Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 5 cited by

Detection and Characterization of Coordinated Online Behavior: A Survey

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-23 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A survey reconciles definitions of coordinated online behavior and proposes a framework to guide detection and characterization efforts.

desk verdict This survey organizes literature on coordinated online behavior with a framework and reconciled definitions, but adds no new empirical results or deep methodological fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2408.01257 v2 submitted 2024-08-02 cs.SI cs.AIcs.CYcs.HCcs.LG

Lorenzo Mannocci , Michele Mazza , Anna Monreale , Maurizio Tesconi , Stefano Cresci This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.AIcs.CYcs.HCcs.LG
keywords coordinatedonlinebehaviorsocialmediacoordinationdisinformationdetectionsurveyframeworkproposalmanipulationmethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper collects and organizes research on coordinated online behavior, which can support both constructive communities and harmful campaigns like disinformation. It brings together industry and academic definitions to create a common ground. From this, the authors build a comprehensive framework for studying such behavior and review methods for detecting and characterizing it. By identifying open challenges, the work aims to direct future research in this area.

What carries the argument

The comprehensive framework to study coordinated online behavior, which serves to categorize and integrate various definitions, detection methods, and characterization approaches.

What would settle it

Discovery of a major coordinated behavior phenomenon or detection method that does not fit into any category of the proposed framework would challenge its comprehensiveness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a unified framework, built by reconciling industry and academic definitions of coordinated online behavior, allows for a systematic review and critical discussion of detection and characterization methods, revealing open challenges and promising research directions.

Load-bearing premise

The existing body of work on coordinated online behavior is sufficiently mature and representative to allow a comprehensive categorization and framework proposal without significant omissions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standardized definitions enable more consistent research across academic and industry settings.
  • Detection methods can be evaluated and compared within the proposed categories.
  • Characterization techniques become more structured for analyzing coordinated activities.
  • Open challenges guide the development of new tools for addressing online manipulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applying the framework to emerging platforms could reveal new coordination patterns not covered in current literature.
  • Integration with machine learning advancements might improve the scalability of detection methods discussed.
  • Policymakers could use the framework to design regulations targeting specific types of coordinated behavior.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a survey that collects, categorizes, and critically discusses research on coordinated online behavior. It reconciles industry and academic definitions of coordination, proposes a comprehensive framework for studying such behavior, reviews existing detection and characterization methods, and identifies open challenges and promising research directions to guide scholars, practitioners, and policymakers.

Significance. If the proposed framework is robustly derived and the review is representative, the work could standardize terminology and provide a useful synthesis for an emerging interdisciplinary area. The manuscript earns credit for explicitly attempting to bridge industry and academic perspectives and for structuring the discussion around both detection and characterization methods rather than detection alone.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: the claim of delivering a 'comprehensive framework' and review without 'significant omissions' is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the text provides no description of literature search strategy, databases queried, time window, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. This omission prevents readers from assessing whether the categorization and framework are representative of the field.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the survey 'critically discusses' methods, but the provided text does not illustrate the depth of that critique (e.g., no explicit comparison of false-positive rates or scalability across cited approaches). Adding one or two concrete examples of critical analysis would strengthen the claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the recommendation of minor revision. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: the claim of delivering a 'comprehensive framework' and review without 'significant omissions' is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the text provides no description of literature search strategy, databases queried, time window, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. This omission prevents readers from assessing whether the categorization and framework are representative of the field.

    Authors: We agree that explicitly describing the literature search process is necessary to substantiate claims of comprehensiveness. In the revised version we will insert a dedicated 'Survey Methodology' subsection (placed after the introduction) that details: (i) the databases and repositories queried (Google Scholar, Scopus, arXiv, ACM Digital Library, and selected conference proceedings), (ii) the time window (2010–2024), (iii) the Boolean search strings and keywords employed, and (iv) the inclusion/exclusion criteria together with the number of papers screened and retained. This addition will allow readers to evaluate the representativeness of the proposed framework and categorization. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: survey of external literature

full rationale

This is a survey paper that collects, categorizes, and critically discusses an existing body of external work on coordinated online behavior. It reconciles industry/academic definitions and proposes a framework based on reviewed literature, without any derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions that reduce to self-referential content. No load-bearing self-citations or self-definitional steps are present; the central claims rest on synthesis of independent prior research. The weakest assumption (representativeness of the literature) is standard for surveys and does not create internal circularity.

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

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced; the paper relies on standard literature review practices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection and Characterization of Coordinated Online Behavior: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2408.01257

@misc{pith2026240801257,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection and Characterization of Coordinated Online Behavior: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2408.01257}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2408.01257}
}
read the original abstract

Coordination is a fundamental aspect of life. The advent of social media has made it integral also to online human interactions, such as those that characterize thriving online communities and social movements. At the same time, coordination is also core to effective disinformation, manipulation, and hate campaigns. This survey collects, categorizes, and critically discusses the body of work produced as a result of the growing interest on coordinated online behavior. We reconcile industry and academic definitions, propose a comprehensive framework to study coordinated online behavior, and review and critically discuss the existing detection and characterization methods. Our analysis identifies open challenges and promising directions of research, serving as a guide for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers in understanding and addressing the complexities inherent to online coordination.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.01257 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Coordination is a fundamental aspect of online human interactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Taxonomy of coordinated online behavior ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The analytical process of studying coordinated online behavior, involving the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Main steps of the network science methods for the detection of coordinated online behavior. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Differences between social (A), interaction (B), and coordination (C) networks. Solid black edges represent actions on the online platform, while dashed colored edges show how actions are translated into edges in the corresponding type of network. Coordination networks…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of works focused on different types of coordinated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. IO Factory: Simulating AI-Enabled Influence Campaigns at Scale

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A framework that simulates AI influence campaigns end to end, recording exposure and belief shifts in a controlled platform with matched baselines.

  2. Discovering Coordinated Processes From Social Online Networks

    cs.SI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Retweet event logs mined into stochastic Petri nets show structural and timing differences between coordinated bot and ordinary user behavior.

  3. Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior on TikTok: Challenges and Opportunities for Detection in a Video-First Ecosystem

    cs.SI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A TikTok-adapted network method surfaces clusters of likely coordinated accounts during the 2024 US election, but validation rests on manual inspection rather than a labeled benchmark.

  4. IOHunter: Graph Foundation Model to Uncover Online Information Operations

    cs.SI 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    IOHunter detects information-operation drivers by fusing frozen language-model text embeddings with a GNN over a fused user-similarity network, reporting SOTA Macro-F1 on six Twitter IO datasets and cross-country tran...

  5. Generative AI and Digital Ecosystem Resilience: A Proactive Lifecycle-Based Survey

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    This survey introduces the C5 Interaction Model as a unifying taxonomy to synthesize proactive detection methods for GenAI-enabled adversarial narratives across socio-technical and computational research streams.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 143 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Iuliia Alieva, Lynnette H. X. Ng, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2022. Investigating the spread of Russian disinformation about biolabs in Ukraine on Twitter using social network analysis. In IEEE BigData. 1770–1775

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Hans Asenbaum. 2018. Cyborg activism: Exploring the reconfigurations of democratic subjectivity in Anonymous. New Media & Society 20, 4 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Dennis Assenmacher, Lena Adam, Heike Trautmann, and Christian Grimme. 2020. Towards real-time and unsupervised campaign detection in social media. In AAAI FLAIRS. 303–307

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Pohl, Heike Trautmann, and Christian Grimme

    Dennis Assenmacher, Lena Clever, Janina S. Pohl, Heike Trautmann, and Christian Grimme. 2020. A two-phase framework for detecting manipulation campaigns in social media. In HCII. 201–214

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Helmy H. Baligh. 1986. Decision rules and transactions, organizations and markets. Management Science 32, 11 (1986), 1480–1491

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Baligh and Richard M

    Helmy H. Baligh and Richard M. Burton. 1981. Describing and designing organizational structures and processes. International Journal of Policy Analysis and Information Systems 5, 4 (1981), 251–266

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Fabio Barbero, Sander op den Camp, et al. 2023. Multi-modal embeddings for isolating cross-platform coordinated information campaigns on social media. In MISDOOM. 14–28

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Daniele Bellutta and Kathleen M. Carley. 2023. Investigating coordinated account creation using burst detection and network analysis. Journal of Big Data 10, 1 (2023), 1–17

    work page 2023

Show all 143 references
  1. [9]

    Lance Bennett and Alexandra Segerberg

    W. Lance Bennett and Alexandra Segerberg. 2012. The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society 15, 5 (2012), 739–768

    2012

  2. [10]

    Borgatti

    Stephen P. Borgatti. 2005. Centrality and network flow. Social Networks 27, 1 (2005), 55–71

    2005

  3. [11]

    D. A. Broniatowski. 2021. Towards statistical foundations for detecting coordinated inauthentic behavior on Facebook . Technical Report. Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics, The George Washington University

    2021

  4. [12]

    Axel Bruns, Tim Highfield, and Jean Burgess. 2013. The Arab Spring and social media audiences: English and Arabic Twitter users and their networks. American Behavioral Scientist 57, 7 (2013), 871–898

    2013

  5. [13]

    Keith Burghardt, Ashwin Rao, Georgios Chochlakis, Baruah Sabyasachee, Siyi Guo, Zihao He, Andrew Rojecki, Shrikanth Narayanan, and Kristina Lerman. 2024. Socio-linguistic characteristics of coordinated inauthentic accounts. In AAAI ICWSM, Vol. 18. 164–176

    2024

  6. [14]

    Cheng Cao, James Caverlee, Kyumin Lee, Hancheng Ge, and Jin-Wook Chung. 2015. Organic or organized?: Exploring URL sharing behavior. In ACM CIKM. 513–522

    2015

  7. [15]

    Valerio Capraro and Matjaž Perc. 2024. In search of the most cooperative network. Nature Computational Science 4, 4 (2024), 257–258

    2024

  8. [16]

    Matthias Carnein, Dennis Assenmacher, and Heike Trautmann. 2017. Stream clustering of chat messages with applications to Twitch streams. In ER. 79–88

    2017

  9. [17]

    Victor Chomel, Maziyar Panahi, and David Chavalarias. 2023. Manipulation during the French presidential campaign: Coordinated inauthentic behaviors and astroturfing analysis on text and images. In CNA. 121–134. Manuscript submitted to ACM 32 Mannocci et al

    2023

  10. [18]

    Lorenzo Cima, Lorenzo Mannocci, Marco Avvenuti, Maurizio Tesconi, and Stefano Cresci. 2024. Coordinated behavior in information operations on Twitter. IEEE Access 11 (2024), 61568–61585

    2024

  11. [19]

    Matteo Cinelli, Stefano Cresci, Walter Quattrociocchi, Maurizio Tesconi, and Paola Zola. 2022. Coordinated inauthentic behavior and information spreading on Twitter. Decision Support Systems 160 (2022), 113819

    2022

  12. [20]

    Aaron Clauset, Mark EJ Newman, and Cristopher Moore. 2004. Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E 70, 6 (2004), 066111

    2004

  13. [21]

    Stefano Cresci. 2020. A decade of social bot detection. Commun. ACM 63, 10 (2020), 72–83

    2020

  14. [22]

    Stefano Cresci, Fabrizio Lillo, Daniele Regoli, Serena Tardelli, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2018. $FAKE: Evidence of spam and bot activity in stock microblogs on Twitter. In AAAI ICWSM. 580–583

    2018

  15. [23]

    Stefano Cresci, Fabrizio Lillo, Daniele Regoli, Serena Tardelli, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2019. Cashtag Piggybacking: Uncovering spam and bot activity in stock microblogs on Twitter. ACM Transactions on the Web 13, 2 (2019), 11:1–11:27

    2019

  16. [24]

    Stefano Cresci, Kai-Cheng Yang, Angelo Spognardi, Roberto Di Pietro, Filippo Menczer, and Marinella Petrocchi. 2024. Demystifying misconceptions in social bots research. arXiv:2303.17251

    2024

  17. [25]

    Adya Danaditya, Lynnette H. X. Ng, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2022. From curious hashtags to polarized effect: Profiling coordinated actions in Indonesian Twitter discourse. Social Network Analysis and Mining 12, 1 (2022), 105

    2022

  18. [26]

    Bart De Clerck, Juan Carlos Fernandez Toledano, Filip Van Utterbeeck, and Luis EC Rocha. 2024. Detecting coordinated and bot-like behavior in Twitter: the Jürgen Conings case. EPJ Data Science 13, 1 (2024), 40

    2024

  19. [27]

    Priyanka Dey, Luca Luceri, and Emilio Ferrara. 2024. Coordinated activity modulates the behavior and emotions of organic users: A case study on tweets about the Gaza conflict. In ACM WWW. 682–685

    2024

  20. [28]

    Di Marco, Sara Brunetti, Matteo Cinelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi

    N. Di Marco, Sara Brunetti, Matteo Cinelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2024. Post-hoc evaluation of nodes influence in information cascades: The case of coordinated accounts. arXiv:2401.01684

    2024

  21. [29]

    Carlotta Dotto, Seb Cubbon, Stefano Cresci, Serena Tardelli, and Leonardo Nizzoli. 2021. How to improve our analysis of ‘coordinated inauthentic behavior’. https://medium.com/1st-draft/how-to-improve-our-analysis-of-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior-a4ec62ce9bff (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2021

  22. [30]

    coordinated inauthentic behaviour

    Evelyn Douek. 2020. What does “coordinated inauthentic behaviour” actually mean? https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/coordinated-inauthentic- behavior-facebook-twitter.html. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Auriant Emeric and Chomel Victor. 2023. Interpretable cross-platform coordination detection on social networks. In CNA. 143–155

    2023

  24. [32]

    Keeley Erhardt and Dina Albassam. 2023. Detecting the hidden dynamics of networked actors using temporal correlations. In ACM WWW. 1214–1217

    2023

  25. [33]

    Keeley Erhardt and Alex Pentland. 2024. Hidden messages: mapping nations’ media campaigns. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 30, 2 (2024), 161–172

    2024

  26. [34]

    Fatima Ezzeddine, Omran Ayoub, Silvia Giordano, Gianluca Nogara, Ihab Sbeity, Emilio Ferrara, and Luca Luceri. 2023. Exposing influence campaigns in the age of LLMs: A behavioral-based AI approach to detecting state-sponsored trolls. EPJ Data Science 12, 1 (2023), 46

    2023

  27. [35]

    Facebook. 2018. Coordinated inauthentic behavior explained. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/12/inside-feed-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Facebook. 2018. Removing bad actors from Facebook. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/07/removing-bad-actors-on-facebook/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Facebook. 2019. How we respond to inauthentic behavior on our platforms: Policy update. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/inauthentic- behavior-policy-update/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Facebook. 2019. Inauthentic behavior. https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/inauthentic-behavior/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Facebook. 2019. Removing coordinated inauthentic behavior in UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/08/cib-uae-egypt- saudi-arabia/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Facebook. 2021. Advancing our policies on online bullying and harassment. https://about.fb.com/news/2021/10/advancing-online-bullying- harassment-policies/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Facebook. 2021. Removing new types of harmful networks. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/inauthentic-behavior-policy-update/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Camille Francois, Vladimir Barash, and John Kelly. 2023. Measuring coordinated versus spontaneous activity in online social movements. New Media & Society 25, 11 (2023), 3065–3092

    2023

  35. [43]

    Loffredo

    Diego Garlaschelli and Maria I. Loffredo. 2008. Maximum likelihood: Extracting unbiased information from complex networks. Physical Review E 78 (2008), 015101. Issue 1

    2008

  36. [44]

    Piyush Ghasiya and Kazutoshi Sasahara. 2022. Rapid sharing of Islamophobic hate on Facebook: The case of the Tablighi Jamaat controversy. Social Media + Society 8, 4 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Fabio Giglietto, Giada Marino, Roberto Mincigrucci, and Anna Stanziano. 2023. A workflow to detect, monitor, and update lists of coordinated social media accounts across time: The case of the 2022 Italian election. Social Media + Society 9, 3 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Fabio Giglietto, Nicola Righetti, Luca Rossi, and Giada Marino. 2020. Coordinated link sharing behavior as a signal to surface sources of problematic information on Facebook. In ACM SMSociety. 85–91. Manuscript submitted to ACM Detection and Characterization of Coordinated Onl...

    2020

  39. [47]

    Fabio Giglietto, Nicola Righetti, Luca Rossi, and Giada Marino. 2020. It takes a village to manipulate the media: Coordinated link sharing behavior during 2018 and 2019 Italian elections. Information, Communication & Society 23, 6 (2020), 867–891

    2020

  40. [48]

    Fabio Giglietto, Massimo Terenzi, Giada Marino, Nicola Righetti, and Luca Rossi. 2020. Adapting to mitigation efforts: Evolving strategies of coordinated link sharing on Facebook. SSRN:3775469

    2020

  41. [49]

    Google. 2020. Updates about government-backed hacking and disinformation. https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/updates-about- government-backed-hacking-and-disinformation/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Timothy Graham, Axel Bruns, Guangnan Zhu, and Rod Campbell. 2020. Like a virus: The coordinated spread of coronavirus disinformation . Technical Report. Centre for Responsible Technology, The Australia Institute

    2020

  43. [51]

    Timothy Graham, Sam Hames, and Elizabeth Alpert. 2024. The coordination network toolkit: A framework for detecting and analysing coordinated behaviour on social media. Journal of Computational Social Science (2024), 1–22

    2024

  44. [52]

    Anatoliy Gruzd, Philip Mai, and Felipe B. Soares. 2022. How coordinated link sharing behavior and partisans’ narrative framing fan the spread of COVID-19 misinformation and conspiracy theories. Social Network Analysis and Mining 12, 1 (2022), 118

    2022

  45. [53]

    Bing He, Mustaque Ahamad, and Srijan Kumar. 2021. PETGEN: Personalized text generation attack on deep sequence embedding-based classification models. In ACM KDD

    2021

  46. [54]

    Howard, Aiden Duffy, Deen Freelon, Muzammil M

    Philip N. Howard, Aiden Duffy, Deen Freelon, Muzammil M. Hussain, Will Mari, and Marwa Maziad. 2011. Opening closed regimes: What was the role of social media during the Arab Spring? SSRN:2595096

    2011

  47. [55]

    Kristina Hristakieva, Stefano Cresci, Giovanni Da San Martino, Mauro Conti, and Preslav Nakov. 2022. The spread of propaganda by coordinated communities on social media. In ACM WebSci. 191–201

    2022

  48. [56]

    Roberto Interdonato, Matteo Magnani, Diego Perna, Andrea Tagarelli, and Davide Vega. 2020. Multilayer network simplification: Approaches, models and methods. Computer Science Review 36 (2020), 100246

    2020

  49. [57]

    Rendsvig

    Laura Jahn and Rasmus K. Rendsvig. 2023. Towards detecting inauthentic coordination in Twitter likes data. arXiv:2305.07384

    2023

  50. [58]

    Rendsvig, and Jacob Stærk-Østergaard

    Laura Jahn, Rasmus K. Rendsvig, and Jacob Stærk-Østergaard. 2023. Detecting coordinated inauthentic behavior in likes on social media: Proof of concept. arXiv:2305.07350

    2023

  51. [59]

    Maurice Jakesch, Kiran Garimella, Dean Eckles, and Mor Naaman. 2021. Trend alert: A cross-platform organization manipulated Twitter trends in the Indian general election. In ACM CSCW. 1–19

    2021

  52. [60]

    Julian Jaursch, Jakob Ohme, and Ulrike Klinger. 2024. Enabling research with publicly accessible platform data: Early DSA compliance issues and suggestions for improvement. Technical Report. Weizenbaum Institute

    2024

  53. [61]

    Keller, David Schoch, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang

    Franziska B. Keller, David Schoch, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang. 2017. How to manipulate social media: Analyzing political astroturfing using ground truth data from South Korea. In AAAI ICWSM. 564–567

    2017

  54. [62]

    Keller, David Schoch, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang

    Franziska B. Keller, David Schoch, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang. 2020. Political astroturfing on Twitter: How to coordinate a disinformation campaign. Political Communication 37, 2 (2020), 256–280

    2020

  55. [63]

    Baris Kirdemir, Oluwaseyi Adeliyi, and Nitin Agarwal. 2022. Towards characterizing coordinated inauthentic behaviors on YouTube. In ROMCIR. 100–116

    2022

  56. [64]

    Charles Kriel and Alexa Pavliuc. 2019. Reverse engineering Russian Internet Research Agency tactics through network analysis. Defence Strategic Communication 6 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Aytalina Kulichkina, Nicola Righetti, and Annie Waldherr. 2024. Protest and repression on social media: Pro-Navalny and pro-government mobilization dynamics and coordination patterns on Russian Twitter. New Media & Society (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Kyumin Lee, James Caverlee, Zhiyuan Cheng, and Daniel Z. Sui. 2013. Campaign extraction from social media. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 5, 1 (2013), 9:1–9:28

    2013

  59. [67]

    Linhares, José M

    Renan S. Linhares, José M. Rosa, Carlos H. G. Ferreira, Fabricio Murai, Gabriel Nobre, and Jussara Almeida. 2022. Uncovering coordinated communities on Twitter during the 2020 US election. In IEEE/ACM ASONAM. 80–87

    2022

  60. [68]

    Sahil Loomba, Alexandre De Figueiredo, Simon J Piatek, Kristen De Graaf, and Heidi J Larson. 2021. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour 5, 3 (2021), 337–348

    2021

  61. [69]

    Edoardo Loru, Matteo Cinelli, Maurizio Tesconi, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2023. The influence of coordinated behavior on toxicity. arXiv:2310.01283

    2023

  62. [70]

    Aiello, Laura Alessandretti, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Michele Starnini, and Andrea Baronchelli

    Lorenzo Lucchini, Luca M. Aiello, Laura Alessandretti, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Michele Starnini, and Andrea Baronchelli. 2022. From Reddit to Wall Street: The role of committed minorities in financial collective action. Royal Society Open Science 9, 4 (2022), 211488

    2022

  63. [71]

    Luca Luceri, Silvia Giordano, and Emilio Ferrara. 2020. Detecting troll behavior via inverse reinforcement learning: A case study of Russian trolls in the 2016 US election. In AAAI ICWSM. 417–427

    2020

  64. [72]

    Luca Luceri, Valeria Pantè, Keith Burghardt, and Emilio Ferrara. 2024. Unmasking the Web of deceit: Uncovering coordinated activity to expose information operations on Twitter. In ACM WWW

    2024

  65. [73]

    Thomas Magelinski and Kathleen M. Carley. 2020. Detecting coordinated behavior in the Twitter campaign to reopen America . Technical Report. School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

    2020

  66. [74]

    Thomas Magelinski, Lynnette H. X. Ng, and Kathleen Carley. 2022. A synchronized action framework for detection of coordination on social media. Journal of Online Trust and Safety 1, 2 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Matteo Magnani, Obaida Hanteer, Roberto Interdonato, Luca Rossi, and Andrea Tagarelli. 2021. Community detection in multiplex networks. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 3 (2021), 1–35. Manuscript submitted to ACM 34 Mannocci et al

    2021

  68. [76]

    Thomas W. Malone. 1987. Modeling coordination in organizations and markets. Management Science 33, 10 (1987), 1317–1332

    1987

  69. [77]

    Thomas W. Malone. 1988. What is coordination theory? Technical Report 182. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management

    1988

  70. [78]

    Malone and Kevin Crowston

    Thomas W. Malone and Kevin Crowston. 1990. What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems?. InACM CSCW. 357–370

    1990

  71. [79]

    Malone and Stephen A

    Thomas W. Malone and Stephen A. Smith. 1988. Modeling the performance of organizational structures. Operations Research 36, 3 (1988), 421–436

    1988

  72. [80]

    Zaidi, Shanika Karunasekera, and Christopher Leckie

    Isura Manchanayaka, Zainab R. Zaidi, Shanika Karunasekera, and Christopher Leckie. 2024. Identifying coordinated activities on online social networks using contrast pattern mining. In IEEE IJCNN

    2024

  73. [81]

    Zaidi, Shanika Karunasekera, and Christopher Leckie

    Isura Manchanayaka, Zainab R. Zaidi, Shanika Karunasekera, and Christopher Leckie. 2024. Using causality to infer coordinated attacks in social media. arXiv:2407.11690

    2024

  74. [82]

    Lorenzo Mannocci, Stefano Cresci, Anna Monreale, Athina Vakali, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2022. MulBot: Unsupervised bot detection based on multivariate time series. In IEEE BigData. 1485–1494

    2022

  75. [83]

    You Know What to Do

    Enrico Mariconti, Guillermo Suarez-Tangil, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Nicolas Kourtellis, Ilias Leontiadis, Jordi L. Serrano, and Gianluca Stringhini. 2019. “You Know What to Do”: Proactive detection of YouTube videos targeted by coordinated hate attacks. InACM ...

    2019

  76. [84]

    Michele Mazza, Guglielmo Cola, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2022. Ready-to-(ab) use: From fake account trafficking to coordinated inauthentic behavior on Twitter. Online Social Networks and Media 31 (2022), 100224

    2022

  77. [85]

    Michele Mazza, Stefano Cresci, Marco Avvenuti, Walter Quattrociocchi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2019. RTbust: Exploiting temporal patterns for botnet detection on Twitter. In ACM WebSci. 183–192

    2019

  78. [86]

    Mehta, Atilim G

    Swapneel S. Mehta, Atilim G. Baydin, Bogdan State, Richard Bonneau, Jonathan Nagler, and Philip Torr. 2022. Estimating the impact of coordinated inauthentic behavior on content recommendations in social networks. In AI4ABM

    2022

  79. [87]

    Kumari Neha, Vibhu Agrawal, Saurav Chhatani, Rajesh Sharma, Arun Balaji Buduru, and Ponnurangam Kumaraguru. 2024. Understanding coordinated communities through the lens of protest-centric narratives: A case study on #CAA protest. In AAAI ICWSM, Vol. 18. 1123–1133

    2024

  80. [88]

    Ng and Adriana Iamnitchi

    Kin W. Ng and Adriana Iamnitchi. 2023. Coordinated information campaigns on social media: A multifaceted framework for detection and analysis. In MISDOOM. 103–118

    2023

  81. [89]

    Lynnette H. X. Ng and Kathleen M. Carley. 2022. A combined synchronization index for grassroots activism on social media. arXiv:2212.13221

    2022

  82. [90]

    Lynnette H. X. Ng and Kathleen M. Carley. 2022. Online coordination: Methods and comparative case studies of coordinated groups across four events in the United States. In ACM WebSci. 12–21

    2022

  83. [91]

    Lynnette H. X. Ng and Kathleen M Carley. 2023. Do you hear the people sing? Comparison of synchronized URL and narrative themes in 2020 and 2023 French protests. Frontiers in Big Data 6 (2023), 1343108

    2023

  84. [92]

    Lynnette H. X. Ng, Iain Cruickshank, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2021. Coordinating narratives and the Capitol riots on Parler. arXiv:2109.00945

    2021

  85. [93]

    Lynnette H. X. Ng, Iain J. Cruickshank, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2022. Cross-platform information spread during the January 6th Capitol riots. Social Network Analysis and Mining 12, 1 (2022), 133

    2022

  86. [94]

    Lynnette H. X. Ng, Iain J. Cruickshank, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2023. Coordinating narratives framework for cross-platform analysis in the 2021 US Capitol riots. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 29, 3 (2023), 470–486

    2023

  87. [95]

    Lynnette H. X. Ng, J. D. Moffitt, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2022. Coordinated through a Web of images: Analysis of image-based influence operations from China, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. arXiv:2206.03576

    2022

  88. [96]

    Sophie J Nightingale and Hany Farid. 2022. AI-synthesized faces are indistinguishable from real faces and more trustworthy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 8 (2022)

    2022

  89. [97]

    Ben Nimmo, Ira Hubert, and Yang Cheng. 2021. Spamouflage breakout: Chinese spam network finally starts to gain some traction. https: //graphika.com/reports/spamouflage-breakout. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2021

  90. [98]

    Leonardo Nizzoli, Serena Tardelli, Marco Avvenuti, Stefano Cresci, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2021. Coordinated behavior on social media in 2019 UK General Election. In AAAI ICWSM. 443–454

    2021

  91. [99]

    Office of the Director of National Intelligence

    United States. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 2017. Assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent US Elections

    2017

  92. [100]

    Diogo Pacheco, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2020. Unveiling coordinated groups behind White Helmets disinformation. In ACM WWW. 611–616

    2020

  93. [101]

    Truong, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer

    Diogo Pacheco, Pik-Mai Hui, Christopher Torres-Lugo, Bao T. Truong, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2021. Uncovering coordinated networks on social media: Methods and case studies. In AAAI ICWSM. 455–466

    2021

  94. [102]

    Sen Pei, Lev Muchnik, José S Andrade, Jr, Zhiming Zheng, and Hernán A Makse. 2014. Searching for superspreaders of information in real-world social media. Scientific Reports 4, 1 (2014), 5547

    2014

  95. [103]

    Seiler, Heike Trautmann, and Christian Grimme

    Janina Pohl, Dennis Assenmacher, Moritz V. Seiler, Heike Trautmann, and Christian Grimme. 2022. Artificial social media campaign creation for benchmarking and challenging detection approaches. In AAAI ICWSM

    2022

  96. [104]

    Reddit. 2022. 2022 Transparency report. https://www.redditinc.com/policies/2022-transparency-report/. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2022

  97. [105]

    Kakavand, Aytalina Kulichkina, Giada Marino, and Massimo Terenzi

    Nicola Righetti, Fabio Giglietto, Azade E. Kakavand, Aytalina Kulichkina, Giada Marino, and Massimo Terenzi. 2022. Political advertisement and coordinated behavior on social media in the lead-up to the 2021 German federal elections. Dusseldorf: Media Authority of North Rhine-W...

    2022

  98. [106]

    Ronald E Robertson. 2022. Uncommon yet consequential online harms. Journal of Online Trust and Safety 1, 3 (2022)

    2022

  99. [107]

    Saeed, Kostantinos Papadamou, et al

    Mohammad H. Saeed, Kostantinos Papadamou, et al. 2024. TUBERAIDER: Attributing coordinated hate attacks on YouTube videos to their source communities. In AAAI ICWSM, Vol. 18. 1354–1366

    2024

  100. [108]

    Bailey, J

    Marcel Schliebs, H. Bailey, J. Bright, and P. N. Howard. 2021. China’s inauthentic UK Twitter diplomacy: A coordinated network amplifying PRC diplomats. Technical Report. Programme on Democracy and Technology, Oxford University

    2021

  101. [109]

    Keller, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang

    David Schoch, Franziska B. Keller, Sebastian Stier, and JungHwan Yang. 2022. Coordination patterns reveal online political astroturfing across the world. Scientific Reports 12, 1 (2022), 4572

    2022

  102. [110]

    Wigand, Nitin Agarwal, Serpil Yuce Tokdemir, and Rafal Kasprzyk

    Fatih Şen, Rolf T. Wigand, Nitin Agarwal, Serpil Yuce Tokdemir, and Rafal Kasprzyk. 2016. Focal structures analysis: Identifying influential sets of individuals in a social network. Social Network Analysis and Mining 6, 1 (2016), 17:1–17:22

    2016

  103. [111]

    Ángeles Serrano, Marián Boguná, and Alessandro Vespignani

    M. Ángeles Serrano, Marián Boguná, and Alessandro Vespignani. 2009. Extracting the multiscale backbone of complex weighted networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 16 (2009), 6483–6488

    2009

  104. [112]

    Karishma Sharma, Yizhou Zhang, Emilio Ferrara, and Yan Liu. 2021. Identifying coordinated accounts on social media through hidden influence and group behaviours. In ACM SIGKDD. 1441–1451

    2021

  105. [113]

    Kai Shu, Suhang Wang, Dongwon Lee, and Huan Liu. 2020. Mining disinformation and fake news: Concepts, methods, and recent advancements. In Disinformation, misinformation, and fake news in social media . 1–19

    2020

  106. [114]

    Christophe Sibertin-Blanc, Frédéric Amblard, and Matthias Mailliard. 2005. A coordination framework based on the sociology of organized action. In AAMAS. 3–17

    2005

  107. [115]

    Felipe B. Soares. 2023. From sharing misinformation to debunking it: How coordinated image text sharing behaviour is used in political campaigns on Facebook. In MISDOOM. 45–59

    2023

  108. [116]

    Lucas Stampe, Janina Pohl, and Christian Grimme. 2023. Towards multimodal campaign detection: Including image information in stream clustering to detect social media campaigns. In MISDOOM. 144–159

    2023

  109. [117]

    Kate Starbird, Ahmer Arif, and Tom Wilson. 2019. Disinformation as collaborative work: Surfacing the participatory nature of strategic information operations. In ACM CSCW. 127:1–127:26

    2019

  110. [118]

    Steinert-Threlkeld, Delia Mocanu, Alessandro Vespignani, and James H

    Zachary C. Steinert-Threlkeld, Delia Mocanu, Alessandro Vespignani, and James H. Fowler. 2015. Online social networks and offline protest. EPJ Data Science 4, 1 (2015), 19

    2015

  111. [119]

    Serena Tardelli, Marco Avvenuti, Maurizio Tesconi, and Stefano Cresci. 2020. Characterizing social bots spreading financial disinformation. InHCII. 376–392

    2020

  112. [120]

    Serena Tardelli, Leonardo Nizzoli, Marco Avvenuti, Stefano Cresci, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2024. Multifaceted online coordinated behavior in the 2020 US presidential election. EPJ Data Science 13, 1 (2024), 1–27

    2024

  113. [121]

    Serena Tardelli, Leonardo Nizzoli, Maurizio Tesconi, Mauro Conti, Preslav Nakov, Giovanni Da San Martino, and Stefano Cresci. 2024. Temporal dynamics of coordinated online behavior: Stability, archetypes, and influence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2024)

    2024

  114. [122]

    Petter Törnberg, Diliara Valeeva, Justus Uitermark, and Christopher Bail. 2023. Simulating social media using large language models to evaluate alternative news feed algorithms. arXiv:2310.05984

    2023

  115. [123]

    Traag, Ludo Waltman, and Nees Jan Van Eck

    Vincent A. Traag, Ludo Waltman, and Nees Jan Van Eck. 2019. From Louvain to Leiden: Guaranteeing well-connected communities. Scientific Reports 9, 1 (2019), 5233

    2019

  116. [124]

    Rebekah Tromble. 2021. Where have all the data gone? A critical reflection on academic digital research in the post-API age. Social Media + Society 7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  117. [125]

    Amaury Trujillo, Tiziano Fagni, and Stefano Cresci. 2024. The DSA Transparency Database: Auditing self-reported moderation actions by social media. arXiv:2312.10269

    2024

  118. [126]

    Mantegna

    Michele Tumminello, Salvatore Micciche, Fabrizio Lillo, Jyrki Piilo, and Rosario N. Mantegna. 2011. Statistically validated networks in bipartite complex systems. PLoS One 6, 3 (2011), 1–11

    2011

  119. [127]

    Michael T. Turvey. 1990. Coordination. American Psychologist 45, 8 (1990), 938

    1990

  120. [128]

    Twitter. 2018. Enabling further research of information operations on Twitter. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/enabling- further-research-of-information-operations-on-twitter. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2018

  121. [129]

    Twitter. 2021. Coordinated harmful activity. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/coordinated-harmful-activity. (accessed: 31/07/2024)

    2021

  122. [130]

    Luis Vargas, Patrick Emami, and Patrick Traynor. 2020. On the detection of disinformation campaign activity with network analysis. In ACM CCSW. 133–146

    2020

  123. [131]

    Vasconcelos, Sara M

    Vítor V. Vasconcelos, Sara M. Constantino, Astrid Dannenberg, Marcel Lumkowsky, Elke Weber, and Simon Levin. 2021. Segregation and clustering of preferences erode socially beneficial coordination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 50 (2021)

    2021

  124. [132]

    Venâncio, Carlos H

    Otavio R. Venâncio, Carlos H. G. Ferreira, Jussara M. Almeida, and Ana P. C. da Silva. 2024. Unraveling user coordination on Telegram: A comprehensive analysis of political mobilization during the 2022 Brazilian Presidential election. In AAAI ICWSM, Vol. 18. 1545–1556

    2024

  125. [133]

    Padinjaredath Suresh Vishnuprasad, Gianluca Nogara, Felipe Cardoso, Stefano Cresci, Silvia Giordano, and Luca Luceri. 2024. Tracking fringe and coordinated activity on Twitter leading up to the US Capitol attack. In AAAI ICWSM, Vol. 18. 1557–1570

    2024

  126. [134]

    Xinyu Wang, Jiayi Li, Eesha Srivatsavaya, and Sarah Rajtmajer. 2023. Evidence of inter-state coordination amongst state-backed information operations. Scientific Reports 13, 1 (2023), 7716. Manuscript submitted to ACM 36 Mannocci et al

    2023

  127. [135]

    Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan. 2017. Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policymaking . Council of Europe report DGI (2017)09. Council of Europe

    2017

  128. [136]

    Derek Weber and Lucia Falzon. 2021. Temporal nuances of coordination networks. arXiv:2107.02588

    2021

  129. [137]

    Derek Weber and Frank Neumann. 2020. Who’s in the gang? Revealing coordinating communities in social media. In IEEE/ACM ASONAM. 89–93

    2020

  130. [138]

    Derek Weber and Frank Neumann. 2021. Amplifying influence through coordinated behaviour in social networks. Social Network Analysis and Mining 11, 1 (2021), 111

    2021

  131. [139]

    Tom Wilson and Kate Starbird. 2020. Cross-platform disinformation campaigns: Lessons learned and next steps.HKS Misinformation Review (2020)

    2020

  132. [140]

    William E. S. Yu. 2022. A framework for studying coordinated behaviour applied to the 2019 Philippine midterm elections. In ICICT. 721–731

    2022

  133. [141]

    Savvas Zannettou, Tristan Caulfield, William Setzer, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and eremy Blackburn. 2019. Who let the trolls out?: Towards understanding state-sponsored trolls. In ACM WebSci. 353–362

    2019

  134. [142]

    Yizhou Zhang, Karishma Sharma, and Yan Liu. 2021. VigDet: Knowledge informed neural temporal point process for coordination detection on social media. In NeurIPS. 3218–3231

    2021

  135. [143]

    Yizhou Zhang, Karishma Sharma, and Yan Liu. 2023. Capturing cross-platform interaction for identifying coordinated accounts of misinformation campaigns. In ECIR. 694–702. Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed May 23, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.