Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 140 references

Graph-based Fake Account Detection: A Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A survey that maps the full space of graph-based fake-account detection.

desk verdict Useful broad survey of graph-based fake account detection, but a real equation inconsistency and a few citation/table slips mean it needs revision before it can serve as a reliable reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06541 v1 pith:7SZJPGBS submitted 2025-07-09 cs.SI cs.AIcs.LG

Ali Safarpoor Dehkordi , Ahad N. Zehmakan This is my paper
classification cs.SIcs.AIcs.LG
keywords fakeaccountdetectionsocialnetworksgraphneuralsybildeeplearningsurveytaxonomydatasets
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

This paper sets out to be the comprehensive structured reference for graph-based fake account detection: a single map of the field's classical algorithms, traditional machine-learning models, and deep-learning methods, together with the datasets used to evaluate them. A reader who wants to know what approaches exist, how they relate, and where the open problems are should be able to get that from this survey. The organizing claim is that the diversity of methods can be understood through a small set of consistent axes, and that graph structure is the common currency that most successful methods exploit. The survey also argues that fake accounts increasingly control their profile and content but not their position relative to real accounts, which is why graph-based detection is the right focus.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is the taxonomy of fake account detection methods, built on five axes: methodological approach (classical, traditional ML, deep learning), feature type (graph, profile, content, personal), detection time (registration, early, extended activity), supervision paradigm (supervised, semi-supervised, unsupervised), and transductive versus inductive learning. It does the work of assigning every surveyed method a place, which is what makes the comprehensiveness claim testable.

What would settle it

Reconciling the survey's own internal inconsistencies would settle the reliability question: checking whether Table 6's 'Bot2Vec [94]' refers to SEGCN [94] or to Bot2Vec [40], and verifying the TwiBot-22 fake-account count of '13,9943' against the dataset's published statistics, would show whether the survey's descriptions can be trusted as a map of the field.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The survey's central claim is that the field of graph-based fake account detection has matured into three coherent generations, classical graph algorithms, traditional machine learning on graph features, and deep learning built on graph neural networks, and that a single taxonomy can organize virtually all existing work. It further claims that these generations are connected: deep-learning methods often extend classical ideas such as random-walk scores or homophily assumptions, and heterophily, multi-relational structure, contrastive learning, and adversarial settings are the current frontier. If this organization is right, a researcher can use the survey as a reliable index of the method space and of the benchmark datasets that define progress.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's comprehensiveness claim rides on the assumption that the papers it surveys and its descriptions of them are representative and accurate, and nothing in the paper documents a search protocol or inclusion criteria to guarantee this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A newcomer to the field can identify which method generation and feature combination fits a given detection scenario, from registration-time defenses to post-activity analysis.
  • The survey's dataset catalogue tells a researcher which benchmarks are standard, what each contains, and which methods have been evaluated on them.
  • The open-problem list, heterophily, causality, cold-start, few-shot learning, explainability, and adversarial robustness, defines a concrete agenda for the next round of research.
  • Because the survey claims deep-learning methods inherit classical mechanisms, it predicts that hybrid classical-plus-neural architectures will remain a productive design pattern.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the taxonomy is as complete as claimed, a similar axis-based organization could be applied to adjacent problems such as spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior detection, which share the same graph assumptions.
  • The internal inconsistencies the text shows, such as a table entry that labels SEGCN as 'Bot2Vec [94]' and a dataset table whose fake-account count does not match its total, mean the survey's reliability claims should be checked against the original papers before the reference is used as authoritative.
  • The emphasis on heterophily suggests that performance comparisons on TwiBot-22 and MGTAB, which contain many fake-real edges, may be a better predictor of real-world success than results on older, more homophilic benchmarks.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a survey of graph-based fake account detection (FAD) methods in online social networks. It proposes a taxonomy (classical algorithms, traditional machine learning, deep learning), reviews individual methods under these headings, discusses heterophily, multi-relational graphs, contrastive learning, reinforcement learning, temporal methods, mixture of experts, federated learning, and adversarial attacks, and provides summary tables of methods and datasets. It also reviews real-world and synthesised datasets and concludes with future research directions. The paper's stated aim (Section 7.2) is to serve as a comprehensive, structured reference for the field.

Significance. If the factual content is reliable, this survey would fill a useful niche: it organises a large and scattered literature into a coherent taxonomy, covers recent deep-learning developments (heterophily-aware GNNs, contrastive learning, dynamic graphs, mixture-of-experts) alongside classical random-walk and belief-propagation methods, and gives a practical overview of benchmark datasets (Cresci-15, TwiBot-20/22, MGTAB). The method and dataset summary tables are a valuable quick-reference for researchers entering the area, and the discussion of future work (few-shot/zero-shot, cold-start, explainability, adversarial robustness) is sensible. The paper explicitly scopes itself to graph-based approaches, which is a reasonable and clearly stated choice. However, the survey's reference value is currently undercut by concrete formal and factual errors in the mathematical preliminaries and in the method/dataset tables, and by the absence of a reproducible selection protocol.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (2) and Eq. (3)] The transition matrix is defined as P[u,v] = w_{u,v}/deg(u), but the iterative update in Eq. (2) divides by deg(v), the neighbour's degree. With the stated P, Eq. (3) expands to p_t^u = sum_v (w_{u,v}/deg(u)) p_{t-1}^v, which does not reproduce Eq. (2) unless deg(u)=deg(v) for every edge. The column-stochastic convention used in PageRank and in the cited SybilRank/SybilWalk work is P[u,v] = w_{u,v}/deg(v). This is a load-bearing error: a reader using the given P to implement score propagation will obtain incorrect scores, and the survey's claim of providing a reliable formal apparatus for the classical methods fails.
  2. [Table 6] The row "Bot2Vec [94]" lists a GCN backbone and associates it with subgraph encoding, but reference [94] is SEGCN, which is correctly described in Section 5.3.2. Bot2Vec is reference [40] and is already listed in the preceding row. The table therefore contains both a duplicated name and a misattribution. Since the main text and tables are meant to serve as a structured reference, this error needs to be corrected: the row should be labelled SEGCN [94].
  3. [Table 15] The TwiBot-22 row reports the number of fake accounts as "13,9943". This value is malformed and inconsistent with the table's own totals: with #Nodes = 1,000,000 and #Real Accts = 860,057, the fake-account count must be 139,943. The misprinted figure undermines confidence in a table that is otherwise one of the paper's most useful contributions, and it must be corrected.
  4. [Section 1.3 and Section 7.2] Section 1.3 describes the survey's scope only as "explore[s] FAD research that leverages graphs", with no search protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or statement of how papers were selected and screened. Given the paper's central claim in Section 7.2 to be "a comprehensive and structured reference", the absence of a reproducible methodology makes the coverage claim unverifiable. The authors should add a short paragraph describing the databases searched, the keywords used, the time period covered, and any inclusion/exclusion rules.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1.3] The phrase "including Classical, Traditional ML, and CL methods" uses "CL" without definition; this appears to be a typo for "DL" (deep learning). Please correct the abbreviation.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] The homophily ratio as written counts edges involving unknown-labelled nodes with equal labels as homophilic (since L(v)=u is possible). The authors should clarify whether unknown nodes are excluded from the homophily computation or treated as a separate category.
  3. [Section 5.3 and Table 6] The spelling of the method name is inconsistent: the text uses "Bot2Vec" (Section 5.3.1) and the table row uses "Bot2vec". Please standardise the capitalization.
  4. [Table 2] The table entry for Effendy et al. [56] abbreviates the author list differently from the main text ("Effendy et al." vs "Effendy and Yap"); unify the citation style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain; the survey's claims are synthesis and coverage claims, and the authors' self-citation [59] is a minor, non-load-bearing entry rather than a justifying premise.

full rationale

This paper is a literature survey; it contains no fitted parameters, no derived predictions, and no benchmark experiments whose outcomes could reduce to its inputs. Its central claim is that it is 'a comprehensive and structured reference' (Section 7.2), which is a coverage and accuracy claim rather than a derivation. The only self-citation is the authors' own work [59], summarized in Section 3.3 ('Dehkordi and Zehmakan [59] introduced the notion of account resistance...'), Table 2, and Section 6.2; it is presented as one method among dozens, and the survey's taxonomy, comparisons, and conclusions do not depend on it. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz from the authors' prior work is invoked to force a choice. The formal inconsistency between Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), where the transition matrix P[u,v] = w_{u,v}/deg(u) does not reproduce the update p_t^u = sum_v (w_{u,v}/deg(v)) p_{t-1}^v, and the Table 6 label 'Bot2Vec [94]' for SEGCN are accuracy or editorial defects in the description of third-party work, not circularity, because neither makes the survey's own claims equivalent to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified; the score reflects only the presence of a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear in this survey. The central claim rests on two load-bearing assumptions about representativeness and taxonomy exhaustiveness, which are not demonstrated.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen references and categories are representative of the graph-based fake account detection literature.
    Sections 1.3 and 7.2 claim comprehensiveness without a systematic search protocol, inclusion criteria, or comparison to prior surveys.
  • domain assumption The taxonomy of methods (classical, traditional ML, deep learning; by features, detection time, supervision, inductive/transductive) captures the field's relevant dimensions.
    Section 1.1 presents these dimensions as the organizational backbone, but no formal or empirical argument shows the taxonomy is exhaustive.
  • domain assumption Graph structure is a reliable detection signal because fake accounts cannot control their position in the graph.
    Section 1.3 asserts this and many reviewed methods depend on it, while the survey itself cites Yang et al. [30] questioning it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph-based Fake Account Detection: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7SZJPGBS

@misc{pith2026250706541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph-based Fake Account Detection: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7SZJPGBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06541}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, there has been a growing effort to develop effective and efficient algorithms for fake account detection in online social networks. This survey comprehensively reviews existing methods, with a focus on graph-based techniques that utilise topological features of social graphs (in addition to account information, such as their shared contents and profile data) to distinguish between fake and real accounts. We provide several categorisations of these methods (for example, based on techniques used, input data, and detection time), discuss their strengths and limitations, and explain how these methods connect in the broader context. We also investigate the available datasets, including both real-world data and synthesised models. We conclude the paper by proposing several potential avenues for future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06541 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Taxonomy of FAD methods, categorised by methodological approaches, features, detection time, supervision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different accounts with various features. Blue edges represent the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The first row represents Supervised (a), Semi-Supervised (b), and Unsupervised (c) scenarios, which are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Structure of an OSN graph, illustrating real (green) and fake (pink) regions, homophilic edges (red and blue) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A synthesised graph showing a Fake Region and a Real Region connected by an Attack Edge. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [94]

    Segcn: a subgraph encoding based graph convolutional network model for social bot detection,

    F. Liu, Z. Li, C. Yang, D. Gong, H. Lu, and F. Liu, “Segcn: a subgraph encoding based graph convolutional network model for social bot detection,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 4122, 2024. 38 Graph-based Fake Account Detection: A Survey

    work page 2024

  2. [40]

    Bot2vec: a general approach of intra-community oriented represen- tation learning for bot detection in different types of social networks,

    P. Pham, L. T. Nguyen, B. V o, and U. Yun, “Bot2vec: a general approach of intra-community oriented represen- tation learning for bot detection in different types of social networks,” Information Systems, vol. 103, p. 101771, 2022

    2022

  3. [59]

    More efficient sybil detection mechanisms leveraging resistance of users to attack requests,

    A. S. Dehkordi and A. N. Zehmakan, “More efficient sybil detection mechanisms leveraging resistance of users to attack requests,” in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, ser. AAMAS ’25. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2025, p. 565–573

    2025

  4. [1]

    Public opinion manipulation on social media: Social network analysis of twitter bots during the covid-19 pandemic,

    Z. Weng and A. Lin, “Public opinion manipulation on social media: Social network analysis of twitter bots during the covid-19 pandemic,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, no. 24, p. 16376, 2022

    2022

  5. [2]

    Fake Followers in Influencer Marketing Will Cost Brands 1.3b$ This Year, Report Says,

    Megan Graham, “Fake Followers in Influencer Marketing Will Cost Brands 1.3b$ This Year, Report Says,” 2019, accessed: 2025-02-04. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/ fake-followers-in-influencer-marketing-will-cost-1point3-billion-in-2019.html

    2019

  6. [3]

    Assembling a multi-platform ensemble social bot detector with applications to us 2020 elections,

    L. H. X. Ng and K. M. Carley, “Assembling a multi-platform ensemble social bot detector with applications to us 2020 elections,” Social Network Analysis and Mining, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 45, 2024

    2020

  7. [4]

    Competing state and grassroots opposition influence in the 2021 hong kong election,

    S. C. Phillips, J. Uyheng, and K. M. Carley, “Competing state and grassroots opposition influence in the 2021 hong kong election,” in International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation. Springer, 2022, pp. 111–120

    2021

  8. [5]

    Active, aggressive, but to little avail: Characterizing bot activity during the 2020 singaporean elections,

    J. Uyheng, L. H. X. Ng, and K. M. Carley, “Active, aggressive, but to little avail: Characterizing bot activity during the 2020 singaporean elections,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 324–342, 2021

    2020

Show all 140 references
  1. [6]

    Computational analysis of bot activity in the asia-pacific: a comparative study of four national elections,

    J. Uyheng and K. M. Carley, “Computational analysis of bot activity in the asia-pacific: a comparative study of four national elections,” in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 15, 2021, pp. 727–738. 34 Graph-based Fake Account Detect...

    2021

  2. [7]

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

    E. Ferrara, “Disinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 french presidential election,” Arxiv Preprint arXiv:1707.00086, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  3. [8]

    An exploratory analysis of covid bot vs human disinformation dissemination stemming from the disinformation dozen on telegram,

    L. H. X. Ng, I. Kloo, S. Clark, and K. M. Carley, “An exploratory analysis of covid bot vs human disinformation dissemination stemming from the disinformation dozen on telegram,” Journal of Computational Social Science, pp. 1–26, 2024

    2024

  4. [9]

    What types of covid-19 conspiracies are populated by twitter bots?

    E. Ferrara, “What types of covid-19 conspiracies are populated by twitter bots?”Arxiv Preprint arXiv:2004.09531, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  5. [10]

    More Than 9,000 Scam Facebook Pages Deleted After Australians Lose 43.4m $ to Celebrity Deepfakes,

    Lenore Taylor, “More Than 9,000 Scam Facebook Pages Deleted After Australians Lose 43.4m $ to Celebrity Deepfakes,” 2024, accessed: 2025-02-04. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/ oct/02/more-than-9000-scam-facebook-pages-deleted-after-australians...

    2024

  6. [11]

    Be Aware of Fake Social Media Accounts: More Than 1 Billion Were Ousted in 2021,

    Steve Sbraccia, “Be Aware of Fake Social Media Accounts: More Than 1 Billion Were Ousted in 2021,” 2022, accessed: 2025-02-04. [Online]. Available: https://www.cbs17.com/news/digging-deeper/ be-aware-of-fake-social-media-accounts-more-than-1-billion-were-ousted-in-2021/

    2021

  7. [12]

    Sybilscar: Sybil detection in online social networks via local rule based propagation,

    B. Wang, L. Zhang, and N. Z. Gong, “Sybilscar: Sybil detection in online social networks via local rule based propagation,” in IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–9

    2017

  8. [13]

    Multimodal detection of bots on x (twitter) using transformers,

    L. Ilias, I. M. Kazelidis, and D. Askounis, “Multimodal detection of bots on x (twitter) using transformers,”IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2024

    2024

  9. [14]

    Rosgas: Adaptive social bot detection with reinforced self-supervised gnn architecture search,

    Y . Yang, R. Yang, Y . Li, K. Cui, Z. Yang, Y . Wang, J. Xu, and H. Xie, “Rosgas: Adaptive social bot detection with reinforced self-supervised gnn architecture search,” ACM Transactions on the Web, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1–31, 2023

    2023

  10. [15]

    Dynamicity-aware social bot detection with dynamic graph transformers,

    B. He, Y . Yang, Q. Wu, H. Liu, R. Yang, H. Peng, X. Wang, Y . Liao, and P. Zhou, “Dynamicity-aware social bot detection with dynamic graph transformers,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ser. IJCAI ’24, 2024

    2024

  11. [16]

    My brother helps me: Node injection based adversarial attack on social bot detection,

    L. Wang, X. Qiao, Y . Xie, W. Nie, Y . Zhang, and A. Liu, “My brother helps me: Node injection based adversarial attack on social bot detection,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2023, pp. 6705–6714

    2023

  12. [17]

    On using node indices and their correlations for fake account detection,

    S. Asghari, M. H. Chehreghani, and M. H. Chehreghani, “On using node indices and their correlations for fake account detection,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data. IEEE, 2022, pp. 5656–5661

    2022

  13. [18]

    Sybilframe: a defense-in-depth framework for structure-based sybil detection,

    P. Gao, N. Z. Gong, S. Kulkarni, K. Thomas, and P. Mittal, “Sybilframe: a defense-in-depth framework for structure-based sybil detection,” Arxiv Preprint arXiv:1503.02985, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Integro: Leveraging victim prediction for robust fake account detection in osns

    Y . Boshmaf, D. Logothetis, G. Siganos, J. Lería, J. Lorenzo, M. Ripeanu, and K. Beznosov, “Integro: Leveraging victim prediction for robust fake account detection in osns.” Computers & Security, vol. 61, pp. 142–168, 2016

    2016

  15. [20]

    Unveiling fake accounts at the time of registration: an unsupervised approach,

    X. Liang, Z. Yang, B. Wang, S. Hu, Z. Yang, D. Yuan, N. Z. Gong, Q. Li, and F. He, “Unveiling fake accounts at the time of registration: an unsupervised approach,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 2021, pp. 3240–3250

    2021

  16. [21]

    Friend or faux: Graph-based early detection of fake accounts on social networks,

    A. Breuer, R. Eilat, and U. Weinsberg, “Friend or faux: Graph-based early detection of fake accounts on social networks,” in Proceedings of the Web Conference, 2020, pp. 1287–1297

    2020

  17. [22]

    Gufad: a graph-based unsupervised fraud account detection framework,

    W. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Y . Huang, F. Chen, J. Wang, and X. Hu, “Gufad: a graph-based unsupervised fraud account detection framework,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Machine Learning and Computer Application, 2023, pp. 401–406

    2023

  18. [23]

    Detecting clusters of fake accounts in online social networks,

    C. Xiao, D. M. Freeman, and T. Hwa, “Detecting clusters of fake accounts in online social networks,” in Proceedings of the 8th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security, 2015, pp. 91–101

    2015

  19. [24]

    Early detection and prevention of malicious user behavior on twitter using deep learning techniques,

    R. Sánchez-Corcuera, A. Zubiaga, and A. Almeida, “Early detection and prevention of malicious user behavior on twitter using deep learning techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 2024

    2024

  20. [25]

    Botcl: a social bot detection model based on graph contrastive learning,

    Y . Li, Z. Li, D. Gong, Q. Hu, and H. Lu, “Botcl: a social bot detection model based on graph contrastive learning,” Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 1–18, 2024

    2024

  21. [26]

    An enhanced graph-based semi-supervised learning algorithm to detect fake users on twitter,

    M. Balaanand, N. Karthikeyan, S. Karthik, R. Varatharajan, G. Manogaran, and C. Sivaparthipan, “An enhanced graph-based semi-supervised learning algorithm to detect fake users on twitter,” The Journal of Supercomputing, vol. 75, no. 9, pp. 6085–6105, 2019

    2019

  22. [27]

    Unsupervised social bot detection via structural information theory,

    H. Peng, J. Zhang, X. Huang, Z. Hao, A. Li, Z. Yu, and P. S. Yu, “Unsupervised social bot detection via structural information theory,”ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1–42, 2024. 35 Graph-based Fake Account Detection: A Survey

    2024

  23. [28]

    Coarse-to-fine label propagation with hybrid representation for deep semi-supervised bot detection,

    H. Peng, Y . Zhang, X. Bai, and Q. Dai, “Coarse-to-fine label propagation with hybrid representation for deep semi-supervised bot detection,” Wireless Networks, pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  24. [29]

    Sybil detection using graph neural networks,

    S. Heeb, A. Plesner, and R. Wattenhofer, “Sybil detection using graph neural networks,” Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:2409.08631, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Uncovering social network sybils in the wild,

    Z. Yang, C. Wilson, X. Wang, T. Gao, B. Y . Zhao, and Y . Dai, “Uncovering social network sybils in the wild,” ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 2014

    2014

  26. [31]

    User behavior-based and graph-based hybrid approach for detection of sybil attack in online social networks,

    G. Jethava and U. P. Rao, “User behavior-based and graph-based hybrid approach for detection of sybil attack in online social networks,” Computers and Electrical Engineering, vol. 99, p. 107753, 2022

    2022

  27. [32]

    Fakebook: Detecting fake profiles in on-line social networks,

    M. Conti, R. Poovendran, and M. Secchiero, “Fakebook: Detecting fake profiles in on-line social networks,” in IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining. IEEE, 2012, pp. 1071–1078

    2012

  28. [33]

    Adaptive meta-learning for robust deepfake detection: a multi-agent framework to data drift and model generalization,

    D. Srivasthav P and B. Narayan Subudhi, “Adaptive meta-learning for robust deepfake detection: a multi-agent framework to data drift and model generalization,” Arxiv Preprint arXiv:2411.08148, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [34]

    Demystifying misconceptions in social bots research,

    S. Cresci, K.-c. Yang, A. Spognardi, R. Di Pietro, F. Menczer, and M. Petrocchi, “Demystifying misconceptions in social bots research,” Arxiv Preprint arXiv:2303.17251, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [35]

    Characteristics and prevalence of fake social media profiles with ai-generated faces,

    K.-c. Yang, D. Singh, and F. Menczer, “Characteristics and prevalence of fake social media profiles with ai-generated faces,” Arxiv Preprint arXiv:2401.02627, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [36]

    Analysis survey on deepfake detection and recognition with convolutional neural networks,

    S. R. Ahmed, E. SonuÇ, M. R. Ahmed, and A. D. Duru, “Analysis survey on deepfake detection and recognition with convolutional neural networks,” inInternational Congress on Human-computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications. IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–7

    2022

  32. [37]

    Mgtab: A multi-relational graph-based twitter account detection benchmark,

    S. Shi, K. Qiao, Z. Liu, J. Yang, C. Chen, J. Chen, and B. Yan, “Mgtab: A multi-relational graph-based twitter account detection benchmark,” Neurocomputing, vol. 647, p. 130490, 2025

    2025

  33. [38]

    Detect me if you can: Spam bot detection using inductive representation learning,

    S. Ali Alhosseini, R. Bin Tareaf, P. Najafi, and C. Meinel, “Detect me if you can: Spam bot detection using inductive representation learning,” in Companion Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference, 2019, pp. 148–153

    2019

  34. [39]

    Satar: a self-supervised approach to twitter account representation learning and its application in bot detection,

    S. Feng, H. Wan, N. Wang, J. Li, and M. Luo, “Satar: a self-supervised approach to twitter account representation learning and its application in bot detection,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, 2021, pp. 3808–3817

    2021

  35. [41]

    Deep graph contrastive representation learning,

    Y . Zhu, Y . Xu, F. Yu, Q. Liu, S. Wu, and L. Wang, “Deep graph contrastive representation learning,”Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:2006.04131, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  36. [42]

    A survey on graph representation learning methods,

    S. Khoshraftar and A. An, “A survey on graph representation learning methods,”ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–55, 2024

    2024

  37. [43]

    Botscl: Heterophily-aware social bot detection with supervised contrastive learning,

    Q. Wu, Y . Yang, B. He, H. Liu, R. Yang, and Y . Liao, “Botscl: Heterophily-aware social bot detection with supervised contrastive learning,” in International Conference on Pattern Recognition. Springer, 2025, pp. 53–68

    2025

  38. [44]

    Random walk based fake account detection in online social networks,

    J. Jia, B. Wang, and N. Z. Gong, “Random walk based fake account detection in online social networks,” in 47th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks. IEEE, 2017, pp. 273–284

    2017

  39. [45]

    Sybilbelief: a semi-supervised learning approach for structure-based sybil detection,

    N. Z. Gong, M. Frank, and P. Mittal, “Sybilbelief: a semi-supervised learning approach for structure-based sybil detection,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 976–987, 2014

    2014

  40. [46]

    Sybilguard: Defending against sybil attacks via social networks,

    H. Yu, M. Kaminsky, P. B. Gibbons, and A. Flaxman, “Sybilguard: Defending against sybil attacks via social networks,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications, 2006, pp. 267–278

    2006

  41. [47]

    Sybilfuse: Combining local attributes with global structure to perform robust sybil detection,

    P. Gao, B. Wang, N. Z. Gong, S. R. Kulkarni, K. Thomas, and P. Mittal, “Sybilfuse: Combining local attributes with global structure to perform robust sybil detection,” in IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security. IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–9

    2018

  42. [48]

    The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web

    L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd, “The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web.” Stanford Infolab, Tech. Rep., 1999

    1999

  43. [49]

    Aiding the detection of fake accounts in large scale social online services,

    Q. Cao, M. Sirivianos, X. Yang, and T. Pregueiro, “Aiding the detection of fake accounts in large scale social online services,” in9th Usenix Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, 2012, pp. 197–210. 36 Graph-based Fake Account Detection: A Survey

    2012

  44. [50]

    Sybillimit: a near-optimal social network defense against sybil attacks,

    H. Yu, P. B. Gibbons, M. Kaminsky, and F. Xiao, “Sybillimit: a near-optimal social network defense against sybil attacks,” in 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 2008, pp. 3–17

    2008

  45. [51]

    Sybilinfer: Detecting sybil nodes using social networks

    G. Danezis and P. Mittal, “Sybilinfer: Detecting sybil nodes using social networks.” in Ndss, vol. 9. San Diego, Ca, 2009, pp. 1–15

    2009

  46. [52]

    Sybildefender: Defend against sybil attacks in large social networks,

    W. Wei, F. Xu, C. C. Tan, and Q. Li, “Sybildefender: Defend against sybil attacks in large social networks,” in Proceedings OF IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 2012, pp. 1951–1959

    2012

  47. [53]

    Sok: the evolution of sybil defense via social networks,

    L. Alvisi, A. Clement, A. Epasto, S. Lattanzi, and A. Panconesi, “Sok: the evolution of sybil defense via social networks,” in IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 2013, pp. 382–396

    2013

  48. [54]

    Similcatch: Enhanced social spammers detection on twitter using markov random fields,

    N. El-mawass, P. Honeine, and L. Vercouter, “Similcatch: Enhanced social spammers detection on twitter using markov random fields,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 57, no. 6, p. 102317, 2020

    2020

  49. [55]

    Sybilhp: Sybil detection in directed social networks with adaptive homophily prediction,

    H. Lu, D. Gong, Z. Li, F. Liu, and F. Liu, “Sybilhp: Sybil detection in directed social networks with adaptive homophily prediction,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 9, p. 5341, 2023

    2023

  50. [56]

    The strong link graph for enhancing sybil defenses,

    S. Effendy and R. H. Yap, “The strong link graph for enhancing sybil defenses,” in IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. IEEE, 2017, pp. 944–954

    2017

  51. [57]

    Sybilhunter: Hybrid graph-based sybil detection by aggregating user behaviors,

    J. Mao, X. Li, X. Luo, and Q. Lin, “Sybilhunter: Hybrid graph-based sybil detection by aggregating user behaviors,” Neurocomputing, vol. 500, pp. 295–306, 2022

    2022

  52. [58]

    Enhancing sybil detection via social-activity networks: a random walk approach,

    X. Zhang, H. Xie, P. Yi, and J. C. Lui, “Enhancing sybil detection via social-activity networks: a random walk approach,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1213–1227, 2022

    2022

  53. [60]

    Preemptive detection of fake accounts on social networks via multi-class preferential attachment classifiers,

    A. Breuer, N. Khosravani, M. Tingley, and B. Cottel, “Preemptive detection of fake accounts on social networks via multi-class preferential attachment classifiers,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2023, pp. 105–116

    2023

  54. [61]

    Ricc: Robust collective classification of sybil accounts,

    D. Shin, S. Lee, and S. Son, “Ricc: Robust collective classification of sybil accounts,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference, 2023, pp. 2329–2339

    2023

  55. [62]

    Sybilblind: Detecting fake users in online social networks without manual labels,

    B. Wang, L. Zhang, and N. Z. Gong, “Sybilblind: Detecting fake users in online social networks without manual labels,” in Research in Attacks, Intrusions, and Defenses: 21st International Symposium. Springer, 2018, pp. 228–249

    2018

  56. [63]

    Sybil detection as graph filtering,

    S. Furutani, T. Shibahara, K. Hato, M. Akiyama, and M. Aida, “Sybil detection as graph filtering,” in Globecom 2020-2020 IEEE Global Communications Conference. IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  57. [64]

    Interpreting graph-based sybil detection methods as low-pass filtering,

    S. Furutani, T. Shibahara, M. Akiyama, and M. Aida, “Interpreting graph-based sybil detection methods as low-pass filtering,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 18, pp. 1225–1236, 2023

    2023

  58. [65]

    Tsd: Detecting sybil accounts in twitter,

    M. Alsaleh, A. Alarifi, A. M. Al-salman, M. Alfayez, and A. Almuhaysin, “Tsd: Detecting sybil accounts in twitter,” in 13th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications. IEEE, 2014, pp. 463–469

    2014

  59. [66]

    Twitter fake account detection,

    B. Er¸ Sahin, ö. Akta¸ S, D. KılınÇ, and C. Akyol, “Twitter fake account detection,” inInternational Conference on Computer Science and Engineering. IEEE, 2017, pp. 388–392

    2017

  60. [67]

    Botshape: a novel social bots detection approach via behavioral patterns,

    J. Wu, X. Ye, and C. Mou, “Botshape: a novel social bots detection approach via behavioral patterns,” Arxiv Preprint arXiv:2303.10214, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  61. [68]

    An efficient fake account identi- fication in social media networks: Facebook and instagram using nsga-ii algorithm,

    A. Sallah, E. A. Abdellaoui Alaoui, A. Hessane, S. Agoujil, and A. Nayyar, “An efficient fake account identi- fication in social media networks: Facebook and instagram using nsga-ii algorithm,” Neural Computing and Applications, pp. 1–29, 2024

    2024

  62. [69]

    Identifying fake accounts on social networks based on graph analysis and classification algorithms,

    M. Mohammadrezaei, M. E. Shiri, and A. M. Rahmani, “Identifying fake accounts on social networks based on graph analysis and classification algorithms,” Security and Communication Networks, vol. 2018, no. 1, p. 5923156, 2018

    2018

  63. [70]

    Leveraging node neighborhoods and egograph topology for better bot detection in social graphs,

    B. Bebensee, N. Nazarov, and B.-T. Zhang, “Leveraging node neighborhoods and egograph topology for better bot detection in social graphs,” Social Network Analysis and Mining, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 10, 2021

    2021

  64. [71]

    Detecting fake accounts in online social networks at the time of registrations,

    D. Yuan, Y . Miao, N. Z. Gong, Z. Yang, Q. Li, D. Song, Q. Wang, and X. Liang, “Detecting fake accounts in online social networks at the time of registrations,” inProceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2019, pp. 1423–1438. 37 Graph-ba...

    2019

  65. [72]

    Graph2vec: Learning distributed representations of graphs,

    A. Narayanan, M. Chandramohan, R. Venkatesan, L. Chen, Y . Liu, and S. Jaiswal, “Graph2vec: Learning distributed representations of graphs,” Arxiv Preprint arXiv:1707.05005, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Adversarial socialbots modeling based on structural information principles,

    X. Zeng, H. Peng, and A. Li, “Adversarial socialbots modeling based on structural information principles,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 1, 2024, pp. 392–400

    2024

  67. [74]

    Bot detection on social networks using persistent homology,

    M. Nguyen, M. Aktas, and E. Akbas, “Bot detection on social networks using persistent homology,”Mathematical and Computational Applications, vol. 25, no. 3, p. 58, 2020

    2020

  68. [75]

    Botfinder: a novel framework for social bots detection in online social networks based on graph embedding and community detection,

    S. Li, C. Zhao, Q. Li, J. Huang, D. Zhao, and P. Zhu, “Botfinder: a novel framework for social bots detection in online social networks based on graph embedding and community detection,” World Wide Web, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1793–1809, 2023

    2023

  69. [76]

    Node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks,

    A. Grover and J. Leskovec, “Node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2016, pp. 855–864

    2016

  70. [77]

    An efficient victim prediction for sybil detection in online social network,

    Q. Zhou and G. Chen, “An efficient victim prediction for sybil detection in online social network,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 123 228–123 237, 2020

    2020

  71. [78]

    Fake account detection with attention-based graph convolution networks,

    P. Yang and Z. Zheng, “Fake account detection with attention-based graph convolution networks,” inIEEE 3rd International Conference on Automation, Electronics and Electrical Engineering. IEEE, 2020, pp. 106–110

    2020

  72. [79]

    Graph neural networks based framework to analyze social media platforms for malicious user detection,

    Z. Khan, Z. Khan, B.-g. Lee, H. K. Kim, and M. Jeon, “Graph neural networks based framework to analyze social media platforms for malicious user detection,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 155, p. 111416, 2024

    2024

  73. [80]

    Over-sampling strategy in feature space for graphs based class-imbalanced bot detection,

    S. Shi, K. Qiao, C. Chen, J. Yang, J. Chen, and B. Yan, “Over-sampling strategy in feature space for graphs based class-imbalanced bot detection,” in Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference, 2024, pp. 738–741

    2024

  74. [81]

    Social botnet community detection: a novel approach based on behavioral similarity in twitter network using deep learning,

    G. Lingam, R. R. Rout, D. V . Somayajulu, and S. K. Das, “Social botnet community detection: a novel approach based on behavioral similarity in twitter network using deep learning,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2020, p...

    2020

  75. [82]

    Trustgcn: Enabling graph convolutional network for robust sybil detection in osns,

    Y . Sun, Z. Yang, and Y . Dai, “Trustgcn: Enabling graph convolutional network for robust sybil detection in osns,” in IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining. IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–7

    2020

  76. [83]

    Rf-gnn: Random forest boosted graph neural network for social bot detection,

    S. Shi, K. Qiao, J. Yang, B. Song, J. Chen, and B. Yan, “Rf-gnn: Random forest boosted graph neural network for social bot detection,” Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:2304.08239, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Uncovering malicious accounts in online social networks using xgboost and graph convolution networks,

    Y . Tang, D. Zhang, K.-c. Li, and J. Yuan, “Uncovering malicious accounts in online social networks using xgboost and graph convolution networks,”IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 2024

    2024

  78. [85]

    Sstackgnn: Graph data augmentation simplified stacking graph neural network for twitter bot detection,

    S. Shi, J. Chen, Z. Wang, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhang, C. Fu, K. Qiao, and B. Yan, “Sstackgnn: Graph data augmentation simplified stacking graph neural network for twitter bot detection,” International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 106, 2024

    2024

  79. [86]

    Markov-driven graph convolutional networks for social spammer detection,

    L. Deng, C. Wu, D. Lian, Y . Wu, and E. Chen, “Markov-driven graph convolutional networks for social spammer detection,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 12 310–12 322, 2022

    2022

  80. [87]

    Multi-modal social bot detection: Learning homophilic and heterophilic connections adaptively,

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

    2023

  81. [88]

    Cgnn: a compatibility-aware graph neural network for social media bot detection,

    H. Huang, H. Tian, X. Zheng, X. Zhang, D. D. Zeng, and F.-y. Wang, “Cgnn: a compatibility-aware graph neural network for social media bot detection,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 2024

    2024

  82. [89]

    Dispelling the fake: Social bot detection based on edge confidence evaluation,

    B. Qiao, W. Zhou, K. Li, S. Li, and S. Hu, “Dispelling the fake: Social bot detection based on edge confidence evaluation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2024

    2024

  83. [90]

    Semi-supervised social bot detection with initial residual relation attention networks,

    M. Zhou, W. Feng, Y . Zhu, D. Zhang, Y . Dong, and J. Tang, “Semi-supervised social bot detection with initial residual relation attention networks,” in Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, 2023, pp. 207–224

    2023

  84. [91]

    Hofa: Twitter bot detection with homophily- oriented augmentation and frequency adaptive attention,

    S. Ye, Z. Tan, Z. Lei, R. He, H. Wang, Q. Zheng, and M. Luo, “Hofa: Twitter bot detection with homophily- oriented augmentation and frequency adaptive attention,”Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:2306.12870, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Bot prediction on social networks of twitter in altmetrics using deep graph convolutional networks,

    N. R. Aljohani, A. Fayoumi, and S.-u. Hassan, “Bot prediction on social networks of twitter in altmetrics using deep graph convolutional networks,”Soft Computing, vol. 24, no. 15, pp. 11 109–11 120, 2020

    2020

  86. [93]

    Accou2vec: a social bot detection model based on community walk,

    F. Liu, C. Yang, Z. Li, D. Gong, R. Ma, and F. Liu, “Accou2vec: a social bot detection model based on community walk,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2023

    2023

  87. [95]

    Bsg4bot: Efficient bot detection based on biased heterogeneous subgraphs,

    H. Miao, Z. Liu, and J. Gao, “Bsg4bot: Efficient bot detection based on biased heterogeneous subgraphs,” in IEEE 41st International Conference on Data Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 2025, pp. 1236–1249

    2025

  88. [96]

    Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks,

    M. Schlichtkrull, T. N. Kipf, P. Bloem, R. Van Den Berg, I. Titov, and M. Welling, “Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks,” inThe Semantic Web: 15th International Conference. Springer, 2018, pp. 593–607

    2018

  89. [97]

    Botrgcn: Twitter bot detection with relational graph convolutional networks,

    S. Feng, H. Wan, N. Wang, and M. Luo, “Botrgcn: Twitter bot detection with relational graph convolutional networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, 2021, pp. 236–239

    2021

  90. [98]

    Integrating higher-order relations for enhanced twitter bot detection,

    S. Reiche, S. Cohen, K. Simonov, and T. Friedrich, “Integrating higher-order relations for enhanced twitter bot detection,” Social Network Analysis and Mining, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 207, 2024

    2024

  91. [99]

    A graph neural architecture search approach for identifying bots in social media,

    G. Tzoumanekas, M. Chatzianastasis, L. Ilias, G. Kiokes, J. Psarras, and D. Askounis, “A graph neural architecture search approach for identifying bots in social media,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 7, p. 1509179, 2024

    2024

  92. [100]

    Botrga: Neighborhood-aware twitter bot detection with relational graph aggregation,

    W. Wang, Q. Wang, T. Zang, X. Zhang, L. Liu, T. Yang, and Y . Wang, “Botrga: Neighborhood-aware twitter bot detection with relational graph aggregation,” in International Conference on Computational Science. Springer, 2024, pp. 162–176

    2024

  93. [101]

    Tcae-dl-rgcn based detection of twitter robots,

    H. Du, C. Wu, P. He, and H. Li, “Tcae-dl-rgcn based detection of twitter robots,” in IEEE 7th International Conference on Big Data and Artificial Intelligence. IEEE, 2024, pp. 193–198

    2024

  94. [102]

    Bot-mgat: a transfer learning model based on a multi-view graph attention network to detect social bots,

    E. Alothali, M. Salih, K. Hayawi, and H. Alashwal, “Bot-mgat: a transfer learning model based on a multi-view graph attention network to detect social bots,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 16, p. 8117, 2022

    2022

  95. [103]

    Sybilflyover: Heterogeneous graph-based fake account detection model on social networks,

    S. Li, J. Yang, G. Liang, T. Li, and K. Zhao, “Sybilflyover: Heterogeneous graph-based fake account detection model on social networks,” Knowledge-based Systems, vol. 258, p. 110038, 2022

    2022

  96. [104]

    Heterogeneous graph transformer,

    Z. Hu, Y . Dong, K. Wang, and Y . Sun, “Heterogeneous graph transformer,” inProceedings of the Web Conference, 2020, pp. 2704–2710

    2020

  97. [105]

    Social bots detection via fusing bert and graph convolutional networks,

    Q. Guo, H. Xie, Y . Li, W. Ma, and C. Zhang, “Social bots detection via fusing bert and graph convolutional networks,” Symmetry, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 30, 2021

    2021

  98. [106]

    Gnnri: Detecting anomalous social network users through heterogeneous information networks and user relevance exploration,

    Y . Li, X. Sun, R. Yang, X. Sun, S. Chen, S. Wang, M. Z. A. Bhuiyan, A. Y . Zomaya, and J. Xu, “Gnnri: Detecting anomalous social network users through heterogeneous information networks and user relevance exploration,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics...

    2024

  99. [107]

    Bic: Twitter bot detection with text-graph interaction and semantic consistency,

    Z. Lei, H. Wan, W. Zhang, S. Feng, Z. Chen, J. Li, Q. Zheng, and M. Luo, “Bic: Twitter bot detection with text-graph interaction and semantic consistency,”Arxiv Preprint arXiv:2208.08320, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Ets-mm: a multi-modal social bot detection model based on enhanced textual semantic representation,

    W. Li, J. Deng, J. You, Y . He, Y . Zhuang, and F. Ren, “Ets-mm: a multi-modal social bot detection model based on enhanced textual semantic representation,” in The Web Conference, 2025

    2025

  101. [109]

    Detection of fake accounts on social media using multimodal data with deep learning,

    B. Goyal, N. S. Gill, P. Gulia, O. Prakash, I. Priyadarshini, R. Sharma, A. J. Obaid, and K. Yadav, “Detection of fake accounts on social media using multimodal data with deep learning,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 2023

    2023

  102. [110]

    Enhancing twitter bot detection via multimodal invariant representations,

    J. Gong, J. Peng, J. Qu, S. Du, and K. Wang, “Enhancing twitter bot detection via multimodal invariant representations,” Arxiv Preprint arXiv:2408.03096, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Cacl: Community-aware heterogeneous graph contrastive learning for social media bot detection,

    S. Chen, S. Feng, S. Liang, C.-c. Zong, J. Li, and P. Li, “Cacl: Community-aware heterogeneous graph contrastive learning for social media bot detection,” Arxiv Preprint arXiv:2405.10558, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Unsupervised twitter social bot detection using deep contrastive graph clustering,

    X. Wang, K. Wang, K. Chen, Z. Wang, and K. Zheng, “Unsupervised twitter social bot detection using deep contrastive graph clustering,” Knowledge-based Systems, vol. 293, p. 111690, 2024

    2024

  105. [113]

    Sebot: Structural entropy guided multi-view contrastive learning for social bot detection,

    Y . Yang, Q. Wu, B. He, H. Peng, R. Yang, Z. Hao, and Y . Liao, “Sebot: Structural entropy guided multi-view contrastive learning for social bot detection,” inProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2024, pp. 3841–3852

    2024

  106. [114]

    Detecting social bot on the fly using contrastive learning,

    M. Zhou, D. Zhang, Y . Wang, Y .-a. Geng, and J. Tang, “Detecting social bot on the fly using contrastive learning,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2023, pp. 4995–5001

    2023

  107. [115]

    Sega: Preference-aware self-contrastive learning with prompts for anomalous user detection on twitter,

    Y .-y. Chang, W.-y. Wang, and W.-c. Peng, “Sega: Preference-aware self-contrastive learning with prompts for anomalous user detection on twitter,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 1, 2024, pp. 30–37. 39 Graph-based Fake Account Det...

    2024

  108. [116]

    Dgbot: a deglobalizing graph transformer model for bot detection,

    J. Xu, Q. Wang, and C. Lin, “Dgbot: a deglobalizing graph transformer model for bot detection,” in IEEE/ACIS 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing. IEEE, 2024, pp. 72–75

    2024

  109. [117]

    Enhancing graph neural network-based fraud detectors against camouflaged fraudsters,

    Y . Dou, Z. Liu, L. Sun, Y . Deng, H. Peng, and P. S. Yu, “Enhancing graph neural network-based fraud detectors against camouflaged fraudsters,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, 2020, pp. 315–324

    2020

  110. [118]

    Social bot detection based on window strategy,

    B. Qiao, K. Li, W. Zhou, Z. Yan, S. Li, and S. Hu, “Social bot detection based on window strategy,” inIEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. IEEE, 2023, pp. 2201–2206

    2023

  111. [119]

    Are we really making much progress? revisiting, benchmarking and refining heterogeneous graph neural networks,

    Q. Lv, M. Ding, Q. Liu, Y . Chen, W. Feng, S. He, C. Zhou, J. Jiang, Y . Dong, and J. Tang, “Are we really making much progress? revisiting, benchmarking and refining heterogeneous graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery ...

    2021

  112. [120]

    Adaptive mixture of domain-aware experts for detecting social bots,

    Q. Lu, S. Li, K. Li, W. Zhou, and L. Zang, “Adaptive mixture of domain-aware experts for detecting social bots,” in 27th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design. IEEE, 2024, pp. 2072–2077

    2024

  113. [121]

    Botmoe: Twitter bot detection with community- aware mixtures of modal-specific experts,

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

    2023

  114. [122]

    Domain-aware federated social bot detection with multi-relational graph neural networks,

    H. Peng, Y . Zhang, H. Sun, X. Bai, Y . Li, and S. Wang, “Domain-aware federated social bot detection with multi-relational graph neural networks,” in International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–8

    2022

  115. [123]

    Fedkg: a knowledge distillation-based federated graph method for social bot detection,

    X. Wang, K. Chen, K. Wang, Z. Wang, K. Zheng, and J. Zhang, “Fedkg: a knowledge distillation-based federated graph method for social bot detection,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 11, p. 3481, 2024

    2024

  116. [124]

    Fedack: Federated adversarial contrastive knowledge distillation for cross-lingual and cross-model social bot detection,

    Y . Yang, R. Yang, H. Peng, Y . Li, T. Li, Y . Liao, and P. Zhou, “Fedack: Federated adversarial contrastive knowledge distillation for cross-lingual and cross-model social bot detection,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference, 2023, pp. 1314–1323

    2023

  117. [125]

    Adversarial attacks on neural networks for graph data,

    D. Zügner, A. Akbarnejad, and S. Günnemann, “Adversarial attacks on neural networks for graph data,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 2018, pp. 2847–2856

    2018

  118. [126]

    Social bot detection on twitter: Robustness evaluation and improvement,

    A. Liu, Y . Xie, L. Wang, G. Jin, J. Guo, and J. Li, “Social bot detection on twitter: Robustness evaluation and improvement,” Multimedia Systems, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1–11, 2024

    2024

  119. [127]

    Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake twitter followers,

    S. Cresci, R. Di Pietro, M. Petrocchi, A. Spognardi, and M. Tesconi, “Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake twitter followers,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 80, pp. 56–71, 2015

    2015

  120. [128]

    Twibot-20: a comprehensive twitter bot detection benchmark,

    S. Feng, H. Wan, N. Wang, J. Li, and M. Luo, “Twibot-20: a comprehensive twitter bot detection benchmark,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, 2021, pp. 4485–4494

    2021

  121. [129]

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

    S. Feng, Z. Tan, H. Wan, N. Wang, Z. Chen, B. Zhang, Q. Zheng, W. Zhang, Z. Lei, S. Yang, and Others, “Twibot-22: Towards graph-based twitter bot detection,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 35 254–35 269, 2022

    2022

  122. [130]

    SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection,

    J. Leskovec and A. Krevl, “SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection,” jun 2014. [Online]. Available: http://snap.stanford.edu/data/

    2014

  123. [131]

    The network data repository with interactive graph analytics and visualization,

    R. Rossi and N. Ahmed, “The network data repository with interactive graph analytics and visualization,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 29, no. 1, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://networkrepository.com/

    2015

  124. [132]

    Emergence of scaling in random networks,

    A.-L. Barabási and R. Albert, “Emergence of scaling in random networks,” Science, vol. 286, no. 5439, pp. 509–512, 1999

    1999

  125. [133]

    On the evolution of random graphs,

    P. Erdos, A. Rényi et al., “On the evolution of random graphs,” Publications of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 17–60, 1960

    1960

  126. [134]

    Heterogeneity-aware twitter bot detection with relational graph transformers,

    S. Feng, Z. Tan, R. Li, and M. Luo, “Heterogeneity-aware twitter bot detection with relational graph transformers,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, no. 4, 2022, pp. 3977–3985

    2022

  127. [135]

    Heterophilic graph neural networks optimization with causal message-passing,

    B. Wang, J. Li, H. Chang, K. Zhang, and F. Tsung, “Heterophilic graph neural networks optimization with causal message-passing,” in Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 2025, pp. 829–837. 40 Graph-based Fake Account Detectio...

    2025

  128. [136]

    Orphicx: a causality-inspired latent variable model for interpreting graph neural networks,

    W. Lin, H. Lan, H. Wang, and B. Li, “Orphicx: a causality-inspired latent variable model for interpreting graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 13 729–13 738

    2022

  129. [137]

    A review of few-shot and zero-shot learning for node classification in social networks,

    J. Chen, R. Mi, H. Wang, H. Wu, J. Mo, J. Guo, Z. Lai, L. Zhang, and V . C. Leung, “A review of few-shot and zero-shot learning for node classification in social networks,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 2024

    2024

  130. [138]

    Graph neural patching for cold-start recommendations,

    H. Chen, Y . Yang, Y . Bei, Z. Wang, Y . Xu, and F. Huang, “Graph neural patching for cold-start recommendations,” in Australasian Database Conference. Springer, 2025, pp. 334–346

    2025

  131. [139]

    G-sparc: Spectral architectures tackling the cold-start problem in graph learning,

    Y . Jacobs, R. Dayan, and U. Shaham, “G-sparc: Spectral architectures tackling the cold-start problem in graph learning,” Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:2411.01532, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  132. [140]

    Explainability in graph neural networks: a taxonomic survey,

    H. Yuan, H. Yu, S. Gui, and S. Ji, “Explainability in graph neural networks: a taxonomic survey,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 5782–5799, 2022. 41

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.