Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Leveraging Large Language Models to Detect Influence Campaigns in Social Media

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.07816 v1 pith:J3ILBVPS submitted 2023-11-14 cs.SI cs.AI

classification cs.SIcs.AI
keywords influencesocialcampaignsmediadetectionlanguagelargemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Social media influence campaigns pose significant challenges to public discourse and democracy. Traditional detection methods fall short due to the complexity and dynamic nature of social media. Addressing this, we propose a novel detection method using Large Language Models (LLMs) that incorporates both user metadata and network structures. By converting these elements into a text format, our approach effectively processes multilingual content and adapts to the shifting tactics of malicious campaign actors. We validate our model through rigorous testing on multiple datasets, showcasing its superior performance in identifying influence efforts. This research not only offers a powerful tool for detecting campaigns, but also sets the stage for future enhancements to keep up with the fast-paced evolution of social media-based influence tactics.

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

  1. Analyzing public sentiment to gauge key stock events and determine volatility in conjunction with time and options premiums

    cs.LG 2025-02 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A claim that LightGBM plus social sentiment predicts stock direction around earnings with 70.1 percent accuracy is undermined by unspecified labels, potential look-ahead bias, and no released artifacts.

Pith tools