The Dual Personas of Social Media Bots

Kathleen M. Carley; Lynnette Hui Xian Ng

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Dual Personas of Social Media Bots

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Social media bots come in fifteen distinct personas, each with a good and a bad use.

desk verdict A useful synthesis of bot personas with an explicit good-bad duality, but the central yardstick is unoperationalized; the taxonomy is worth engaging with, the policy claim is not yet testable. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12498 v3 pith:RLWYXO3T submitted 2025-04-16 cs.CY cs.SI

Lynnette Hui Xian Ng , Kathleen M. Carley This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CYcs.SI

keywords socialmediabotsbotpersonasgood-baddualitydetectioncontentmoderationdisinformationtaxonomy

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

Social media bots are not one thing: this paper argues that they come in fifteen distinct personas, split into content-based and behavior-based categories, and that every persona has both a good and a bad use. The authors claim that whether a bot is good or bad depends on how it is employed, the narrative it spreads, and the social network it builds, not on automation itself. They derive the personas from a literature survey, attach observable heuristics to each, and illustrate them on a COVID-19 vaccine discussion dataset. If the argument holds, bot policy and moderation should regulate how these agents are used rather than treating all bots as malicious.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the user-content-interaction frame, applied to bot accounts: every persona is pinned to measurable properties in user metadata, posted content, and interaction mechanics. From this frame the authors build persona heuristics, e.g., amplifier bots show excessive retweet patterns, synchronized bots have a high coordination index, announcer bots post on periodic schedules or templates, and information-correction bots use negation and reference fact-checking sites. The good-bad yardstick uses the BEND framework, a set of sixteen information maneuvers that manipulate social network interaction structure; good bots use constructive maneuvers such as back and build, bad bots use destructive ones such as dismiss and distort, and content is judged by emotional cues and whether it cites disinformation sources. These heuristics are designed to make persona classification automated and scalable, and are illustrated on COVID-19 vaccine tweets.

What would settle it

Have independent analysts apply the persona heuristics to a large, unlabeled corpus of bot accounts and measure inter-rater agreement; low agreement would show the categories are not reliable. Alternatively, find a coordinated bot network where the same account receives different good/bad labels under small threshold changes, or where the good/bad yardstick does not predict measured harms such as disinformation reach; either result would undercut the claim that bot personas and their duality are measurable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a taxonomy, not a detector. It claims that past research has collapsed bots into a binary bot/human label and into a single malicious category, and that this misses the structure of the bot ecosystem. The authors identify fifteen personas organized under two categories: behavior-based personas (social influence, amplifier, cyborg, bridging, repeater, self-declared, synchronized) and content-based personas (chaos, announcer, content generation, information correction, genre-specific, conversational, engagement generation, news). Each persona is defined by user, content, and interaction properties, and each has a good side and a bad side. The paper further provides a duality yardstick: good bots spread good content and use constructive information maneuvers, while bad bots spread bad content or cite disinformation sources and use destructive maneuvers. It concludes that a bot's goodness is not static and that policy should focus on how agents are used.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fifteen personas and the good/bad content labels, assembled by the authors from a literature survey and their own discussion, capture real bot behavior beyond the examples chosen; if the definitions do not generalize, the taxonomy is just an annotated list.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Binary bot detection is not enough: platforms that use bot/human classifiers alone may remove legitimate accounts while malicious bot networks stay up, so persona classification should follow detection.
Regulation should be scoped by use: a disinformation-spreading amplifier bot could be banned while an amplifier bot broadcasting disaster safety information could be allowed.
A bot's persona and goodness can change over time, so moderation needs repeated monitoring, not a one-time label.
Accounts can carry several personas at once, such as a synchronized news bot or a genre-specific bridging bot, so labeling schemes must allow multiple simultaneous labels.
Operationalizing the heuristics would let researchers map which personas dominate different events and platforms, informing communication strategies such as a public-health agency deploying an announcer bot for routine alerts.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension would be to apply the fifteen-persona heuristics to a large, independent sample of labeled bot accounts and measure how cleanly the personas separate; the taxonomy's usefulness depends on that separation holding outside the authors' illustrative examples.
If the dual-use framing is right, content-moderation decisions become context-dependent by design: the same account could be harmless during normal times and harmful during an election or health crisis, implying policies should include temporal or event-based triggers.
The taxonomy could also be applied to other automated accounts, such as AI conversational agents or embedded news widgets, since the heuristics are defined at the level of observable content and interaction rather than bot-specific programming.
A natural next step is to turn the good-bad yardsticks into a score, which would allow a direct test of whether 'good' bots measurably improve information quality and 'bad' bots measurably reduce it in a given conversation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a position paper that pulls together fifteen bot personas from the literature and organizes them under a user-content-interaction frame, with a content/behavior split and an explicit good-bad duality for each persona. That combination is new, and it gives bot researchers a shared vocabulary that the scattered existing typologies don't provide. The tables are clearly laid out, the examples are concrete, and the authors are honest in the conclusion that operationalization is still future work. They even cite Gorwa and Guilbeault, though they don't compare their typology to it in depth; the reader's claim that it's missing is wrong.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test note names, and it's the core of the paper. "Good content" vs "bad content" in Tables 4-5 is defined by fiat; no protocol, no inter-annotator agreement, no external benchmark. The heuristics in Table 1 are full of undefined thresholds ("high usage," "excessive replies," "frequent changes"), and the empirical section is a handful of illustrative tweets from one vaccine dataset. The authors admit they're starting the operationalization, not finishing it. For a taxonomy paper, that's okay. For a paper that claims to guide regulation, it's a real gap: if you can't reliably recognize personas or label content quality, the "regulate by use, not by bot" recommendation isn't actionable.

That said, the paper isn't incoherent or dishonest. It's a plausible framework built on a broad survey, and it's clearly written. The flaw is the usual one for taxonomy papers: the categories are reasonable but not validated. I'd treat it as a reference work, not as evidence about bot behavior.

Who gets value from this: researchers doing bot detection, platform governance, or computational social science who need a comprehensive list of bot types and a way to talk about dual use. It deserves a serious referee; with revisions that either tighten the operational definitions or explicitly reframe the contribution as a taxonomy rather than a measurement, it could be a useful publication. I'd cite it only for the persona list and the framing, not for any empirical claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that social media bots are not a monolith: it introduces fifteen bot personas divided into behavior-based and content-based categories, provides heuristic definitions (Table 1), illustrates them with tweets from a COVID-19 vaccine Twitter dataset (Tables 2-3), and develops a 'good-bad duality' yardstick (Tables 4-5) supported by a literature review of good and bad uses (Tables 6-7). It concludes that policy should regulate how bots are used rather than banning bots as a category.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap: most bot research and regulation treat bots as uniformly malicious, while many bots are benign or beneficial. A well-validated persona taxonomy with a measurable good-bad axis would be useful to researchers and policymakers. The paper's literature synthesis is broad and the dual-use examples are timely. However, the central claims are currently not supported by the evidence presented: the persona definitions are not operationalized, the good-bad classification is not independently measurable, and the empirical demonstration is illustrative only. The stress-test concern is valid. If the authors can either provide operationalization and validation or explicitly reframe the contribution as a conceptual taxonomy, the paper could be a useful position piece.

major comments (4)

[Section 2, Table 1] The persona heuristics in Table 1 are not operationalized. Terms such as 'High usage of emotional and BEND cues,' 'Excessive replies,' 'Frequent changes,' 'High Bridge score,' 'High coordination index,' 'Higher than average BEND values,' 'Periodic posting patterns,' and 'Majority of the posts' have no thresholds, measurement protocols, or baseline definitions, so the heuristics cannot be applied or tested by other researchers. The persona set is said to be created through 'inductive codes based on a literature survey' and 'discussed extensively among the authors,' but no codebook, inter-rater agreement, or external validation is reported. The demonstration on the vaccine dataset reports only selected example tweets, with no counts, no precision/recall, and no comparison with human annotation; it therefore does not establish that the fifteen personas are reliably recognizable.
[Section 3, Tables 4-5] The good-bad duality yardsticks are defined by fiat. Tables 4 and 5 label a bot as good when it 'spreads good content' and bad when it 'spreads bad content,' but the paper gives no protocol for labeling content quality, no inter-rater reliability, and no external benchmark. The only partially operational indicator is 'cites disinformation source,' and even that is not defined (e.g., what source list is used). Because the classification is circular and the metrics are qualitative descriptors rather than measurable metrics, any account can be post hoc assigned a persona and a good/bad label, making the central policy recommendation unfalsifiable. At minimum, the authors should provide an independent content-quality annotation protocol or explicitly restrict the contribution to a conceptual taxonomy.
[Section 5] The conclusion admits that operationalization is future work: 'Another key direction is operationalizing this framework by developing robust heuristics to detect these bot personas and classify their duality.' This admission conflicts with the policy recommendation in the same section, which asserts that policies should focus on how bots are used. Without the operational tools or validation, the policy claim is premature. If the paper is intended as a conceptual position paper, that framing should be explicit and the policy claims should be conditional; if it is intended as an applied framework, the missing operationalization and evaluation must be supplied.
[Section 3] The paper states that whether a bot is good or bad depends on 'its environmental conditions, which includes its narrative and its social network,' yet Tables 4-5 operationalize goodness only through the bot's own content and interaction properties. The environmental conditions (narrative context, network structure) are never formalized or measured anywhere in the manuscript. This is an internal inconsistency in the central duality claim: either the metrics must be defined contextually (e.g., good vs bad relative to a specified narrative or network) or the environmental claim should be removed.

minor comments (5)

[Table 1] Table 1's caption reads 'Personas of social media bots (By Behavior)' even though the table also contains the Content-Based Bot Persona; the caption should be corrected.
[Section 2] There are unresolved cross-references: 'reflected in Table 1 and ??' and 'heuristics from Table 1 and ?? on the data' should point to specific tables.
[Various] There are typographical errors, including 'pol,itical candidates' in Section 3, and 'T able 1' and 'T able 2' in table captions.
[Tables 6-7] Several entries in Tables 6-7 involve contestable value judgments (e.g., 'trigger and initiate activism' as a bad use of cyborgs, and 'cross-cultural social marketing' as a bad use of bridging bots); these classifications need justification or rephrasing.
[Tables 1 and 5] The BEND framework is central to several heuristics and to the good/bad distinction, but the manuscript does not define how 'constructive' versus 'destructive' BEND maneuvers are coded or computed; a reference is not sufficient when the term is used as a threshold.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Good/bad bot metric reduces to good/bad content by definition; the persona taxonomy itself remains descriptive.

self definitional [Section 3 'The Duality of Social Media Bot', Tables 4-5]
"Our metrics of good and bad bots are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. These metrics differentiate the goodness of the bot by two axes: the content the bot puts out and the interaction the bot has with other users. Good bots spread good content and seek to promote positive emotions (e.g., happy), while bad bots spread bad content, sometimes with links that point to disinformation sites, and promote negative emotions (e.g., anger, fear)."

The metric that is supposed to 'differentiate between good and bad bot behavior' assigns to every good agent the content value 'good content' and to every bad agent the value 'bad content' (Tables 4-5), without any independent operationalization of content quality, annotation protocol, or inter-rater reliability. Thus the good/bad status of the bot is defined by the good/bad status of its content; the classification criterion is the thing being classified, so any account can be post hoc labeled. The paper's policy conclusion, that regulation should focus on how agents are employed rather than on bot-ness, depends on this yardstick being independently measurable, but it is defined by fiat.

full rationale

This paper is primarily a descriptive taxonomy, not a derivation chain with predictions. The fifteen personas are introduced through 'inductive codes based on a literature survey' and illustrated with tweets and prior case studies, so the persona categories do not reduce to the paper's conclusions by construction. The main circular element is the good-bad duality metric in Section 3 (Tables 4-5): a good bot is defined as one that spreads good content and a bad bot as one that spreads bad content, with no independent standard for content quality. The paper also cites several of the authors' prior works heavily, but these citations are used as literature examples and definitions, not as a uniqueness theorem forcing the framework, so they are not load-bearing circularity under the review rules. Overall, the central taxonomy has independent descriptive content, but the normative claim that bots should be regulated by their good/bad use rests on an unoperationalized, definitional metric, warranting a score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 15 invented entities

The framework rests on literature-derived personas, a domain assumption that bot detectors are reliable, an assumption that content quality can be objectively labeled, and an unvalidated set of heuristic thresholds. The new entities are the fifteen persona categories and the good-bad duality yardstick; none come with a falsifiable handle beyond curated examples, and several depend on the authors' own prior frameworks.

free parameters (5)

Repeater bot repeat threshold = 3
Table 3 states the same tweet is repeated 'more than 3 times'; this hand-chosen threshold defines the repeater persona.
High BEND value threshold
Table 1 defines chaos and social influence bots by 'higher than average BEND values' with no numeric cutoff.
High coordination index threshold
Table 1 defines synchronized bots by a 'high coordination index' with no scale or threshold specified.
Periodicity threshold for announcer bots
Table 1 defines announcer bots by 'periodic posting patterns, or posting with templates' without a quantitative periodicity measure.
Bridge score threshold
Table 1 defines bridging bots by a 'High Bridge score from the BEND metric' with no numeric boundary.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Bot detection algorithms reliably differentiate bots from humans
Section 3 states without caveat that bot detectors 'are able to reliably differentiate' bots; the accuracy of such classifiers is contested in the broader literature.
domain assumption BEND framework maneuvers can be divided into constructive and destructive categories that map onto good and bad bot behavior
Section 3 uses BEND maneuvers to define good versus bad interactions, but the mapping is taken from Carley's own framework without independent validation.
domain assumption Content can be objectively labeled good or bad, positive or negative, factual or disinformative
Tables 4 and 5 classify content as 'good content' and 'bad content' without specifying the labeling protocol or inter-annotator reliability.
domain assumption The 1,076,734-tweet vaccine corpus from December 2020 is representative for illustrating all fifteen personas
Section 2 uses one corpus from ref. 13 to show examples; no evidence that the personas appear with equal detectability or that this event generalizes.
domain assumption The literature survey reached saturation such that fifteen personas cover the space of bot activities
Section 2 says personas were 'created through inductive codes based on a literature survey, and were discussed extensively among the authors', but no saturation or completeness criterion is given.

invented entities (15)

Social Influence Bot
purpose: Account that attempts to influence other users' perceptions via emotional and BEND cues.
Defined in Table 1 with examples in Table 3, but no detection algorithm or external validation is provided.
Amplifier Bot
purpose: Boosts narrative themes via excessive retweets and shares.
Established in prior literature (refs. 48, 54, 55) but presented here without a validated detector.
Cyborgs
purpose: Accounts with mixed human and bot activity.
Illustrated in Table 3, but no operational metric for mixed activity is given.
Bridging Bot
purpose: Connects different user groups via tags and network straddling.
Defined in Table 1; only curated examples are provided.
Repeater Bot
purpose: Reposts identical or near-identical content.
Rule of thumb of three repeats is given in Table 3, but no precision or recall is reported.
Self-Declared Bot
purpose: Accounts that label themselves as bots in user metadata.
Defined in Table 1; detection by keyword presence is suggested, not validated.
Synchronized Bot
purpose: Coordinates actions with other bot accounts.
Uses a high coordination index but the threshold is unspecified.
Chaos Bot
purpose: Sows chaos and discord using high BEND values.
Defined in Table 1; no metric boundary for 'higher than average BEND values'.
Announcer Bot
purpose: Publishes periodic or templated announcements.
Illustrated by alerts in Table 2; periodicity is not quantified.
Content Generation Bot
purpose: Produces original content rather than shared content.
No threshold for 'majority of posts are original' is provided.
Information Correction Bot
purpose: Corrects misinformation, often by referencing fact-check sites.
Defined by negation cues and fact-check references, but no validation is given.
Genre Specific Bot
purpose: Posts predominantly on a single topic.
The 'majority of posts on a single topic frame' is not operationalized.
Conversational Bot
purpose: Engages in multi-turn conversation with users.
Defined by reading difficulty and topic variety, neither quantified.
Engagement Generation Bot
purpose: Incites engagement through emotional cues and high valence.
Defined in Table 1 without a numeric engagement metric.
News Bot
purpose: Publishes news headlines and updates.
Detection via 'news' in metadata is suggested but not evaluated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Dual Personas of Social Media Bots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RLWYXO3T

@misc{pith2026250412498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Dual Personas of Social Media Bots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RLWYXO3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12498}
}

read the original abstract

Social media bots are AI agents that participate in online conversations. Most studies focus on the general bot and the malicious nature of these agents. However, bots have many different personas, each specialized towards a specific behavioral or content trait. Neither are bots singularly bad, because they are used for both good and bad information dissemination. In this article, we introduce fifteen agent personas of social media bots. These personas have two main categories: Content-Based Bot Persona and Behavior-Based Bot Persona. We also form yardsticks of the good-bad duality of the bots, elaborating on metrics of good and bad bot agents. Our work puts forth a guideline to inform bot detection regulation, emphasizing that policies should focus on how these agents are employed, rather than collectively terming bot agents as bad.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Cross-Subreddit Behavior as Open-Source Indicators of Coordinated Influence: A Case Study of r/Sino & r/China
cs.SI 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A case study finds 63 dual-subreddit users and flags a subset with sentiment and behavioral anomalies suggestive of coordinated influence, without significance testing or validation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

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

Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: What is a social media bot? a global comparison of bot and human characteristics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00855 (2025)

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[2]

In: Handbook of Computational Social Science, Volume 1, pp

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, pp. 304–323. Routledge, ??? (2021)

2021
[3]

EPJ Data Science 12(1), 63 (2023)

Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: Deflating the chinese balloon: types of twitter bots in us-china balloon incident. EPJ Data Science 12(1), 63 (2023)

2023
[4]

Journal for Social Science Archives 3(1), 265–286 (2025)

Zafar, H., Siddiqui, F.A., Arif, M.: The digital duo: Exploring the impact of ai chatbots and digital marketing strategies on consumer purchase intentions in pakistan’s e-commerce sector. Journal for Social Science Archives 3(1), 265–286 (2025)

2025
[5]

Social Network Analysis and Mining 12(1), 30 (2022)

Aldayel, A., Magdy, W.: Characterizing the role of bots’ in polarized stance on social media. Social Network Analysis and Mining 12(1), 30 (2022)

2022
[6]

Big Data & Society 11(1), 20539517241231275 (2024)

Ng, L.H.X., Robertson, D.C., Carley, K.M.: Cyborgs for strategic communication on social media. Big Data & Society 11(1), 20539517241231275 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

Social Network Analysis and Mining 14(1), 45 (2024)

Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: Assembling a multi-platform ensemble social bot detec- tor with applications to us 2020 elections. Social Network Analysis and Mining 14(1), 45 (2024)

work page 2024
[8]

Social Network Analysis and Mining 13(1), 30 (2023)

A¨ ımeur, E., Amri, S., Brassard, G.: Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review. Social Network Analysis and Mining 13(1), 30 (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 84 references

[9]

Social Science Computer Review 40(3), 560–578 (2022)

Freelon, D., Bossetta, M., Wells, C., Lukito, J., Xia, Y., Adams, K.: Black trolls matter: Racial and ideological asymmetries in social media disinformation. Social Science Computer Review 40(3), 560–578 (2022)

2022
[10]

Social Science Computer Review, 08944393241270382 (2024)

Lu, H.-C., Lee, H.-w.: Agents of discord: Modeling the impact of political bots on opinion polarization in social networks. Social Science Computer Review, 08944393241270382 (2024)

2024
[11]

Social Network Analysis and Mining 14(1), 170 (2024)

Marigliano, R., Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: Analyzing digital propaganda and con- flict rhetoric: a study on russia’s bot-driven campaigns and counter-narratives during the ukraine crisis. Social Network Analysis and Mining 14(1), 170 (2024)

2024
[12]

EPJ Data Science13(1), 33 (2024)

Tardelli, S., Nizzoli, L., Avvenuti, M., Cresci, S., Tesconi, M.: Multifaceted online coordinated behavior in the 2020 us presidential election. EPJ Data Science13(1), 33 (2024)

2024
[13]

In: Vaccine Communication 12 Online: Counteracting Misinformation, Rumors and Lies, pp

Blane, J.T., Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: Analyzing social-cyber maneuvers for spreading covid-19 pro-and anti-vaccine information. In: Vaccine Communication 12 Online: Counteracting Misinformation, Rumors and Lies, pp. 57–80. Springer, ??? (2023)

2023
[14]

In: Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pp

Diab, A., Jagdagdorj, B.-E., Ng, L.H.X., Lin, Y.-R., Yoder, M.M.: Online to offline crossover of white supremacist propaganda. In: Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pp. 1308–1316 (2023)

2023
[15]

In: Routledge Handbook of Media, Conflict and Security, pp

Woolley, S.C., Howard, P.N.: Social media, revolution, and the rise of the polit- ical bot. In: Routledge Handbook of Media, Conflict and Security, pp. 302–312. Routledge, ??? (2016)

2016
[16]

Computational and mathematical organization theory 26(4), 365–381 (2020)

Carley, K.M.: Social cybersecurity: an emerging science. Computational and mathematical organization theory 26(4), 365–381 (2020)

2020
[17]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07769 (2021)

Nakov, P., Corney, D., Hasanain, M., Alam, F., Elsayed, T., Barr´ on-Cede˜ no, A., Papotti, P., Shaar, S., Martino, G.D.S.: Automated fact-checking for assisting human fact-checkers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07769 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[18]

Information Systems Research (2024)

He, Q., Hong, Y., Raghu, T.: Platform governance with algorithm-based content moderation: An empirical study on reddit. Information Systems Research (2024)

2024
[19]

The Journal of Academic Librarianship48(4), 102540 (2022)

O’Hara, I.: Automated epistemology: Bots, computational propaganda & infor- mation literacy instruction. The Journal of Academic Librarianship48(4), 102540 (2022)

2022
[20]

Information 11(10), 461 (2020)

Al-Rawi, A., Shukla, V.: Bots as active news promoters: A digital analysis of covid-19 tweets. Information 11(10), 461 (2020)

2020
[21]

In: International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, pp

Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: Bot-based emotion behavior differences in images dur- ing kashmir black day event. In: International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, pp. 184–194 (2021)...

2021
[22]

In: Conference Paper

Beskow, D.M., Carley, K.M.: Bot-hunter: a tiered approach to detecting & char- acterizing automated activity on twitter. In: Conference Paper. SBP-BRiMS: International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Mo...

2018
[23]

Nature communications9(1), 1–9 (2018)

Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G.L., Varol, O., Yang, K.-C., Flammini, A., Menczer, F.: The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature communications9(1), 1–9 (2018)

2018
[24]

IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 10(1), 3–19 (2022) 13

Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: Pro or anti? a social influence model of online stance flipping. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 10(1), 3–19 (2022) 13

2022
[25]

Computer Communica- tions 217, 25–40 (2024)

Gambini, M., Tardelli, S., Tesconi, M.: The anatomy of conspiracy theorists: unveiling traits using a comprehensive twitter dataset. Computer Communica- tions 217, 25–40 (2024)

2024
[26]

PloS one 12(2), 0171774 (2017)

Tsvetkova, M., Garc´ ıa-Gavilanes, R., Floridi, L., Yasseri, T.: Even good bots fight: The case of wikipedia. PloS one 12(2), 0171774 (2017)

2017
[27]

Communications of the ACM 59(7), 96–104 (2016)

Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., Flammini, A.: The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM 59(7), 96–104 (2016)

2016
[28]

In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, pp

Davis, C.A., Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Flammini, A., Menczer, F.: Botornot: A sys- tem to evaluate social bots. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, pp. 273–274 (2016)

2016
[29]

In: Icdm, vol

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

2016
[30]

In: Proceed- ings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management

Sayyadiharikandeh, M., Varol, O., Yang, K.-C., Flammini, A., Menczer, F.: Detection of novel social bots by ensembles of specialized classifiers. In: Proceed- ings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. CIKM ’20, pp. 2725–2732. Associat...

2020
[31]

In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: Botbuster: Multi-platform bot detection using a mix- ture of experts. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 17, pp. 686–697 (2023)

2023
[32]

: Twibot-22: Towards graph-based twitter bot detection

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

2022
[33]

Center for Naval Analysis, September (2020)

McBride, M.K., Gold, Z., Stricklin, K.: Social media bots: Implications for special operations forces. Center for Naval Analysis, September (2020)

2020
[34]

In: Social Informatics: 8th International Conference, SocInfo 2016, Bellevue, WA, USA, November 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 8, pp

Oentaryo, R.J., Murdopo, A., Prasetyo, P.K., Lim, E.-P.: On profiling bots in social media. In: Social Informatics: 8th International Conference, SocInfo 2016, Bellevue, WA, USA, November 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 8, pp. 92–109 (2016). Springer

2016
[35]

In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp

Abokhodair, N., Yoo, D., McDonald, D.W.: Dissecting a social botnet: Growth, content and influence in twitter. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 839–851 (2015)

2015
[36]

In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

Elmas, T., Overdorf, R., Aberer, K.: Characterizing retweet bots: The case of black market accounts. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 16, pp. 171–182 (2022) 14

2022
[37]

In: Applied Cryptography and Network Security: 10th International Conference, ACNS 2012, Singapore, June 26-29, 2012

Chu, Z., Widjaja, I., Wang, H.: Detecting social spam campaigns on twitter. In: Applied Cryptography and Network Security: 10th International Conference, ACNS 2012, Singapore, June 26-29, 2012. Proceedings 10, pp. 455–472 (2012). Springer

2012
[38]

American journal of public health 109(5), 688–692 (2019)

Jamison, A.M., Broniatowski, D.A., Quinn, S.C.: Malicious actors on twitter: A guide for public health researchers. American journal of public health 109(5), 688–692 (2019)

2019
[39]

In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

Lee, K., Eoff, B., Caverlee, J.: 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, vol. 5, pp. 185–192 (2011)

2011
[40]

Journal of Cybersecurity 9(1), 015 (2023)

Mbona, I., Eloff, J.H.: Classifying social media bots as malicious or benign using semi-supervised machine learning. Journal of Cybersecurity 9(1), 015 (2023)

2023
[41]

Technical Report CMU-S3D-25-109, Carnegie Mellon University (2025)

Ng, L.H.X., Kang, B.N.Y., Carley, K.M.: Aurasight: Generating realistic social media data. Technical Report CMU-S3D-25-109, Carnegie Mellon University (2025). http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/anon/home/ftp/s3d2025 /CMU-S3D-25-109.pdf

2025
[42]

First Monday (2020)

Ferrara, E., Chang, H., Chen, E., Muric, G., Patel, J.: Characterizing social media manipulation in the 2020 us presidential election. First Monday (2020)

2020
[43]

In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp

Avvenuti, M., Cresci, S., Marchetti, A., Meletti, C., Tesconi, M.: Ears (earth- quake alert and report system) a real time decision support system for earthquake crisis management. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data ...

2014
[44]

Transactions in GIS 17(1), 124–147 (2013)

Crooks, A., Croitoru, A., Stefanidis, A., Radzikowski, J.: # earthquake: Twitter as a distributed sensor system. Transactions in GIS 17(1), 124–147 (2013)

2013
[45]

In: ECIS, pp

Hofeditz, L., Ehnis, C., Bunker, D., Brachten, F., Stieglitz, S.: Meaningful use of social bots? possible applications in crisis communication during disasters. In: ECIS, pp. 1–16 (2019)

2019
[46]

In: International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, pp

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

2024
[47]

First Monday (2016)

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

2016
[48]

In: International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral- cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and 15 Simulation, pp

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 15 Simulation, pp. 115–125 (2023). Springer

2023
[49]

Applied network science 8(1), 1 (2023)

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

2023
[50]

In: 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp

Badawy, A., Ferrara, E., Lerman, K.: Analyzing the digital traces of polit- ical manipulation: The 2016 russian interference twitter campaign. In: 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp. 258–265 (2018). IEEE

2018
[51]

PhD thesis, EPFL (2022)

Elmas, T.: The role of compromised accounts in social media manipulation. PhD thesis, EPFL (2022)

2022
[52]

Journal of Information Security and Applications 64, 103060 (2022)

Chen, L., Chen, J., Xia, C.: Social network behavior and public opinion manipu- lation. Journal of Information Security and Applications 64, 103060 (2022)

2022
[53]

Social Network Analysis and Mining 12(1), 105 (2022)

Danaditya, A., Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: From curious hashtags to polar- ized effect: profiling coordinated actions in indonesian twitter discourse. Social Network Analysis and Mining 12(1), 105 (2022)

2022
[54]

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

2017
[55]

Human Communication Research 48(3), 516–542 (2022)

Duan, Z., Li, J., Lukito, J., Yang, K.-C., Chen, F., Shah, D.V., Yang, S.: Algorith- mic agents in the hybrid media system: Social bots, selective amplification, and partisan news about covid-19. Human Communication Research 48(3), 516–542 (2022)

2022
[56]

Journal of Online Trust and Safety 1(2) (2022)

Magelinski, T., Ng, L., Carley, K.: A synchronized action framework for detection of coordination on social media. Journal of Online Trust and Safety 1(2) (2022)

2022
[57]

In: Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling: 13th International Conference, SBP-BRiMS 2020, Washington, DC, USA, October 18–21, 2020, Proceedings 13, pp

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
[58]

Behaviour & Information Technology 43(2), 331–352 (2024)

Sindhu, P., Bharti, K.: Influence of chatbots on purchase intention in social commerce. Behaviour & Information Technology 43(2), 331–352 (2024)

2024
[59]

Journal of Computational Social Science 5(2), 1409–1425 (2022)

Chang, H.-C.H., Ferrara, E.: Comparative analysis of social bots and humans during the covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Computational Social Science 5(2), 1409–1425 (2022)

2022
[60]

Policy & Internet 12(2), 225–248 (2020)

Gorwa, R., Guilbeault, D.: Unpacking the social media bot: A typology to guide research and policy. Policy & Internet 12(2), 225–248 (2020)

2020
[61]

International journal of communication 5, 31 (2011)

Lotan, G., Graeff, E., Ananny, M., Gaffney, D., Pearce, I.,et al.: The arab spring— 16 the revolutions were tweeted: Information flows during the 2011 tunisian and egyptian revolutions. International journal of communication 5, 31 (2011)

2011
[62]

Journal of Advertising 46(2), 236–247 (2017)

Liu, X., Burns, A.C., Hou, Y.: An investigation of brand-related user-generated content on twitter. Journal of Advertising 46(2), 236–247 (2017)

2017
[63]

Frontiers in big Data 6, 1221744 (2023)

Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: Do you hear the people sing? comparison of synchro- nized url and narrative themes in 2020 and 2023 french protests. Frontiers in big Data 6, 1221744 (2023)

2023
[64]

IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 9(2), 530–545 (2021)

Khaund, T., Kirdemir, B., Agarwal, N., Liu, H., Morstatter, F.: Social bots and their coordination during online campaigns: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 9(2), 530–545 (2021)

2021
[65]

Journal of medical Internet research 23(5), 26933 (2021)

Himelein-Wachowiak, M., Giorgi, S., Devoto, A., Rahman, M., Ungar, L., Schwartz, H.A., Epstein, D.H., Leggio, L., Curtis, B.: Bots and misinformation spread on social media: Implications for covid-19. Journal of medical Internet research 23(5), 26933 (2021)

2021
[66]

Ai Communications 29(1), 87–106 (2014)

Elyashar, A., Fire, M., Kagan, D., Elovici, Y.: Guided socialbots: Infiltrating the social networks of specific organizations’ employees. Ai Communications 29(1), 87–106 (2014)

2014
[67]

Arnaudo, D.: Computational propaganda in brazil: Social bots during elections (2017)

2017
[68]

arXiv preprint arXiv: 2004.09531 (2020)

Ferrara, E.: # covid-19 on twitter: Bots, conspiracies, and social media activism. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2004.09531 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[69]

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(1), 232–238 (2016)

Haustein, S., Bowman, T.D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C.R., Larivi` ere, V.: Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on t witter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(1), 232–238 (2016)

2016
[70]

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 26(5), 1–35 (2019)

Jhaver, S., Birman, I., Gilbert, E., Bruckman, A.: Human-machine collaboration for content regulation: The case of reddit automoderator. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 26(5), 1–35 (2019)

2019
[71]

Minds and machines 29(2), 331–338 (2019)

¨Ohman, C., Gorwa, R., Floridi, L.: Prayer-bots and religious worship on twitter: A call for a wider research agenda. Minds and machines 29(2), 331–338 (2019)

2019
[72]

In: The Palgrave Handbook of Malicious Use of AI and Psychological Security, pp

Mantello, P., Ho, T.M., Podoletz, L.: Automating extremism: Mapping the affec- tive roles of artificial agents in online radicalization. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Malicious Use of AI and Psychological Security, pp. 81–103. Springer, ??? (2023)

2023
[73]

PloS one 17 12(12), 0181405 (2017)

Benigni, M.C., Joseph, K., Carley, K.M.: Online extremism and the communities that sustain it: Detecting the isis supporting community on twitter. PloS one 17 12(12), 0181405 (2017)

2017
[74]

In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pp

Piccolo, L.S.G., Troullinou, P., Alani, H.: Chatbots to support children in coping with online threats: Socio-technical requirements. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pp. 1504–1517 (2021)

2021
[75]

Journal of Consciousness Studies 29(9-10), 222–252 (2022)

Krueger, J., Osler, L.: Communing with the dead online: chatbots, grief, and continuing bonds. Journal of Consciousness Studies 29(9-10), 222–252 (2022)

2022
[76]

Journal of Strategic Marketing 29(5), 375–389 (2021)

Moriuchi, E., Landers, V.M., Colton, D., Hair, N.: Engagement with chatbots ver- sus augmented reality interactive technology in e-commerce. Journal of Strategic Marketing 29(5), 375–389 (2021)

2021
[77]

International Journal of Communication (2016)

Neff, G.: Talking to bots: Symbiotic agency and the case of tay. International Journal of Communication (2016)

2016
[78]

Acm Sigcas Computers and Society 47(3), 54–64 (2017)

Wolf, M.J., Miller, K., Grodzinsky, F.S.: Why we should have seen that coming: comments on microsoft’s tay” experiment,” and wider implications. Acm Sigcas Computers and Society 47(3), 54–64 (2017)

2017
[79]

Veale, T., Valitutti, A., Li, G.: Twitter: The best of bot worlds for automated wit. In: Distributed, Ambient, and Pervasive Interactions: Third International Conference, DAPI 2015, Held as Part of HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 2-7, 2015, Proceedings 3, ...

2015
[80]

In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp

Elsholz, E., Chamberlain, J., Kruschwitz, U.: Exploring language style in chatbots to increase perceived product value and user engagement. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 301–305 (2019)

2019
[81]

Dis- information, Misinformation, and Fake News in Social Media: Emerging Research Challenges and Opportunities, 39–61 (2020)

Glenski, M., Volkova, S., Kumar, S.: User engagement with digital deception. Dis- information, Misinformation, and Fake News in Social Media: Emerging Research Challenges and Opportunities, 39–61 (2020)

2020
[82]

In: The Routledge Handbook of Digital Consumption, pp

Yeo, T.E.D.: Models of viral propagation in digital contexts: How messages and ideas—from internet memes to fake news—created by consumers, bots, and mar- keters spread. In: The Routledge Handbook of Digital Consumption, pp. 489–501. Routledge, ??? (2022)

2022
[83]

Sustainability 12(16), 6515 (2020)

Hong, H., Oh, H.J.: Utilizing bots for sustainable news business: Understanding users’ perspectives of news bots in the age of social media. Sustainability 12(16), 6515 (2020)

2020
[84]

Digital journalism 4(6), 682–699 (2016) 18

Lokot, T., Diakopoulos, N.: News bots: Automating news and information dissemination on twitter. Digital journalism 4(6), 682–699 (2016) 18

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: What is a social media bot? a global comparison of bot and human characteristics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00855 (2025)

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

In: Handbook of Computational Social Science, Volume 1, pp

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, pp. 304–323. Routledge, ??? (2021)

2021

[3] [3]

EPJ Data Science 12(1), 63 (2023)

Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: Deflating the chinese balloon: types of twitter bots in us-china balloon incident. EPJ Data Science 12(1), 63 (2023)

2023

[4] [4]

Journal for Social Science Archives 3(1), 265–286 (2025)

Zafar, H., Siddiqui, F.A., Arif, M.: The digital duo: Exploring the impact of ai chatbots and digital marketing strategies on consumer purchase intentions in pakistan’s e-commerce sector. Journal for Social Science Archives 3(1), 265–286 (2025)

2025

[5] [5]

Social Network Analysis and Mining 12(1), 30 (2022)

Aldayel, A., Magdy, W.: Characterizing the role of bots’ in polarized stance on social media. Social Network Analysis and Mining 12(1), 30 (2022)

2022

[6] [6]

Big Data & Society 11(1), 20539517241231275 (2024)

Ng, L.H.X., Robertson, D.C., Carley, K.M.: Cyborgs for strategic communication on social media. Big Data & Society 11(1), 20539517241231275 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Social Network Analysis and Mining 14(1), 45 (2024)

Ng, L.H.X., Carley, K.M.: Assembling a multi-platform ensemble social bot detec- tor with applications to us 2020 elections. Social Network Analysis and Mining 14(1), 45 (2024)

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Social Network Analysis and Mining 13(1), 30 (2023)

A¨ ımeur, E., Amri, S., Brassard, G.: Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review. Social Network Analysis and Mining 13(1), 30 (2023)

work page 2023