Cited by 419Spam and Phishing DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Arming the public with artificial intelligence to counter social bots

Open access
Yang, Kai‐Cheng, Varol, Onur, Davis, Clayton A., Ferrara, Emilio, Flammini, Alessandro, Menczer, Filippo·2019·Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies

Abstract

The increased relevance of social media in our daily life has been accompanied by efforts to manipulate online conversations and opinions. Deceptive social bots—automated or semi-automated accounts designed to impersonate humans—have been successfully exploited for these kinds of abuse. Researchers have responded by developing artificial intelligence (AI) tools to arm the public in the fight against social bots. Here we review the literature on different types of bots, their impact, and detection methods. We use the case study of Botometer, a popular bot detection tool developed at Indiana University, to illustrate how people interact with AI countermeasures. A user experience survey suggests that bot detection has become an integral part of the social media experience for many users. However, barriers in interpreting the output of AI tools can lead to fundamental misunderstandings. The arms race between machine learning methods to develop sophisticated bots and effective countermeasures makes it necessary to update the training data and features of detection tools. We again use the Botometer case to illustrate both algorithmic and interpretability improvements of bot scores, designed to meet user expectations. We conclude by discussing how future AI developments may affect the fight between malicious bots and the public.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper reviews social bot characterization, impact, and detection, using Botometer as a case study of public-facing AI countermeasures. It reports a user survey and describes Botometer v3 improvements—calibration, Complete Automation Probability, and retraining—to make bot scores more interpretable and adaptive.

Key findings

  • The literature review documents bot activity in health and politics, including 18K active bots pushing the MacronLeaks campaign during the 2017 French election; it also cites estimates that 9–15% of active Twitter accounts were bots in 2017 and that Facebook removed 1.5 billion fake accounts over six months in 2018.
  • In a Botometer user experience survey with 731 usable responses (August–October 2018), more than one third of participants used Botometer at least weekly, over 80% believed it was accurate, and over 80% found bot scores easy to understand; occasional users cared more about false positives, while frequent users cared more about false negatives.
  • Botometer v3 introduced calibrated scores via Platt scaling, rescaled scores to [0,5], and added Complete Automation Probability (CAP) using a prior P(Bot)=0.15; training data totaled 57,155 bots and 30,853 humans, v3 used 1,209 features, and cross-validation accuracy improved from 0.95 to 0.97 AUC.
  • Botometer handles over a quarter million requests daily and its website receives over 500 daily visits, supporting third-party tools such as browser extensions and bot-hunting bots.

Methods

  • Literature review of social bot types, activity and impact, and detection methods, including supervised, unsupervised, and adversarial approaches.
  • Case study of Botometer, a supervised Random Forest classifier using over 1,000 features, plus a user experience survey recruited from Botometer website visitors between August and October 2018, yielding 731 usable answers.
  • Interpretability and retraining analysis: Platt scaling for calibration, Bernstein polynomial (40th-degree) density fits for likelihoods, Bayesian CAP with prior P(Bot)=0.15, and expanded training datasets with new features.

Limitations

  • Stated: the user survey has self-selection bias because respondents tend to be active Botometer users; some survey questions were optional.
  • Stated: there is no objective, agreed-upon operational definition of a social bot and no ground truth, with many accounts in a gray area; supervised methods perform poorly on coordinated bots posting human-generated content, and unsupervised coordination methods can check only a single feature and may require quadratic account pairs.
  • Stated/evident: CAP depends on an informed prior P(Bot)=0.15 rather than sample-specific prevalence; algorithmic bias and limited interpretability remain concerns, and the survey sample is not externally validated beyond Botometer visitors.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbe2.115

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 34 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingnone given
    § 4.1 Model calibration · p. 11

    Most uncalibrated bot scores fall near the middle of the unit interval.

    “this is because most uncalibrated bot scores fall near the middle of the unit interval.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 4.1 Model calibration · p. 11

    In the calibrated model, each bin has approximately the same number of scores.

    “The flatter red line in the plot shows that each bin has approximately the same number of scores in the calibrated model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 8

    Over 80% of users believe Botometer is accurate in classifying bots and humans.

    “Second, over 80% of the users believe Botometer is accurate in classifying bots and humans (Figure 2B).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents are representative enough of Botometer users or the public to infer user needs and interactions, despite self-selection bias.
  • Findingreasoning
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 9

    Despite an explanation offered on the website, the confusion persisted.

    “Despite an explanation offered on the website, the confusion persisted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Early user feedback is representative of typical users' misinterpretations of bot scores.
  • Findingown data
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 9

    Judging from early user feedback, incorrect interpretations of bot scores as probabilities or percent automation were prevalent.

    “Judging from early user feedback, such incorrect interpretations were prevalent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Early user feedback is representative of typical users' misinterpretations of bot scores.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 43
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 4.1 Model calibration · p. 11

    The calibration mapping shifts scores within the unit interval but preserves order, leaving AUC unchanged.

    “Note that this mapping shifts scores within the unit interval but preserves order, therefore leaving the AUC unchanged.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 8

    The Botometer website receives over 500 daily visits.

    “while the website receives over 500 daily visits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 8

    Botometer currently handles over a quarter million requests every day.

    “Currently, it handles over a quarter million requests every day (Figure 1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingreasoning
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 8

    Frequent users care more about false negatives.

    “On the other hand, frequent users care more about false negatives.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents are representative enough of Botometer users or the public to infer user needs and interactions, despite self-selection bias.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 10

    Users seem to appreciate the changes in score presentation, as shown in Figure 4.

    “Users seem to appreciate these changes, as shown in Figure 4.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents are representative enough of Botometer users or the public to infer user needs and interactions, despite self-selection bias.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § Abstract · p. 1

    A user experience survey suggests that bot detection has become an integral part of the social media experience for many users.

    “A user experience survey suggests that bot detection has become an integral part of the social media experience for many users.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents are representative enough of Botometer users or the public to infer user needs and interactions, despite self-selection bias.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5 Updating detection models · p. 16

    The addition of datasets about unseen classes of bots in the training data does not seem to degrade model performance; accuracy remains high across models trained on increasingly richer datasets.

    “We note that the addition of datasets about unseen classes of bots in the training data does not seem to degrade model performance: the accuracy remains high across models trained on increasingly richer datasets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § 5 Updating detection models · p. 14

    Several bot datasets collected by colleagues in academia have been included in Botometer's training data in the past few years.

    “In the past few years, several bot datasets collected by colleagues in academia have been included in our training data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    Many machine learning algorithms, including those used by Botometer, do not make it easy to interpret their classifications.

    “Unfortunately, many machine learning algorithms, including those used by Botometer, do not make it easy to interpret their classifications.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning
    § 5 Updating detection models · p. 16

    The list of features employed by Botometer was recently enriched to incorporate new ones designed to capture bots employed in information operations.

    “In light of journalistic evidence and other academic research, the list of features employed by Botometer was recently enriched to incorporate new ones that are designed to capture bots employed in information operations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 7

    This capacity depends on the ability to engage the public and collect feedback.

    “This, in turn, depends on the ability to engage the public and collect the feedback it provides.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract · p. 1

    The arms race between machine learning methods to develop sophisticated bots and effective countermeasures makes it necessary to update the training data and features of detection tools.

    “The arms race between machine learning methods to develop sophisticated bots and effective countermeasures makes it necessary to update the training data and features of detection tools.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    There is an arms race between bot creators and the research community.

    “introducing an arms race between bot creators and the research community.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 7

    Botometer is based on a supervised machine learning approach.

    “Botometer is based on a supervised machine learning approach (Davis et al., 2016; Varol et al., 2017a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Davis et al., 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Varol et al., 2017a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.2 Complete automation probability · p. 12

    Model calibration makes bot scores easier to interpret.

    “While model calibration makes the bot scores easier to interpret”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Barriers in interpreting the output of AI tools can lead to fundamental misunderstandings.

    “However, barriers in interpreting the output of AI tools can lead to fundamental misunderstandings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Early user feedback is representative of typical users' misinterpretations of bot scores.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 2.3 Bot detection methods · p. 6

    There is no objective, agreed-upon, operational definition of social bot.

    “There is no objective, agreed-upon, operational definition of social bot.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 8

    Usable answers were collected from 731 survey participants.

    “We collected usable answers from 731 participants; they are listed in Figure 2 together with the questions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.1 Model calibration · p. 10

    The threshold approach is useful for scientists counting bots in a collection, but not intuitive for humans evaluating a single account.

    “This threshold approach is useful for scientists counting bots in a collection (Su´ arez-Serrato et al., 2016; Haustein et al., 2016; Gorwa, 2017; Stella et al., 2018; Shao et al., 2018a), but it is not intuitive for humans evaluating a single account.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 7

    Botometer's bot score is intended to be used with English-language accounts because some features are based on English-language content.

    “Because some of the features are based on English-language content, the bot score is intended to be used with Englishlanguage accounts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 4.1 Model calibration · p. 10

    For two accounts A and B with classifier scores x<y, one can say A is less likely to be a bot than B, but cannot say A is x% likely to be a bot.

    “Here we can say that account A is less likely to be a bot than account B , but we cannot say that account A is x % likely to be a bot.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 8

    The authors are aware of self-selection bias, as respondents tend to be active users of Botometer.

    “Although these numbers are encouraging, we are aware of self-selection bias, as respondents of the survey tend to be active users of Botometer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    As many as 9-15% of active Twitter accounts were estimated to be bots in 2017.

    “as many as 9-15% of active Twitter accounts were estimated to be bots in 2017 (Varol et al., 2017a)”
    • Also stated in: § 4.1 Model calibration · p. 11 · hedged
      “the percentage of bot accounts is estimated around 915% (Varol et al., 2017a)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Varol et al., 2017a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 7

    Research efforts aimed at bot detection may be valuable to mitigate undesired consequences, but their efficacy is limited by limited public awareness and unwillingness to adopt sophisticated tools.

    “Research efforts aimed at bot detection may be valuable to mitigate the undesired consequences of bot activity, but their efficacy is limited by two factors: limited public awareness of the bot problem, and unwillingness to adopt sophisticated tools to combat it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3 User engagement with bot detection tools · p. 7

    The success of bot detection research critically depends on the capacity to adapt to ever changing and increasingly sophisticated artificial accounts.

    “The success of research efforts also critically depends on the capacity to adapt to ever changing and increasingly sophisticated artificial accounts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 2.3 Bot detection methods · p. 6

    Supervised machine learning approaches are the most common for bot detection.

    “Approaches based on supervised machine learning algorithms are the most common (Subrahmanian et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Subrahmanian et al., 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 19

    These techniques can provide solutions for specific problems, such as addressing the shortage of human-labeled training data on bot activity and analyzing online sentiment.

    “These techniques can provide solutions for specific problems, such as addressing the shortage of humanlabeled training data on bot activity and analyzing online sentiment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    Media literacy efforts may be critical in the fight against online manipulation.

    “Media literacy efforts may be critical in this respect (Lazer et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lazer et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 6.1 Future of social bots · p. 18

    Recent events, including election manipulations, have led to loud public calls for platforms to apply stricter safeguards against abuse and for policymakers to enact regulations of social media platforms in several countries.

    “Recent events, including election manipulations discussed in Section 2.2, have led to loud public calls for platforms to apply stricter safeguards against abuse and for policymakers to enact regulations of social media platform in several countries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    As AI systems employ more sophisticated learning methodologies, model complexity increases and systems become vulnerable to overlooked biases.

    “As AI systems employ more sophisticated learning methodologies, model complexity increases and systems become vulnerable to overlooked biases (Kirkpatrick, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kirkpatrick, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 19

    Only narrow groups of bots that coordinate in specific ways can be captured by unsupervised methods that check a single feature.

    “As a result, only narrow groups of bots that coordinate in specific ways can be captured.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 19

    So far, the technical response to increasingly sophisticated bots has largely focused on increased sophistication in detection approaches.

    “So far, the technical response to increasingly sophisticated bots has largely focused on increased sophistication in detection approaches.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.2 Complete automation probability · p. 13

    KDE commonly-used implementations assume unbounded support, and since bot score support is unit interval, KDE leads to biased estimates near interval boundaries.

    “Since the support of our distribution is necessarily the unit interval, the use of KDEin this case leads to biased estimates near the interval boundaries (Leblanc, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Leblanc, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    Algorithmic interpretability would make it easier to spot biases, and a recent European Union regulation grants users the right to ask for an explanation of an algorithmic decision made about them.

    “Algorithmic interpretability would make it easier to spot such biases, and in fact a recent European Union regulation grants users the right to ask for an explanation of an algorithmic decision that was made about them (Goodman and Flaxman, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goodman and Flaxman, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2 Complete automation probability · p. 14

    Failure to take the prior into account leads one to overestimate the number of bots in a sample due to humans being more common than bots, leading to false positives outnumbering false negatives.

    “Failure to take the prior into account leads one to overestimate the number of bots in a sample due to humans being more common than bots, leading to false positives outnumbering false negatives.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    Machine learning is playing a growing role in decision making on issues of broad societal importance.

    “Machine learning is playing a growing role in decision making on issues of broad societal importance (Munoz et al., 2016; Barocas and Selbst, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Munoz et al., 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Barocas and Selbst, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 6.1 Future of social bots · p. 18

    There are great examples of bots providing valuable services to social media users.

    “Despite all the nefarious uses of social bots, there are great examples of bots providing valuable services to social media users (Mønsted et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mønsted et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    Models trained on manually annotated data might inherit the biases of annotators.

    “Models trained on manually annotated data might inherit the biases of annotators.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 6.1 Future of social bots · p. 18

    Some deep-learning methodologies have already demonstrated a capability to surpass human performance on various tasks, such as face recognition and game playing.

    “Some of these methodologies have already demonstrated a capability to surpass human performance on various tasks, such as face recognition and game playing (Mnih et al., 2015; Taigman et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Mnih et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Taigman et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 6.1 Future of social bots · p. 18

    Successful implementation and further advances of these deep-learning technologies can pose serious threats, since discriminating between organic human behavior and automation is likely to become more and more challenging, even for experts.

    “Successful implementation and further advances of these technologies can pose serious threats, since discriminating between organic human behavior and automation is likely to become a more and more challenging task, even for experts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 19

    Unsupervised methods have proven effective at identifying some coordinated bots with high precision, but they can only check a single feature.

    “While the unsupervised methods reviewed in Section 2.3 have proven effective at identifying some coordinated bots with high precision, they can only check a single feature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.2 Complete automation probability · p. 14

    Botometer uses P(Bot)=0.15, corresponding to a previously published estimate of the proportion of bots on Twitter.

    “Botometer uses P (Bot) = 0 . 15, corresponding to a previously published estimate of the proportion of bots on Twitter (Varol et al., 2017a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Varol et al., 2017a

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    Deep-learning methods are even more challenging than other machine learning methods with respect to interpretability.

    “Deep-learning methods are even more challenging in this respect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 6.1 Future of social bots · p. 19

    A recent California law requires online bots to identify themselves as such when they interact with humans, for example promoting a political candidate during elections.

    “The latter question is attracting significant attention following a recent California law requiring online bots to identify themselves as such when they interact with humans, for example promoting a political candidate during elections (Sacharoff, 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sacharoff, 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6.1 Future of social bots · p. 18

    Aggressive suspension of abusive bots that spread false or misleading political content has been criticized by some politicians as censorship, and research on bot detection has been targeted by partisan attacks and labeled as suppression of free speech.

    “For example, aggressive suspension of abusive bots that spread false or misleading political content has been criticized by some politicians as censorship (Kang and Frenkel, 2018; Tynan, 2018); even research on bot detection has been targeted by partisan attacks and labeled as suppression of free speech (Mervis, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kang and Frenkel, 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tynan, 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mervis, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    The iterative process of detecting novel accounts by expanding training datasets is an effective approach but requires extensive and continual manual efforts.

    “The iterative process of detecting novel accounts by expanding training datasets, presented in Section 5, is an effective approach but requires extensive and continual manual efforts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 19

    Recently proposed tools for social bot detection employ deep learning, evolutionary algorithms, and unsupervised learning.

    “As reviewed in Section 2.3, recently proposed tools for social bot detection employ deep learning, evolutionary algorithms, and unsupervised learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 6.1 Future of social bots · p. 18

    Platforms are under increasing pressure from politicians, even though they are in theory free to police their systems according to their own terms of service and community standards.

    “While platforms are in theory free to police their systems according to their own terms of service and community standards, they are under increasing pressure from politicians.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    Much public debate revolves around how humans will interact with artificial intelligence.

    “Much public debate revolves around how humans will interact with artificial intelligence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6.1 Future of social bots · p. 18

    Recent developments of deep-learning models create opportunities to employ sequence-to-sequence models for automatic conversations, deep reinforcement learning for controlling account behaviors, and generative adversarial networks for creating fake profile images and content.

    “Recent developments of deep-learning models create opportunities to employ sequence-to-sequence models for automatic conversations (Li et al., 2015, 2016), deep reinforcement learning for controlling account behaviors (Mnih et al., 2015; He et al., 2016; Serban et al., 2017), and generative adversarial networks for creating fake profile images and content (Goodfellow et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 201”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Li et al., 2015, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mnih et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Goodfellow et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6.1 Future of social bots · p. 18

    Deep-learning approaches can be used to detect sentiment online, allowing the next generation of social bots to be more perceptive about human emotions.

    “Deep-learning approaches can also be used to detect sentiment online (Socher et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2014; Severyn and Moschitti, 2015), allowing the next generation of social bots to be more perceptive about human emotions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Socher et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tang et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Severyn and Moschitti, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 19

    Another research challenge relevant for dismantling coordinated bot attacks is the detection of promoted campaigns at their early stages.

    “Another research challenge that could be relevant for the dismantling of coordinated bot attacks is the detection of promoted campaigns at their early stages (Ferrara et al., 2016b; Varol et al., 2017b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Ferrara et al., 2016b

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Varol et al., 2017b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    Botometer employs an ensemble model to learn complex rules able to recognize multiple types of bot behavioral patterns.

    “Botometer employs an ensemble model to learn complex rules able to recognize multiple types of bot behavioral patterns.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6.2 Future of AI countermeasures · p. 20

    Because of the significant financial and political incentives for developing benign and malicious social bots, this domain provides a concrete and realistic scenario to imagine the future of both collaborative and adversarial human-bot interactions.

    “Because of the significant financial and political incentives for developing benign and malicious social bots, this domain provides us with a concrete and realistic scenario to imagine the future of both collaborative and adversarial human-bot interactions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
54 of 54
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Survey respondents are representative enough of Botometer users or the public to infer user needs and interactions, despite self-selection bias.

    “Although these numbers are encouraging, we are aware of self-selection bias, as respondents of the survey tend to be active users of Botometer.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Early user feedback is representative of typical users' misinterpretations of bot scores.

    “Judging from early user feedback, such incorrect interpretations were prevalent.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The model's training data provides empirical score distributions representative of the population of accounts to which the Complete Automation Probability is applied.

    “The model's training data provides empirical distributions of scores for both humans and bots (Figure 6); density estimation can be used to find a probability density function likely to produce a particular empirical distribution.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A supervised machine learning tool is only as good as the data used for its training.

    “A supervised machine learning tool is only as good as the data used for its training.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Social bots evolve rapidly, and even the most advanced algorithms will fail with outdated training datasets.

    “Social bots evolve rapidly, and even the most advanced algorithms will fail with outdated training datasets.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Methods designed to detect sophisticated social bots tend to overlook coordinated behaviors, and vice versa.

    “For example, methods designed to detect sophisticated social bots tend to overlook coordinated behaviors, and vice versa [19].”

    From A language framework for modeling social media account behavior (2023) · cites this paper as [19]

    Section 2.3 (p. 6) says supervised methods often fail to detect coordinated bots because their individual accounts do not look suspicious. Section 6.2 (p. 19) says coordination-focused unsupervised methods capture only narrow groups of bots, but it does not establish the reverse claim that they tend to overlook sophisticated bots specifically. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The accounts were collected and labeled by multiple researchers between 2017-2019.

    “These accounts were collected and labeled by multiple researchers between 2017-2019 [19].”

    From A language framework for modeling social media account behavior (2023) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Acknowledgements (p. 20) name several people who collected datasets, and the training-data table (p. 15) identifies some accounts as manually labeled. Neither passage establishes that the accounts were collected and labeled by multiple researchers between 2017 and 2019; the dates in Table 2 describe Botometer model activity periods, not account collection or labeling dates. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Automated accounts exhibit distinctive temporal, linguistic, and network signatures.

    “A decade of research on social bot detection 13-15 has established that automated accounts exhibit distinctive temporal, linguistic, and network signatures 14,31 .”
  • Traditional social bots often follow pre-defined instructions to perform simplistic tasks, such as spamming, following others, and amplifying certain narratives.

    “Traditional social bots often follow pre-defined instructions to perform simplistic tasks, such as spamming (Yang et al., 2019), following others, and amplifying certain narratives (Keller et al., 2020).”

    From Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet (2024) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2019

  • Researchers commonly adopt the supervised approach where examples of bot and human accounts are collected for training classifiers.

    “Researchers commonly adopt the supervised approach where examples of bot and human accounts are collected for training classifiers (Yang et al., 2019;Sayyadiharikandeh et al., 2020).”

    From Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet (2024) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

8 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Goodfellow I. Pouget‐Abadie J. Mirza M. Xu B. Warde‐Farley D. Ozair S. … &Bengio Y.(2014).Generative adversarial nets. Paper presented at the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (NIPS 2014) Montreal Canada 2672–2680.
  2. Gorwa R., 2017, Computational propaganda in Poland: False amplifiers and the digital public sphere
  3. Schroeder J.(2018). Are bots entitled to free speech?Columbia Journalism Review.
  4. Stocking G., 2018, Social media bots draw public's attention and concern

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, K., Varol, O., Davis, C. A., Ferrara, E., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Menczer, Filippo
Venue
Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
48-61
ISSN
2578-1863 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2907352650
Cited by
419
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 21
FWCI
82.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks Open (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (W911NF‐17‐C‐0094, W911NF‐12‐1‐0037)
  • National Institutes of Health (5R01DA039928‐03)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550‐17‐1‐0327)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
social bots, bot detection, Botometer, social media manipulation, user experience, interpretability, algorithmic fairness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review