterdisinformation
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 social media chatter contains a stable baseline of about 20% bot accounts and that, across seven very different global events, bots differ from humans in measurable, consistent ways: in volume, linguistic cue use, self-presented identities, and interaction network structure. It also proposes a first-principles definition of a social media bot as an automated account that carries out mechanics of content creation, distribution, and collection, and/or relationship formation and dissolution. If the claim is right, the 20% figure gives analysts a monitoring baseline, and the consistent bot signatures give content-free, structural ways to flag coordinated automation. The paper also argues that bots remain distinguishable from humans despite evolving detection-evasion tactics and that generative-AI-generated bot text currently lands near the classifier's threshold rather than fully in human territory.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the BotHunter tiered random-forest classifier with a 0.70 bot probability threshold, used to label every user as bot or human, combined with lexicon-based cue extraction for psycholinguistic and topic-frame cues and network metrics (degree, density, bot alters) for ego-network structure. The first-principles definition organizes the comparison: bots are automated accounts acting on user, content, and relationship mechanics, and the paper measures whether those mechanics produce observable differences.

What would settle it

Have independent human annotators label a stratified random sample of a few thousand users per event without seeing the detector's score, then re-run the cue and ego-network comparisons on that hand-labeled subset; if bots and humans no longer separate on hashtags, replies, quotes, or star-versus-tree structure, the consistency claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that bots and humans can be told apart across seven global Twitter datasets by four consistent axes: bots make up about 20% of users overall, with spikes above that in politically charged events; bots use automated-friendly linguistic cues such as more hashtags, mentions, retweets, and tweets per hour, while humans use more replies, quotes, media, first-person pronouns, and positive sentiment; bots concentrate on a smaller set of self-presented identities and converse about topics that match the identities they claim, while humans show more varied identity presentation; and bots form star-shaped, denser ego-networks while humans form tiered tree-like structures. The paper argues these differences are stable across events from 2018 to 2021 and are also visible in a preliminary Telegram comparison, and that they imply bots are still distinguishable from humans despite evolving detection-evasion and generative AI.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the automated detector's 0.70-score labels as the true bot or human status of every account, and then compares bots and humans on features that overlap with what the detector itself looks at, so if the labels are wrong or circular the systematic differences would be inherited from the detector rather than discovered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 20% bot share across events can serve as a baseline; events whose bot share exceeds roughly 20% flag probable bot operator interest in the conversation.
  • Because bots cluster on hashtags, mentions, retweets, and tweets-per-hour, while humans use more replies, quotes, and media, text-side detectors can use these cues as high-precision signals.
  • The star-shaped bot ego-network is a structural, content-free signature; network-level disruption can target bot amplification chains even when text is neutral.
  • Bots posting content aligned with their claimed identity, while humans wander across topics, means identity-topic coherence is a usable bot indicator.
  • If the differences persist across 2018-2021 and across Twitter and Telegram, the detector should transfer across platforms with limited retraining.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the BotHunter 0.70 threshold is doing much of the work, the reported 'consistent differences' may partly reflect the classifier's own decision features rather than intrinsic bot behavior; an independent hand-labeled validation set across these events would settle how much of the star-versus-tree and linguistic differences is discovered rather than induced.
  • The 20% baseline suggests a cheap anomaly-screening tool: events whose inferred bot share leaps above the baseline can be triaged for coordinated manipulation before deeper analysis.
  • The finding that bots interact more with humans than with other bots, violating homophily, implies bots are optimized to target humans; if so, interventions that constrict bot-to-human edges in networks would reduce influence more than bot-to-bot takedowns.
  • The paper's Telegram comparison is only preliminary; a multi-platform sample with platform-matched metadata would test whether the star-versus-tree structural signature persists under different reply and follow mechanics.
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 proposes a first-principles definition of a social media bot and uses a large corpus of roughly 200 million Twitter users across seven hashtag-defined events to compare bots and humans on volume, psycholinguistic cues, identity presentation, and communication structure. Users are labeled as bot or human with the BotHunter classifier at a 0.7 threshold; the paper then reports consistent differences between the two groups, including a global average of about 20% bot volume, and draws recommendations for the use and regulation of bots. The paper also includes a cross-platform sanity check on Telegram and a small LLM-based probe of bot evolution.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would be a valuable reference for the social-cybersecurity community: it aggregates a hard-to-replicate multi-event dataset, applies a widely used detection tool, and offers concrete directions for detection, differentiation, and disruption. The cross-platform comparison and the LLM probe are forward-looking and provide useful starting points for future work. However, the headline claims of a universal 20% bot volume and consistent bot–human differences are not supported by the evidence as presented because the comparison features overlap with the classifier's own inputs, the dataset is event-specific rather than a general social-media sample, and the statistical tests do not report effect sizes. The paper's contribution is therefore best viewed as a large case study of BotHunter-labeled Twitter events rather than a global characterization of bots and humans.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods: Data Collection and Labeling; Results: How do bots differ linguistically?; Supplementary Table 9] The central comparison is circular for the metadata cues. The paper labels users with BotHunter (Ref. 17) at a 0.7 threshold, then reports that bots differ from humans in retweets, hashtags, tweets per hour, friends:followers ratio, and other features listed in Supplementary Table 9. BotHunter is a tiered random forest that uses account metadata and activity features, so the features being compared are likely the same kinds of inputs used to assign the labels. The observed 'differences' are therefore partly a restatement of the classifier's decision rule rather than an independent discovery about bot behavior. This undermines the abstract's specific examples (hashtags, retweets, replies) and the general claim of consistent differences. I recommend either validating labels on hand-annotated data for these events, or restricting the comparative analysis to features that are disjoint from the classifier's inputs, and tempering the conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Abstract; Results: How many bots are there?; Figure 3; Supplementary Table 8] The claim that 'Chatter on social media is 20% bots and 80% humans' overgeneralizes the evidence. Figure 3 shows per-event bot proportions ranging from 15.7% (ReOpen America) to 43.9% (US Elections 2020), and Table 7 reports a mean of 21.9 ± 9.8. The datasets were collected with event-specific hashtags and keywords (Supplementary Table 8), so they are not a random or representative sample of social media chatter. The global 20% figure should be presented as an average of these seven event-specific collections, not as a universal property of social media. This is a load-bearing issue because the abstract and the policy framing treat the 20% value as a general baseline.
  3. [Supplementary Table 9; Results: How do bots differ linguistically?] The statistical comparisons rely on Student t-tests over millions of users, so arbitrarily small differences become highly significant. For example, first-person pronoun use is 0.71 vs 0.73 (p = 5.62E-8) and friends:followers ratio is 4.73 vs 4.44 (p = 6.71E-288). No effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported. The statement that bots and humans are 'consistently different' is therefore not a meaningful scientific claim for many of the cues; a difference of 0.02 in a per-tweet pronoun rate is unlikely to be practically important. I recommend reporting standardized effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d) and interpreting only those cues with non-trivial effect sizes.
  4. [Further Investigations: Bot Evolution; Supplementary Table 19] There is an internal inconsistency in the LLM experiment. The main text states that the average BotHunter score for LLM-generated tweets is 0.69±0.15, which is 'borderline on the 0.70 bot classification threshold', while the Supplementary Information (Table 19) reports an overall average of 0.51±0.28. These numbers lead to different interpretations: one suggests the LLM outputs are nearly bot-like, the other suggests they are closer to human under the study's own threshold. Please reconcile the two reports and ensure the conclusions about bot evolution follow from the correct number.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several typos and grammatical errors, including 'wreck havoc' (should be 'wreak havoc') and 'multidisiplinary' in Figure 2's caption. The paper would benefit from a careful proofread.
  2. [Supplementary Information: Data Collection Parameters] The table includes a misspelled hashtag '#coronaravirus' and the entry for Captain Marvel appears to have only two hashtags while the event description suggests a larger collection; please verify the completeness of the table.
  3. [Data Availability Statement] The data availability statement only says to contact the authors and gives no guarantee of access, code, or a repository. Given the paper's claims about the dataset's value and irreproducibility, a more concrete sharing plan (e.g., metadata, scripts, or a public subset) would strengthen the contribution.
  4. [Results: How do bots communicate differently from humans?] The star-versus-tree structural claim in Figure 6 is based on a small illustrative sample of 'the 20 most frequent communicators' in one event. This is insufficient support for a general conclusion about bot and human ego-network topology; please either provide a quantitative network-analysis comparison across all events or clearly label the figure as anecdotal.
  5. [Table 7] In the row 'Volume (%)', the value 21.9 ± 9.8 is reported, but Figure 3 and the text emphasize a 20% average. Please ensure the summary table's numbers are consistent with the figure and the main text.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline bot–human differences on hashtags, retweets, tweets/hour and friends:followers ratio are constructed by the BotHunter classifier that was trained on such features; the 20% baseline is that classifier's aggregate output under an author-derived threshold.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Methods, 'Data Collection and Labeling'; Results, 'How do bots differ from humans linguistically?']
    "We labeled each user in this dataset as bot or human with the BotHunter algorithm. This algorithm uses a tiered random forest classifier with increasing amounts of user data to evaluate the probability of the user being a bot. ... Metadata cues include: the use of mentions, media, URLs, hashtags, retweets, favorites, replies, quotes, and the number of followers, friends, tweets, tweets per hour, time between tweets and friends:followers ratio."

    The bot/human class is the output of a supervised random forest trained on user data. The paper then reports, as its headline finding, that bots and humans differ on metadata cues of exactly this kind: hashtags, mentions, retweets, tweets/hour, friends:followers ratio, etc. Any classifier trained on these features will, by construction, put high-retweet/high-frequency/high-hashtag accounts disproportionately in the bot class, so comparing those same features between the two output classes is a restatement of the classifier's decision rule, not an independent behavioral measurement. The abstract's specific examples (hashtags, positive terms, replies) include these contaminated metadata cues.

  2. self citation load bearing [Methods, 'Data Collection and Labeling'; Results, 'How many bots are there?']
    "This 0.7 threshold value is determined from a previous longitudinal study that sought to identify a stable bot score threshold that best represents the automation capacity of a user71. ... On average, the bot volume across the events are about 20% with the bot percentage spiking up to 43% during the US Elections."

    The 0.7 cutoff converts the continuous BotHunter score into the binary bot/human partition and directly determines the paper's headline 'about 20%' bot volume. The cutoff is imported from reference [71], whose authors include the present authors (Ng and Carley), rather than from an externally validated or hand-labeled benchmark on these seven events. The 20% figure is therefore the aggregate output of a classifier calibrated by the authors' own prior work, and the subsequent bot/human contrasts inherit that calibration. This makes the self-citation load-bearing for the paper's central quantitative baseline.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is: apply BotHunter (Ref 17) with a 0.7 threshold, then characterize the resulting bot and human classes along four axes. The most publicized contrasts—hashtags, retweets, tweets/hour, friends:followers ratio—are metadata features of the same type used by the tiered random forest to create the labels, so the differences are partially forced by construction; the t-tests compare two groups that were separated using those very features. The 20% bot volume is likewise the classifier's aggregate output, and the threshold that sets that volume comes from the authors' own prior study (Ref 71), with no hand-labeled validation reported for any of the seven events. This warrants a score of 6: the paper's central claim of 'consistent differences' and its 20% baseline partially reduce to the detection algorithm's decision rule. The paper is not wholly circular: the semantic and emotion cue comparisons (LIWC-style dictionary categories) and the ego-network star-versus-tree structure are not direct BotHunter inputs and could in principle provide independent evidence, and the identity-presentation analysis is grounded in a census-derived occupation list and NetMapper dictionaries rather than in the bot labels. Those independent strands keep the paper from being a complete tautology, but the abstract's flagship examples sit squarely inside the classifier's feature space.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on (1) the BotHunter classifier and its 0.7 threshold from the authors' own prior work, (2) a non-random event-based sample generalized to "social media", and (3) noisy identity dictionaries. No new physical or conceptual entity is postulated. The free-parameter count is minimal: one threshold, plus the classifier's internal parameters which are not reported.

free parameters (1)
  • BotHunter bot score threshold = 0.7
    Users with BotHunter score above 0.7 are labeled bots; below 0.7, humans. Adopted from the authors' previous longitudinal study (Ref 71) and not independently revalidated on these seven event datasets.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption BotHunter random forest classifier correctly separates bots from humans in all seven event datasets.
    Every bot/human comparison in the Results section uses BotHunter labels as ground truth; see Methods: Data Collection and Labeling. No independent validation against hand-coded accounts is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption The seven hashtag-based Twitter event datasets are representative of "social media" broadly.
    The abstract generalizes "Chatter on social media is 20% bots", but the data come from seven specific events (elections, movies, pandemic, reopening protests) collected via Twitter API hashtags. The paper's own Figure 3 shows bot percentages vary from 15.7% to 43.9%, so the 20% is an average over a non-random sample.
  • domain assumption Matching user bios against a 2015 US occupation census validly measures self-presented social identity.
    Methods: "Comparison by Self-Presentation of Identity" tags a user with identities if the occupation appears in the bio. Many reported identities (son, father, lover, fan, ass) are not occupations, so the mapping is noisy. The paper uses this to claim bots present fewer and more concentrated identities.
  • domain assumption The linguistic dictionaries in NetMapper correctly identify psycholinguistic cues across 40 languages.
    All cue counts come from dictionary matching in NetMapper; the paper provides no validation of dictionary coverage or language performance for these multilingual event datasets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What is a Social Media Bot? A Global Comparison of Bot and Human Characteristics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ZRZFONM

@misc{pith2026250100855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What is a Social Media Bot? A Global Comparison of Bot and Human Characteristics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ZRZFONM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00855}
}
read the original abstract

Chatter on social media is 20% bots and 80% humans. Chatter by bots and humans is consistently different: bots tend to use linguistic cues that can be easily automated while humans use cues that require dialogue understanding. Bots use words that match the identities they choose to present, while humans may send messages that are not related to the identities they present. Bots and humans differ in their communication structure: sampled bots have a star interaction structure, while sampled humans have a hierarchical structure. These conclusions are based on a large-scale analysis of social media tweets across ~200mil users across 7 events. Social media bots took the world by storm when social-cybersecurity researchers realized that social media users not only consisted of humans but also of artificial agents called bots. These bots wreck havoc online by spreading disinformation and manipulating narratives. Most research on bots are based on special-purposed definitions, mostly predicated on the event studied. This article first begins by asking, "What is a bot?", and we study the underlying principles of how bots are different from humans. We develop a first-principle definition of a social media bot. With this definition as a premise, we systematically compare characteristics between bots and humans across global events, and reflect on how the software-programmed bot is an Artificial Intelligent algorithm, and its potential for evolution as technology advances. Based on our results, we provide recommendations for the use and regulation of bots. Finally, we discuss open challenges and future directions: Detect, to systematically identify these automated and potentially evolving bots; Differentiate, to evaluate the goodness of the bot in terms of their content postings and relationship interactions; Disrupt, to moderate the impact of malicious bots.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00855 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. reflects a first principles definition of a social media bot. A Social Media Bot is “An automated account that carries out a series of mechanics on social media platforms, for content creation, distribution, and collection and processing, and/or for relationship formation and dissolutions." This definition displays the possibilities of mechanics that the bot account can carry out. A bot does not necessarily carry ou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of multidisiplinary methods used for our analysis How many bots are there? [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of Bot volume across events. The percentage of bot users across the events are on average around 20%. How do bots differ from humans linguistically? We extract psycholinguistic cues from the tweets using the NetMapper software83. The software returns the count of each cue in the sentence, i.e., the number of words belonging to the cue in the tweet. There are three categories of cues: semantic, emotion and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of psycholinguistic overall cue usage (average cue usage per user) by bots and humans across datasets. Green cells show that humans use a larger number of the cue. Red cells show that bots use a larger number of the cue. * within the cells indicates there is…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of identity-related behaviors in bots and humans. The Methods section explains the derivation of the identity categories and topic frames. How do bots communicate differently from humans? Social interactions between users are an indication of the information…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the interaction of bots and humans in a network diagram. These users are illustrative of the most frequent communicators in the Asian Elections dataset. In this diagram, users are represented as nodes, and links between users represent a communication (e.g. a ret…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: presents the differences between bots and humans for a subset of the psycholinguistic cues. We only compare the semantic and emotion cues because the structure of the Telegram platform is different from the Twitter platform, so the metadata cues do not map directly. Th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of frequency of use of the top Identity affiliations by bots and humans per event. 27/39 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: , [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Percentage difference of narrative frames used for identities that are common between bots and humans in Black Panther dataset 29/39 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Percentage difference of narrative frames used for identities that are common between bots and humans in Canadian dataset 30/39 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Percentage difference of narrative frames used for identities that are common between bots and humans in Captain Marvel dataset 31/39 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Percentage difference of narrative frames used for identities that are common between bots and humans in Coronavirus dataset 32/39 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Percentage difference of narrative frames used for identities that are common between bots and humans in US Elections 2020 dataset 33/39 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Percentage difference of narrative frames used for identities that are common between bots and humans in ReOpen America dataset Percentage Difference in Topic Frames To examine the difference in the use of Topic Frames between bots and humans, we calculate the percent…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Woolley, S. C. Automating power: Social bot interference in global politics. First Monday (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Lotan, G. et al. The arab spring| the revolutions were tweeted: Information flows during the 2011 tunisian and egyptian revolutions. Int. journal communication 5, 31 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    Ng, L. H. X., Robertson, D. C. & Carley, K. M. Cyborgs for strategic communication on social media. Big Data & Soc. 11, 20539517241231275 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. Assembling a multi-platform ensemble social bot detector with applications to us 2020 elections. Soc. Netw. Analysis Min. 14, 45 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    H., Chen, E., Zhang, M., Muric, G

    Chang, H.-C. H., Chen, E., Zhang, M., Muric, G. & Ferrara, E. Social bots and social media manipulation in 2020: The year in review. In Handbook of Computational Social Science, Volume 1, 304–323 (Routledge, 2021)

    2020

  6. [6]

    C., Atalay, A., Otenen, E., Duygu, U

    Seckin, O. C., Atalay, A., Otenen, E., Duygu, U. & Varol, O. Mechanisms driving online vaccine debate during the covid-19 pandemic. Soc. Media+ Soc. 10, 20563051241229657 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    What types of covid-19 conspiracies are populated by twitter bots? arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09531 (2020)

    Ferrara, E. What types of covid-19 conspiracies are populated by twitter bots? arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09531 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. Pro or anti? a social influence model of online stance flipping. IEEE Transactions on Netw. Sci. Eng. 10, 3–19 (2022)

    2022

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Magelinski, T., Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. A synchronized action framework for responsible detection of coordination on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.07454 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Broniatowski, D. A. et al. Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. Am. journal public health 108, 1378–1384 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Shao, C. et al. The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nat. communications 9, 1–9 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Ng, L. H. X., Cruickshank, I. J. & Carley, K. M. Cross-platform information spread during the january 6th capitol riots. Soc. Netw. Analysis Min. 12, 133 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Musk’s Twitter bid, and the ‘bot’ complication

    Ingram, M. Musk’s Twitter bid, and the ‘bot’ complication. https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/ musks-twitter-bid-and-the-bot-complication.php (2022). [Accessed 28-10-2024]

    2022

  6. [14]

    Elon Musk says X is fighting bots and spam, and the solution is: $1 subscriptions — latimes.com

    Childs, J. Elon Musk says X is fighting bots and spam, and the solution is: $1 subscriptions — latimes.com. https:// www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-10-18/x-pilot-program-to-charge-1-a-year-in-effort-to-combat-bots-spam (2023). [Accessed 28-10-2024]

    2023

  7. [15]

    & Ouahabi, S

    Ellaky, Z., Benabbou, F. & Ouahabi, S. Systematic literature review of social media bots detection systems. J. King Saud Univ. Inf. Sci. 35, 101551 (2023). 18/39

    2023

  8. [16]

    Ng, L. H. X., Bartulovic, M. & Carley, K. M. Tiny-botbuster: Identifying automated political coordination in digital campaigns. In International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, ...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Beskow, D. M. & Carley, K. M. Bot-hunter: a tiered approach to detecting & characterizing automated activity on twitter. In Conference paper. SBP-BRiMS: International conference on social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction and behavior representation in mod...

    2018

  10. [18]

    & Menczer, F

    Sayyadiharikandeh, M., Varol, O., Yang, K.-C., Flammini, A. & Menczer, F. Detection of novel social bots by ensembles of specialized classifiers. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management, 2725–2732 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. Botbuster: Multi-platform bot detection using a mixture of experts. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, vol. 17, 686–697 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    & Kamel, I

    Orabi, M., Mouheb, D., Al Aghbari, Z. & Kamel, I. Detection of bots in social media: a systematic review. Inf. Process. & Manag. 57, 102250 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    & Kotenko, I

    Kolomeets, M., Chechulin, A. & Kotenko, I. V . Bot detection by friends graph in social networks.J. Wirel. Mob. Networks Ubiquitous Comput. Dependable Appl. 12, 141–159 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Li, S. et al. Botfinder: a novel framework for social bots detection in online social networks based on graph embedding and community detection. World Wide Web26, 1793–1809 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Feng, S. et al. What does the bot say? opportunities and risks of large language models in social media bot detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00371 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S., Ng, L

    Jacobs, C. S., Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. Tracking china’s cross-strait bot networks against taiwan. In International conference on social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction and behavior representation in modeling and simulation, 115–125 (Springer, 2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    & Carley, K

    Uyheng, J. & Carley, K. M. Bot impacts on public sentiment and community structures: Comparative analysis of three elections in the asia-pacific. In Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling: 13th International Conference, SBP-BRiMS 2020, Washington, DC, USA, October 18–21, 20...

    2020

  18. [26]

    & Ferrara, E

    Bessi, A. & Ferrara, E. Social bots distort the 2016 us presidential election online discussion. First monday 21 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    & Agarwal, N

    Khaund, T., Al-Khateeb, S., Tokdemir, S. & Agarwal, N. Analyzing social bots and their coordination during natural disasters. In Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling: 11th International Conference, SBP-BRiMS 2018, Washington, DC, USA, July 10-13, 2018, Proceedings 11, 207...

    2018

  20. [28]

    Ng, L. H. & Taeihagh, A. How does fake news spread? understanding pathways of disinformation spread through apis. Policy & Internet 13, 560–585 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    & Shirazi, F

    Hajli, N., Saeed, U., Tajvidi, M. & Shirazi, F. Social bots and the spread of disinformation in social media: the challenges of artificial intelligence. Br. J. Manag. 33, 1238–1253 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Kenny, R., Fischhoff, B., Davis, A., Carley, K. M. & Canfield, C. Duped by bots: why some are better than others at detecting fake social media personas. Hum. factors 66, 88–102 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    & Chechulin, A

    Kolomeets, M., Tushkanova, O., Desnitsky, V ., Vitkova, L. & Chechulin, A. Experimental evaluation: Can humans recognise social media bots? Big Data Cogn. Comput. 8, 24 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Carley, K. M. Social cybersecurity: an emerging science. Comput. mathematical organization theory 26, 365–381 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    & Flammini, A

    Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F. & Flammini, A. The rise of social bots. Commun. ACM 59, 96–104 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Uyheng, J., Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. Active, aggressive, but to little avail: characterizing bot activity during the 2020 singaporean elections. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 27, 324–342 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Himelein-Wachowiak, M. et al. Bots and misinformation spread on social media: Implications for covid-19. J. medical Internet research 23, e26933 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Ng, L. H. X., Zhou, W. & Carley, K. M. Exploring cognitive bias triggers in covid-19 misinformation tweets: A bot vs. human perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07293 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    What is a social media bot? | social media bot definition

    Cloudflare. What is a social media bot? | social media bot definition. https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/bots/ what-is-a-social-media-bot/. [Accessed 28-10-2024]

    2024

  30. [38]

    Assenmacher, D. et al. Demystifying social bots: On the intelligence of automated social media actors. Soc. Media+ Soc. 6, 2056305120939264 (2020). 19/39

    2020

  31. [39]

    DHS, U. D. o. H. S. niccs.cisa.gov. https://niccs.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/ncsam_ socialmediabotsoverview_508.pdf?trackDocs=ncsam_socialmediabotsoverview_508.pdf (2018). [Accessed 29- 10-2024]

    2018

  32. [40]

    Danaditya, A., Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. From curious hashtags to polarized effect: profiling coordinated actions in indonesian twitter discourse. Soc. Netw. Analysis Min. 12, 105 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    M., Mathew, S

    Hayawi, K., Saha, S., Masud, M. M., Mathew, S. S. & Kaosar, M. Social media bot detection with deep learning methods: a systematic review. Neural Comput. Appl. 35, 8903–8918 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    & Yasseri, T

    Tsvetkova, M., García-Gavilanes, R., Floridi, L. & Yasseri, T. Even good bots fight: The case of wikipedia. PloS one 12, e0171774 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    & Jung, A.-K

    Stieglitz, S., Brachten, F., Ross, B. & Jung, A.-K. Do social bots dream of electric sheep? a categorisation of social media bot accounts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.04044 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    & Agency, I

    CISA, C. & Agency, I. S. Social media bots. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/social_media_bots_ infographic_set_508.pdf. [Accessed 28-10-2024]

    2024

  37. [45]

    & Stieglitz, S

    Hofeditz, L., Ehnis, C., Bunker, D., Brachten, F. & Stieglitz, S. Meaningful use of social bots? possible applications in crisis communication during disasters. In ECIS (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Piccolo, L. S. G., Troullinou, P. & Alani, H. Chatbots to support children in coping with online threats: Socio-technical requirements. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021, DIS ’21, 1504–1517, DOI: 10.1145/3461778.3462114 (Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2021

  39. [47]

    & Osler, L

    Krueger, J. & Osler, L. Communing with the dead online: chatbots, grief, and continuing bonds. J. Conscious. Stud. 29, 222–252 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    & Ripeanu, M

    Boshmaf, Y ., Muslukhov, I., Beznosov, K. & Ripeanu, M. The socialbot network: when bots socialize for fame and money. In Proceedings of the 27th annual computer security applications conference, 93–102 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Howard, P. N. & Parks, M. R. Social media and political change: Capacity, constraint, and consequence (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    & Mueen, A

    Chavoshi, N., Hamooni, H. & Mueen, A. Debot: Twitter bot detection via warped correlation. In Icdm, vol. 18, 28–65 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Stieglitz, S. et al. Do social bots (still) act different to humans?–comparing metrics of social bots with those of humans. In Social Computing and Social Media. Human Behavior: 9th International Conference, SCSM 2017, Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Can...

    2017

  44. [52]

    & Trautmann, H

    Grimme, C., Preuss, M., Adam, L. & Trautmann, H. Social bots: Human-like by means of human control? Big data 5, 279–293 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    & O’Brien, M

    Alsmadi, I. & O’Brien, M. J. How many bots in russian troll tweets? Inf. Process. & Manag. 57, 102303 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. Deflating the chinese balloon: types of twitter bots in us-china balloon incident. EPJ Data Sci. 12, 63 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    L., Varol, O., Flammini, A

    Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Varol, O., Flammini, A. & Menczer, F. The spread of fake news by social bots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.07592 96, 14 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    How fake news spreads online?Int

    Vziatysheva, V . How fake news spreads online?Int. J. Media & Inf. Lit. 5 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    & Diakopoulos, N

    Lokot, T. & Diakopoulos, N. News bots: Automating news and information dissemination on twitter. Digit. journalism 4, 682–699 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    & Guilbeault, D

    Gorwa, R. & Guilbeault, D. Unpacking the social media bot: A typology to guide research and policy. Policy & Internet 12, 225–248 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    & McIntyre, J

    Arora, A., Arora, A. & McIntyre, J. Developing chatbots for cyber security: Assessing threats through sentiment analysis on social media. Sustainability 15, 13178 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    R., Moghaddam, M

    Liu, L., Preotiuc-Pietro, D., Samani, Z. R., Moghaddam, M. E. & Ungar, L. Analyzing personality through social media profile picture choice. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 10, 211–220 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Ng, L. H. X. & Cruickshank, I. J. Recruitment promotion via twitter: a network-centric approach of analyzing community engagement using social identity. Digit. Gov. Res. Pract. 4, 1–17 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    & Dubois, E

    McKelvey, F. & Dubois, E. Computational propaganda in canada: The use of political bots (2017). 20/39

    2017

  55. [63]

    Woolley, S. C. & Howard, P. N.Computational propaganda: Political parties, politicians, and political manipulation on social media (Oxford University Press, 2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    & Varol, O

    Zouzou, Y . & Varol, O. Unsupervised detection of coordinated fake-follower campaigns on social media.EPJ Data Sci. 13, 62 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    & Mishra, S

    Albadi, N., Kurdi, M. & Mishra, S. Hateful people or hateful bots? detection and characterization of bots spreading religious hatred in arabic social media. Proc. ACM on Human-Computer Interact. 3, 1–25 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Blane, J. T. Social-Cyber Maneuvers for Analyzing Online Influence Operations. Ph.D. thesis, United States Military Academy (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    & Lerman, K

    Badawy, A., Ferrara, E. & Lerman, K. Analyzing the digital traces of political manipulation: The 2016 russian interference twitter campaign. In 2018 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (ASONAM), 258–265 (IEEE, 2018)

    2016

  60. [68]

    In 2016, microsoft’s racist chatbot revealed the dangers of online conversation

    Schwartz, O. In 2016, microsoft’s racist chatbot revealed the dangers of online conversation. IEEE spectrum 11, 2019 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Brachten, F. et al. Threat or opportunity?-examining social bots in social media crisis communication. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.09159 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Martini, F., Samula, P., Keller, T. R. & Klinger, U. Bot, or not? comparing three methods for detecting social bots in five political discourses. Big data & society 8, 20539517211033566 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    Ng, L. H. X., Robertson, D. C. & Carley, K. M. Stabilizing a supervised bot detection algorithm: How much data is needed for consistent predictions? Online Soc. Networks Media 28, 100198 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Tan, Z. et al. BotPercent: Estimating bot populations in Twitter communities. In Bouamor, H., Pino, J. & Bali, K. (eds.) Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, 14295–14312, DOI: 10.18653/v1/2023. findings-emnlp.954 (Association for Computational...

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    Y ., Yang, K.-C., Shanahan, J

    Yan, H. Y ., Yang, K.-C., Shanahan, J. & Menczer, F. Exposure to social bots amplifies perceptual biases and regulation propensity. Sci. Reports 13, 20707 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Yan, H. Y . & Yang, K.-C. The landscape of social bot research: A critical appraisal. InHandbook of Critical Studies of Artificial Intelligence, 716–725 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    & Menczer, F

    Yang, K.-C. & Menczer, F. Anatomy of an ai-powered malicious social botnet. J. Quant. Descr. Digit. Media 4 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    How to spot bots on social media – Microsoft 365 — microsoft.com

    Microsoft. How to spot bots on social media – Microsoft 365 — microsoft.com. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ microsoft-365-life-hacks/privacy-and-safety/how-to-spot-bots-on-social-media (2024). [Accessed 29-10-2024]

    2024

  69. [77]

    Social Media Bots 101 - All You Need to Know — meltwater.com

    Simpson, M. Social Media Bots 101 - All You Need to Know — meltwater.com. https://www.meltwater.com/en/blog/ social-media-bots (2024). [Accessed 29-10-2024]

    2024

  70. [78]

    What are Bots | Bot Types & Mitigation Techniques | Imperva — imperva.com

    Imperva. What are Bots | Bot Types & Mitigation Techniques | Imperva — imperva.com. https://www.imperva.com/ learn/application-security/what-are-bots/. [Accessed 29-10-2024]

    2024

  71. [79]

    Babcock, M., Beskow, D. M. & Carley, K. M. Beaten up on twitter? exploring fake news and satirical responses during the black panther movie event. In Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling: 11th International Conference, SBP-BRiMS 2018, Washington, DC, USA, July 10-13, 2018...

    2018

  72. [80]

    & Carley, K

    King, C., Bellutta, D. & Carley, K. M. Lying about lying on social media: a case study of the 2019 canadian elec- tions. In International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, 75–85 (...

    2019

  73. [81]

    & Carley, K

    Babcock, M., Villa-Cox, R. & Carley, K. M. Pretending positive, pushing false: Comparing captain marvel misinformation campaigns. Disinformation, Misinformation, Fake News Soc. Media: Emerg. Res. Challenges Oppor. 83–94 (2020)

    2020

  74. [82]

    Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. A combined synchronization index for evaluating collective action social media. Appl. network science 8, 1 (2023)

    2023

  75. [83]

    R., Reminga, J

    Carley, L. R., Reminga, J. & Carley, K. M. Ora & netmapper. In International conference on social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction and behavior representation in modeling and simulation. Springer, vol. 1, 2–1 (2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    & De Domenico, M

    Stella, M., Ferrara, E. & De Domenico, M. Bots increase exposure to negative and inflammatory content in online social systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 12435–12440 (2018). 21/39

    2018

  77. [85]

    & Magdy, W

    Aldayel, A. & Magdy, W. Characterizing the role of bots’ in polarized stance on social media. Soc. Netw. Analysis Min. 12, 30 (2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    Disinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 french presidential election

    Ferrara, E. Disinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 french presidential election. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00086 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  79. [87]

    & Joseph, K

    Pathak, A., Madani, N. & Joseph, K. A method to analyze multiple social identities in twitter bios. Proc. ACM on Human-Computer Interact. 5, 1–35 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    Van der Walt, E., Eloff, J. H. & Grobler, J. Cyber-security: Identity deception detection on social media platforms. Comput. & Secur. 78, 76–89 (2018)

    2018

  81. [89]

    & Brenner, P

    Radivojevic, K., Clark, N. & Brenner, P. Llms among us: Generative ai participating in digital discourse. In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, vol. 3, 209–218 (2024)

    2024

  82. [90]

    Howard, P. N. Lie machines: How to save democracy from troll armies, deceitful robots, junk news operations, and political operatives (Yale University Press, 2020)

    2020

  83. [91]

    & Cresci, S

    Tardelli, S., Avvenuti, M., Tesconi, M. & Cresci, S. Characterizing social bots spreading financial disinformation. In International conference on human-computer interaction, 376–392 (Springer, 2020)

    2020

  84. [92]

    R., Yan, H

    DeVerna, M. R., Yan, H. Y ., Yang, K.-C. & Menczer, F. Artificial intelligence is ineffective and potentially harmful for fact checking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10800 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Hill, J., Ford, W. R. & Farreras, I. G. Real conversations with artificial intelligence: A comparison between human–human online conversations and human–chatbot conversations. Comput. human behavior 49, 245–250 (2015)

    2015

  86. [94]

    Bisgin, H., Agarwal, N. & Xu, X. A study of homophily on social media. World Wide Web15, 213–232 (2012)

    2012

  87. [95]

    Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. Online coordination: methods and comparative case studies of coordinated groups across four events in the united states. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Web Science Conference 2022, 12–21 (2022)

    2022

  88. [96]

    & Tesconi, M

    Mazza, M., Cresci, S., Avvenuti, M., Quattrociocchi, W. & Tesconi, M. Rtbust: Exploiting temporal patterns for botnet detection on twitter. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on web science, 183–192 (2019)

    2019

  89. [97]

    Russell, S. J. & Norvig, P. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach (Pearson, 2016)

    2016

  90. [98]

    & Lee, H.-w

    Lu, H.-C. & Lee, H.-w. Agents of discord: Modeling the impact of political bots on opinion polarization in social networks. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 08944393241270382 (2024)

    2024

  91. [99]

    The social influence of bots and trolls in social media

    Chen, Y . The social influence of bots and trolls in social media. In Handbook of Computational Social Science, Volume 1, 287–303 (Routledge, 2021)

    2021

  92. [100]

    Ng, L. H. X., Kloo, I., Clark, S. & Carley, K. M. An exploratory analysis of covid bot vs human disinformation dissemination stemming from the disinformation dozen on telegram. J. Comput. Soc. Sci. 1–26 (2024)

    2024

  93. [101]

    S., Ng, L

    Jacobs, C. S., Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. Detection evasion techniques of state-sponsored accounts. In Proceedings of the ICWSM Workshops, DOI: 10.36190/2024.63 (Buffalo, New York, USA, 2024)

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    Tyagi, A., Babcock, M., Carley, K. M. & Sicker, D. C. Polarizing tweets on climate change. In International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, 107–117 (Springer, 2020)

    2020

  95. [103]

    & Menczer, F

    Yang, K.-C., Ferrara, E. & Menczer, F. Botometer 101: Social bot practicum for computational social scientists. J. computational social science 5, 1511–1528 (2022)

    2022

  96. [104]

    & Cresci, S

    Tardelli, S., Avvenuti, M., Tesconi, M. & Cresci, S. Detecting inorganic financial campaigns on twitter.Inf. Syst. 103, 101769 (2022)

    2022

  97. [105]

    Marigliano, R., Ng, L. H. X. & Carley, K. M. Analyzing digital propaganda and conflict rhetoric: a study on russia’s bot-driven campaigns and counter-narratives during the ukraine crisis. Soc. Netw. Analysis Min. 14, 170 (2024)

    2024

  98. [106]

    Ng, L. H. X., Cruickshank, I. J. & Farr, D. Building bridges between users and content across multiple platforms during natural disasters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02681 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Big data and the brave new world of social media research

    Schroeder, R. Big data and the brave new world of social media research. Big Data & Soc. 1, 2053951714563194 (2014)

    2014

  100. [108]

    Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media (Yale University Press, 2018)

    Gillespie, T. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media (Yale University Press, 2018)

    2018

  101. [109]

    Detecting malicious social bots: story of a never-ending clash

    Cresci, S. Detecting malicious social bots: story of a never-ending clash. In Multidisciplinary International Symposium on Disinformation in Open Online Media, 77–88 (Springer, 2020). 22/39

    2020

  102. [110]

    Millions of People Are Using Abusive AI ‘Nudify’ Bots on Telegram — wired.com

    Burgess, M. Millions of People Are Using Abusive AI ‘Nudify’ Bots on Telegram — wired.com. https://www.wired. com/story/ai-deepfake-nudify-bots-telegram/ (2024). [Accessed 21-10-2024]

    2024

  103. [111]

    Contagion dynamics of extremist propaganda in social networks

    Ferrara, E. Contagion dynamics of extremist propaganda in social networks. Inf. Sci. 418, 1–12 (2017)

    2017

  104. [112]

    Jones, M. L. Silencing bad bots: Global, legal and political questions for mean machine communication. Commun. Law Policy 23, 159–195 (2018)

    2018

  105. [113]

    Smith-Lovin, L. et al. Mean affective ratings of 929 identities, 814 behaviors, and 660 modifiers by university of georgia and duke university undergraduates and by community members in durham, nc, in 2012-2014.Univ. Georgia: Distributed at UGA Affect. Control. Theory Website:...

    2016

  106. [114]

    natural born

    LaFrance, A. The Internet Is Mostly Bots — theatlantic.com. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/ bots-bots-bots/515043/ (2017). [Accessed 27-09-2024]. Acknowledgements The first author thanks Christine Lepird for her ideas and comments towards this work. Thi...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.