Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Measuring the co-evolution of online engagement with (mis)information and its visibility at scale

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-19 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Factual COVID accounts gain followers in rapid spikes during vaccine rollouts, while misleading accounts sustain steadier growth outside those peaks.

desk verdict The paper documents follower growth differences for factual versus misleading COVID content at large scale but the link to content-driven visibility is undercut by an aggregate proxy. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06106 v2 submitted 2025-06-06 cs.SI physics.soc-ph

Yueting Han , Paolo Turrini , Marya Bazzi , Giulia Andrighetto , Eugenia Polizzi , Manlio De Domenico This is my paper
classification cs.SIphysics.soc-ph
keywords misinformationsocialmediafollowerdynamicsCOVID-19contentvisibilityretweetnetworksonlineattention
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 tracks how engagement with factual, misleading, and uncertain COVID content on social media relates to shifts in user visibility, measured through changes in follower counts. Drawing on more than 100 million retweets collected over three years, it shows that accounts posting factual material receive quick follower increases when attention surges around events such as vaccine rollouts, whereas accounts posting misleading material maintain faster audience growth during quieter periods. Two modeling frameworks built on retweet network patterns are shown to reproduce these distinct growth rates, indicating that visibility and engagement patterns co-evolve over time.

What carries the argument

Simple contagion and biased convergence modeling frameworks applied to temporal retweet network dynamics, which reproduce the differing follower growth rates observed for factual versus misleading content.

What would settle it

Repeating the follower-growth comparison on an independent dataset of a different high-attention topic, such as climate discussions, and finding no systematic difference between factual and misleading accounts during versus outside peak periods would challenge the co-evolution claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

During major events such as vaccine rollouts, users spreading factual content experience rapid follower gain spikes, whereas those sharing misleading content tend to sustain faster growth outside of these high-attention periods. Two scalable modeling frameworks, simple contagion and biased convergence, reproduce many observed differing follower growth rates using temporal retweet network dynamics and thereby provide evidence that content visibility co-evolves with user engagement.

Load-bearing premise

Fluctuations in follower counts serve as a reliable proxy for content visibility, and the two modeling frameworks capture the underlying co-evolution mechanism rather than simply fitting correlations in the retweet data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Visibility of online content co-evolves with engagement patterns in discussions of major events.
  • The same modeling approach can be applied to study attention competition during climate or political debates.
  • Follower dynamics differ systematically between factual and misleading information depending on the level of public attention.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The observed growth differences may appear in other viral topics where attention levels rise and fall sharply.
  • Real-time monitoring of follower changes could help platforms identify shifts in audience reach for different content types.
  • Adding content-type bias parameters to the models might allow better forecasts of audience movement during future events.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes over 100 million COVID-related retweets across three years to measure the co-evolution of user engagement with factual, misleading, and uncertain content and visibility as proxied by follower-count fluctuations. It reports that factual-content spreaders experience rapid follower-gain spikes during major events such as vaccine rollouts, while misleading-content spreaders exhibit sustained faster growth outside these periods. Two scalable modeling frameworks—simple contagion and biased convergence—are introduced that reproduce many of the observed differential follower-growth rates from temporal retweet-network dynamics.

Significance. If the central observational patterns and modeling results hold after addressing the points below, the work supplies large-scale empirical evidence on how attention and visibility co-evolve with (mis)information during crises. The scale of the retweet corpus and the introduction of two reproducible modeling frameworks that aim to link network dynamics to growth rates constitute clear strengths and could extend to other high-attention domains such as climate or political debates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: the classification of retweets into factual, misleading, and uncertain categories is load-bearing for all differential-growth claims, yet no accuracy metrics, validation procedure against held-out data, or inter-annotator agreement statistics are reported.
  2. [Modeling frameworks] Modeling section (simple contagion and biased convergence frameworks): the models are stated to reproduce observed follower-growth rates from temporal retweet networks, but it is unclear whether the free parameters (contagion rates and bias parameters) are estimated on the same follower-growth statistics they are then used to explain, raising a circularity concern that must be resolved with explicit out-of-sample validation or parameter-free derivations.
  3. [Results] Results section on follower dynamics: follower-count fluctuations are treated as a visibility proxy specifically attributable to the classified COVID content, yet the analysis does not isolate post-retweet gain windows from gains driven by the same users’ non-COVID activity, replies, or platform-wide events; without such temporal isolation or statistical controls the attribution to content type remains untested.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the parenthetical “(mis)information” and the precise definitions of “engagement” versus “visibility” could be clarified in one additional sentence for readers outside the subfield.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: several growth-rate plots would benefit from explicit indication of confidence intervals or bootstrap bands to allow visual assessment of the reported differences.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. The comments identify important areas for clarification and strengthening. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions as indicated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the classification of retweets into factual, misleading, and uncertain categories is load-bearing for all differential-growth claims, yet no accuracy metrics, validation procedure against held-out data, or inter-annotator agreement statistics are reported.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation details are necessary to support the classification's role in the differential-growth results. The classification combines an automated pipeline based on fact-checking databases and keyword heuristics with manual review of a sampled subset for uncertain cases. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection to Methods that reports accuracy metrics (precision, recall, F1) on a held-out annotated set, describes the validation procedure, and includes inter-annotator agreement (Cohen's kappa) from the manual annotations. These additions will directly bolster confidence in the factual/misleading/uncertain distinctions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Modeling frameworks] Modeling section (simple contagion and biased convergence frameworks): the models are stated to reproduce observed follower-growth rates from temporal retweet networks, but it is unclear whether the free parameters (contagion rates and bias parameters) are estimated on the same follower-growth statistics they are then used to explain, raising a circularity concern that must be resolved with explicit out-of-sample validation or parameter-free derivations.

    Authors: We thank the referee for raising this potential circularity issue. The contagion rates and bias parameters are estimated exclusively from the temporal structure and cascade statistics of the retweet networks; follower-growth rates are never used as inputs during fitting and serve only as the target for model reproduction. To eliminate any ambiguity we will revise the Modeling section to spell out this separation, add a temporal out-of-sample validation (fit on the first two years, test on the third), and include a parameter-free limiting-case derivation for the biased-convergence model. These changes will make the non-circular nature of the exercise explicit. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results section on follower dynamics: follower-count fluctuations are treated as a visibility proxy specifically attributable to the classified COVID content, yet the analysis does not isolate post-retweet gain windows from gains driven by the same users’ non-COVID activity, replies, or platform-wide events; without such temporal isolation or statistical controls the attribution to content type remains untested.

    Authors: This is a fair critique of causal attribution in observational data. Our present analysis already restricts attention to short post-retweet windows and includes user-level activity covariates, yet we acknowledge that complete isolation from non-COVID drivers is not feasible. In the revision we will tighten the temporal windows further (e.g., 24-hour and 48-hour horizons), add explicit controls for platform-wide events and overall user reply volume, and expand the discussion of limitations. These steps will strengthen the attribution while remaining transparent about residual confounding. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; claims rest on direct data analysis rather than self-referential fitting or definitions.

full rationale

The paper reports observational patterns extracted from over 100 million retweets, including differential follower-growth spikes during events for factual versus misleading content. The two modeling frameworks are introduced to reproduce observed rates from temporal retweet networks and are presented as providing supporting evidence for co-evolution. No equations, parameter-fitting procedures, or self-citations are quoted in the supplied text that would reduce any claimed prediction or uniqueness result to the input data by construction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against the external retweet corpus and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The abstract implies that follower-count changes are treated as a direct visibility measure and that the contagion and convergence models contain rate or bias parameters whose values are chosen to match the observed growth differences.

free parameters (2)
  • contagion rate parameters
    Likely fitted or tuned so the simple contagion model reproduces the differing follower growth rates for factual and misleading content.
  • bias parameters in convergence model
    Introduced to capture differential growth outside high-attention periods; values chosen to match data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring the co-evolution of online engagement with (mis)information and its visibility at scale." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2506.06106

@misc{pith2026250606106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring the co-evolution of online engagement with (mis)information and its visibility at scale},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2506.06106}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06106}
}
read the original abstract

Online attention is an increasingly valuable resource in the digital age, with extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic fuelling fierce competition around it. As misinformation pervades online platforms, users seek credible sources, while news outlets compete to attract and retain their attention. Here we measure the co-evolution of online ``engagement'' with (mis)information and its ``visibility'', where engagement corresponds to user interactions on social media, and visibility to fluctuations in user follower counts. Using over 100 million COVID-related retweets across 3 years, we analyse how user interactions and follower dynamics differ for factual, misleading and uncertain content. We observe that during major events (e.g., vaccine rollouts), users spreading factual content see rapid follower gain spikes, whereas those sharing misleading content tend to sustain faster growth outside of these high-attention periods. We introduce two scalable modelling frameworks (simple contagion and biased convergence) that reproduce many observed differing follower growth rates using temporal retweet network dynamics, providing evidence that content visibility co-evolves with user engagement. Our modelling lends itself to studying other large-scale events where online attention is at stake, such as climate and political debates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the original and filtered retweet network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Thresholding highly aligned users. Using the filtered retweet network, we categorise users as highly aligned with a campaign (factual, misleading, or uncertain) if >95% of the retweets they give or receive are of that content type. (a) User distribution by retweet proportions for different content types. The triangle heatmap depicts the user distribution based on the proportion of retweets for each content type that… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Retweet vs (b) fol￾lower count variations by cate￾gory. The COVID-related events are obtained from [39–44]. (a) On a daily basis, we collect the count of retweets given or received by users who are highly aligned with each campaign. (b) Each data point of follower increase rate is obtained using a one-month time window, which is shifted forward by half a month throughout the data timeframe. In every window, we s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Heterogeneity at the (a) global (b) local level. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sizes of disparity backbones for different significance levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Topological properties of disparity backbones for different significance levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fraction of edges in different global threshold backbones (GTB) included in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of user (a) bot rate and (b) verification rate at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of retweet categories (ungeneralised) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Initial follower count distribution of highly aligned users [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. False memories to fake news: The evolution of the term "misinformation" in academic literature

    cs.SI 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Modern misinformation research inherits its core model from 1980s Satanic-panic-era memory research, not just from social media.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Political polarization of news media and influencers on twitter in the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections.Nature Human Behaviour, 7:1–13, 03 2023

    James Flamino, Alessandro Galeazzi, Stuart Feldman, Michael Macy, Brendan Cross, Zhenkun Zhou, Matteo Serafino, Alexandre Bovet, Hernán Makse, and Boleslaw Szymanski. Political polarization of news media and influencers on twitter in the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections.Nature Human Behaviour, 7:1–13, 03 2023

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election

    Alexandre Bovet and Hernán Makse. Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nature Communications, 10, 01 2019

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news

    Gordon Pennycook and Tyrone Cannon. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 06 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Tobia Spampatti, Ulf J. J. Hahnel, Evelina Trutnevyte, and Tobias Brosch. Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries.Nature Human Behaviour, 8:1–19, 11 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Climate of conspiracy: A meta-analysis of the consequences of belief in conspiracy theories about climate change.Current Opinion in Psychology, 46:101390, 2022

    Mikey Biddlestone, Flavio Azevedo, and Sander van der Linden. Climate of conspiracy: A meta-analysis of the consequences of belief in conspiracy theories about climate change.Current Opinion in Psychology, 46:101390, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    The growth of climate change misinformation in U.S

    Justin Farrell. The growth of climate change misinformation in U.S. philanthropy: evidence from natural language processing. Environmental Research Letters, 14, 03 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Watts, and David G

    Jennifer Allen, Duncan J. Watts, and David G. Rand. Quantifying the impact of misinformation and vaccine-skeptical content on Facebook.Science, 384(6699):eadk3451, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Measuring the impact of covid-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA.Nature Human Behaviour, 5:1–12, 03 2021

    Sahil Loomba, Alexandre Figueiredo, Simon Piatek, Kristen de Graaf, and Heidi Larson. Measuring the impact of covid-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA.Nature Human Behaviour, 5:1–12, 03 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Search as news curator: The role of Google in shaping attention to news information

    Daniel Trielli and Nicholas Diakopoulos. Search as news curator: The role of Google in shaping attention to news information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, page 1–15, New York, NY, USA, 2019. Association for Computing...

    2019

  2. [10]

    The struggle for human attention: Between the abuse of social media and digital wellbeing.Healthcare, 8(4), 2020

    Santiago Giraldo-Luque, Pedro Nicolás Aldana Afanador, and Cristina Fernández-Rovira. The struggle for human attention: Between the abuse of social media and digital wellbeing.Healthcare, 8(4), 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Eugene Stanley, Shlomo Havlin, and Lidia A

    Ling Feng, Yanqing Hu, Baowen Li, H. Eugene Stanley, Shlomo Havlin, and Lidia A. Braunstein. Competing for attention in social media under information overload conditions.PLOS ONE, 10(7):1–13, 07 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    The rise of social bots

    Emilio Ferrara, Onur Varol, Clayton Davis, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. The rise of social bots. Commun. ACM, 59(7):96–104, 06 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Multi-modal misinformation detection: Approaches, challenges and opportunities.ACM Comput

    Sara Abdali, Sina Shaham, and Bhaskar Krishnamachari. Multi-modal misinformation detection: Approaches, challenges and opportunities.ACM Comput. Surv., 57(3), 11 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective.SIGKDD Explor

    Kai Shu, Amy Sliva, Suhang Wang, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective.SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 19(1):22–36, 09 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    McLoughlin, William J

    Killian L. McLoughlin, William J. Brady, Aden Goolsbee, Ben Kaiser, Kate Klonick, and M. J. Crockett. Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online.Science, 386(6725):991–996, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Mechanisms of true and false rumor sharing in social media: Collective intelligence or herd behavior?Proc

    Nicolas Pröllochs and Stefan Feuerriegel. Mechanisms of true and false rumor sharing in social media: Collective intelligence or herd behavior?Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 7(CSCW2), 10 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Eugene Stanley, and Walter Quattrociocchi

    Michela Del Vicario, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Fabio Petroni, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, H. Eugene Stanley, and Walter Quattrociocchi. The spreading of misinformation online.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3):554–559, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Emotion detection for misinformation: A review.Information Fusion, 107:102300, 2024

    Zhiwei Liu, Tianlin Zhang, Kailai Yang, Paul Thompson, Zeping Yu, and Sophia Ananiadou. Emotion detection for misinformation: A review.Information Fusion, 107:102300, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Emotions unveiled: detecting COVID-19 fake news on social media.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 05 2024

    Bahareh Farhoundinia, Selcen Ozturkcan, and Nihat Kasap. Emotions unveiled: detecting COVID-19 fake news on social media.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 05 2024. 13

    2024

  12. [20]

    Emotions explain differences in the diffusion of true vs

    Nicolas Pröllochs, Dominik Bär, and Stefan Feuerriegel. Emotions explain differences in the diffusion of true vs. false social media rumors.Scientific Reports, 11, 11 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity.Nature, 625:1–9, 12 2023

    Kevin Aslett, Zeve Sanderson, William Godel, Nathaniel Persily, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua Tucker. Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity.Nature, 625:1–9, 12 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Measuring receptivity to misinformation at scale on a social media platform.PNAS Nexus, 3(10):pgae396, 09 2024

    Christopher K Tokita, Kevin Aslett, William P Godel, Zeve Sanderson, Joshua A Tucker, Jonathan Nagler, Nathaniel Persily, and Richard Bonneau. Measuring receptivity to misinformation at scale on a social media platform.PNAS Nexus, 3(10):pgae396, 09 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook.Science Advances, 5(1):eaau4586, 2019

    Andrew Guess, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua Tucker. Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook.Science Advances, 5(1):eaau4586, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Myers and Jure Leskovec

    Seth A. Myers and Jure Leskovec. The bursty dynamics of the Twitter information network. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’14, page 913–924, New York, NY, USA, 2014. Association for Computing Machinery

    2014

  17. [25]

    The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views.Nature, 582, 06 2020

    Neil Johnson, Nicolas Velasquez, Nicholas Restrepo, Rhys Leahy, Nicholas Gabriel, Sara Oud, Minzhang Zheng, Pedro Manrique, Stefan Wuchty, and Yonatan Lupu. The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views.Nature, 582, 06 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Modelling and predicting online vaccination views using bow-tie decomposition

    Yueting Han, Marya Bazzi, and Paolo Turrini. Modelling and predicting online vaccination views using bow-tie decomposition. Royal Society Open Science, 11(2), 02 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Hutto, Sarita Yardi, and Eric Gilbert

    C.J. Hutto, Sarita Yardi, and Eric Gilbert. A longitudinal study of follow predictors on Twitter. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’13, page 821–830, New York, NY, USA, 2013. Association for Computing Machinery

    2013

  20. [28]

    The stock exchange of influencers: a financial approach for studying fanbase variation trends

    Fabio Bertone, Luca Vassio, and Martino Trevisan. The stock exchange of influencers: a financial approach for studying fanbase variation trends. InProceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, ASONAM ’21, page 431...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Predicting rising follower counts on Twitter using profile information

    Juergen Mueller and Gerd Stumme. Predicting rising follower counts on Twitter using profile information. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Web Science Conference, WebSci ’17, page 121–130, New York, NY, USA, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery

    2017

  22. [30]

    Hashtags and followers.Social Network Analysis and Mining, 6, 03 2016

    Eva Garcia-Martin, Niklas Lavesson, and Mina Doroud. Hashtags and followers.Social Network Analysis and Mining, 6, 03 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    What do retweets indicate? Results from user survey and meta-review of research.Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 9:658–661, 08 2021

    Panagiotis Metaxas, Eni Mustafaraj, Wong Kily, Laura Zeng, Megan O’Keefe, and Samantha Finn. What do retweets indicate? Results from user survey and meta-review of research.Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 9:658–661, 08 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    The echo chamber effect on social media.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9):e2023301118, 2021

    Matteo Cinelli, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Alessandro Galeazzi, Walter Quattrociocchi, and Michele Starnini. The echo chamber effect on social media.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9):e2023301118, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    A minimalistic model of bias, polarization and misinformation in social networks.Scientific Reports, 10, 03 2020

    Orowa Sikder, Robert Smith, Pierpaolo Vivo, and Giacomo Livan. A minimalistic model of bias, polarization and misinformation in social networks.Scientific Reports, 10, 03 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    COVID-19 and social media: Beyond polarization

    Giacomo De Nicola, Victor H Tuekam Mambou, and Göran Kauermann. COVID-19 and social media: Beyond polarization. PNAS Nexus, 2(8):pgad246, 08 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Assessing the risks of ‘infodemics’ in response to COVID-19 epidemics.Nature Human Behaviour, 4(12):1285–1293, 2020

    Riccardo Gallotti, Francesco Valle, Nicola Castaldo, Pierluigi Sacco, and Manlio De Domenico. Assessing the risks of ‘infodemics’ in response to COVID-19 epidemics.Nature Human Behaviour, 4(12):1285–1293, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    The voice of few, the opinions of many: evidence of social biases in twitter COVID-19 fake news sharing

    Piergiorgio Castioni, Giulia Andrighetto, Riccardo Gallotti, Eugenia Polizzi, and Manlio De Domenico. The voice of few, the opinions of many: evidence of social biases in twitter COVID-19 fake news sharing. Royal Society Open Science, 9(10):220716, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Ángeles Serrano, Marián Boguñá, and Alessandro Vespignani

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

    2009

  30. [38]

    Influence of augmented humans in online interactions during voting events.PLOS ONE, 14(5):1–16, 2019

    Massimo Stella, Marco Cristoforetti, and Manlio De Domenico. Influence of augmented humans in online interactions during voting events.PLOS ONE, 14(5):1–16, 2019. 14

    2019

  31. [39]

    Sencer CDC Museum: In Association with the Smithsonian Institution

    David J. Sencer CDC Museum: In Association with the Smithsonian Institution. CDC museum COVID-19 timeline, 03 2023. Seehttps://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html

    2023

  32. [40]

    Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), 01 2025

    World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), 01 2025. Seehttps://www.who.int/ health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1

    2025

  33. [41]

    Timeline: WHO’s COVID-19 response, 03 2022

    World Health Organization. Timeline: WHO’s COVID-19 response, 03 2022. See https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline# category-Information

    2022

  34. [42]

    One year since the emergence of COVID-19 virus vari- ant Omicron, 11 2022

    World Health Organization. One year since the emergence of COVID-19 virus vari- ant Omicron, 11 2022. See https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/ one-year-since-the-emergence-of-omicron

    2022

  35. [43]

    COVID-19 timeline, 04 2022

    British Foreign Policy Group. COVID-19 timeline, 04 2022. See https://bfpg.co.uk/2020/04/ covid-19-timeline/

    2022

  36. [44]

    COVID-19: Our approach to misleading vaccine information, 12 2020

    X Blog. COVID-19: Our approach to misleading vaccine information, 12 2020. Seehttps://blog.x. com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid19-vaccine

    2020

  37. [45]

    Enhancing global preparedness during an ongoing pandemic from partial and noisy data

    Pascal P Klamser, Valeria d’Andrea, Francesco Di Lauro, Adrian Zachariae, Sebastiano Bontorin, Antonello Di Nardo, Matthew Hall, Benjamin F Maier, Luca Ferretti, Dirk Brockmann, and Manlio De Domenico. Enhancing global preparedness during an ongoing pandemic from partial and n...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Keeling and Pejman Rohani.Modeling Infectious Diseases in Humans and Animals

    Matt J. Keeling and Pejman Rohani.Modeling Infectious Diseases in Humans and Animals. Princeton University Press, 2008

    2008

  39. [47]

    The COVID-19 social media infodemic.Scientific Reports, 10, 10 2020

    Matteo Cinelli, Walter Quattrociocchi, Alessandro Galeazzi, Carlo Valensise, Emanuele Brugnoli, Ana Schmidt, Paola Zola, Fabiana Zollo, and Antonio Scala. The COVID-19 social media infodemic.Scientific Reports, 10, 10 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Ariful Kabir, Kazuki Kuga, and Jun Tanimoto

    K.M. Ariful Kabir, Kazuki Kuga, and Jun Tanimoto. Analysis of SIR epidemic model with information spreading of awareness.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 119:118–125, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Guilherme Ferraz de Arruda, Lucas G. S. Jeub, Angélica S. Mata, Francisco A. Rodrigues, and Yamir Moreno. From subcritical behavior to a correlation-induced transition in rumor models. Nature Communications, 13(1), 06 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    A general Markov chain approach for disease and rumour spreading in complex networks

    Guilherme Ferraz de Arruda, Francisco Aparecido Rodrigues, Pablo Martín Rodríguez, Emanuele Cozzo, and Yamir Moreno. A general Markov chain approach for disease and rumour spreading in complex networks. Journal of Complex Networks, 6(2):215–242, 08 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    An analysis of the information spreading delay in heterogeneous mobility DTNs

    Andreea Picu, Thrasyvoulos Spyropoulos, and Theus Hossmann. An analysis of the information spreading delay in heterogeneous mobility DTNs. In2012 IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM), pages 1–10, 2012

    2012

  44. [52]

    Followers do not dictate the virality of news outlets on social media.PNAS Nexus, 3(7):257, 06 2024

    Emanuele Sangiorgio, Matteo Cinelli, Roy Cerqueti, and Walter Quattrociocchi. Followers do not dictate the virality of news outlets on social media.PNAS Nexus, 3(7):257, 06 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    An evaluation tool for backbone extraction techniques in weighted complex networks.Scientific Reports, 13, 10 2023

    Ali Yassin, Abbas Haidar, Hocine Cherifi, Hamida Seba, and Olivier Togni. An evaluation tool for backbone extraction techniques in weighted complex networks.Scientific Reports, 13, 10 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Robust classification of salient links in complex networks

    Daniel Grady, Christian Thiemann, and Dirk Brockmann. Robust classification of salient links in complex networks. Nature Communications, 3(1), 05 2012

    2012

  47. [55]

    Braunstein, Shlomo Havlin, and H

    Zhenhua Wu, Lidia A. Braunstein, Shlomo Havlin, and H. Eugene Stanley. Transport in weighted networks: Partition into superhighways and roads.Physical Review Letters, 96(14), 04 2006

    2006

  48. [56]

    Modularity-based backbone extraction in weighted complex networks

    Stephany Rajeh, Marinette Savonnet, Eric Leclercq, and Hocine Cherifi. Modularity-based backbone extraction in weighted complex networks. In Pedro Ribeiro, Fernando Silva, José Fernando Mendes, and Rosário Laureano, editors,Network Science, pages 67–79, Cham, 2022. Springer In...

    2022

  49. [57]

    A Pólya urn approach to information filtering in complex networks

    Riccardo Marcaccioli and Giacomo Livan. A Pólya urn approach to information filtering in complex networks. Nature Communications, 10(1), 02 2019. 15

    2019

  50. [58]

    Unwinding the hairball graph: Pruning algorithms for weighted complex networks

    Navid Dianati. Unwinding the hairball graph: Pruning algorithms for weighted complex networks. Physical Review E, 93(1), 01 2016

    2016

  51. [59]

    Michele Coscia and Frank M.H. Neffke. Network backboning with noisy data. In2017 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 425–436, 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    Nonparametric sparsification of complex multiscale networks

    Nicholas Foti, James Hughes, and Daniel Rockmore. Nonparametric sparsification of complex multiscale networks. PLOS ONE, 6:e16431, 02 2011

    2011

  53. [61]

    Fast nonparametric inference of network backbones for graph sparsification, 2024

    Alec Kirkley. Fast nonparametric inference of network backbones for graph sparsification, 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Approximate bayesian computation in population genetics

    Mark A Beaumont, Wenyang Zhang, and David J Balding. Approximate bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics, 162(4):2025–2035, 12 2002

    2025

  55. [63]

    bot rate

    Giorgio Fagiolo. Clustering in complex directed networks.Physical Review E, 76(2), 08 2007. 16 Supplementary Information A. Disparity filter A.1. Assumption of heterogeneity The disparity filter method, proposed by Serrano et al. [37], works in systems with strong disorder, wh...

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed May 19, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.