Automated Identification of Social Media Bots Using Deepfake Text Detection
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Subsequent studies have built upon the Fagni et al. dataset to explore various strategies for bot detection based on content.
“Subsequent studies have built upon this dataset to explore various strategies for bot detection based on content (Saravani et al., 2021;Gambini et al., 2022;Tourille et al., 2022).”
From Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet (2024) · cites this paper as Saravani et al., 2021
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404 · see citing works
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Lowe, D. G. (2004) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1023/b:visi.0000029664.99615.94 · Cited by 55,589 · see citing works
SciBERT: A Pretrained Language Model for Scientific Text
Beltagy, I., Lo, K., & Cohan, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1371 · Cited by 3,218 · see citing works
Online Human-Bot Interactions: Detection, Estimation, and Characterization
Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14871 · Cited by 928 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some studies report that 9 to 20% of Twitter users are bots and they contribute to 35% of Twitter’s total contents [1,25].”
BackgroundDefending Against Neural Fake News
Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Rashkin, H., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., Roesner, F., & Choi, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.12616 · Cited by 569 · see citing works
Deep neural networks for bot detection
Kudugunta, S., & Ferrara, E. (2018) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2018.08.019 · Cited by 506 · see citing works
GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text
Gehrmann, S., Strobelt, H., & Rush, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-3019 · Cited by 470 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Researchers have already studied techniques to detect bot-generated deep fake text outside social media [2,4,13,15,28], but to assess their capability in social media, we need to work with in-domain data.”
BackgroundThe Paradigm-Shift of Social Spambots: Evidence, Theories, and Tools for the Arms Race
Cresci, S., Di Pietro, R., Petrocchi, M., Spognardi, A., & Tesconi, M. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion - WWW '17 Companion · doi:10.1145/3041021.3055135 · Cited by 381 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Cresci’s dataset [8], also used in [14,18], is among the few such datasets; however, an important factor in choosing the dataset for us was the quality of the text and how similar the bot-generated Tweets are to human-generated ones.”
BackgroundAutomatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled
Ippolito, D., Duckworth, D., Callison-Burch, C., & Eck, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.164 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled
Ippolito, D., Duckworth, D., Callison-Burch, C., & Eck, D. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.00650 · Cited by 264 · cited 4×
“have reached the capability of generating high quality text and some studies report that the humans detection rate against these text samples is near chance [2,15].”
BackgroundInfluentialDeBot: Twitter Bot Detection via Warped Correlation
Chavoshi, N., Hamooni, H., & Mueen, A. (2016) · 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) · doi:10.1109/icdm.2016.0096 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
TweepFake: about detecting deepfake tweets
Fagni, T., Falchi, F., Gambini, M., Martella, A., & Tesconi, M. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251415 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Abokhodair, N., Yoo, D., & McDonald, D. W. (2015) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2675133.2675208 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Random Walk Based Fake Account Detection in Online Social Networks
Jia, J., Wang, B., & Gong, N. Z. (2017) · International Conference on Dependable Systems & Networks/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/dsn.2017.55 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Lin, R., Xiao, J., & Jianping Fan, B. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11018-5_19 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Adelani, D. I., Mai, H., Fang, F., Nguyen, H. H., Yamagishi, J., & Echizen, I. (2020) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44041-1_114 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Using BERT to Extract Topic-Independent Sentiment Features for Social Media Bot Detection
Heidari, M., & Jones, J. H. (2020) · 2020 11th IEEE Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON) · doi:10.1109/uemcon51285.2020.9298158 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Detecting Social Bots on Twitter: A Literature Review
Alothali, E., Zaki, N., Mohamed, E. A., & Alashwal, H. (2018) · 2018 International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT) · doi:10.1109/innovations.2018.8605995 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
A Novel Hierarchical BERT Architecture for Sarcasm Detection
Srivastava, H., Varshney, V., Kumari, S., & Srivastava, S. (2020) · Workshop on Figurative Language Processing (FigLang) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.figlang-1.14 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Are You Human? Detecting Bots on Twitter Using BERT
Dukić, D., Keča, D., & Stipić, D. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) · doi:10.1109/dsaa49011.2020.00089 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Gayo-Avello, D. (2017) · IEEE Internet Computing · doi:10.1109/mic.2017.2911439 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Augmenting Data for Sarcasm Detection with Unlabeled Conversation Context
Lee, H., Yu, Y., & Kim, G. (2020) · Workshop on Figurative Language Processing (FigLang) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.figlang-1.2 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet
Yang, K., & Menczer, F. (2024) · Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media · doi:10.51685/jqd.2024.icwsm.7 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Deep learning detection method for large language models-generated scientific content
Alhijawi, B., Jarrar, R., AbuAlRub, A., & Bader, A. (2024) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-024-10538-y · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Szádeczky, T., & Bederna, Z. (2025) · Security Journal · doi:10.1057/s41284-025-00495-z · Cited by 23 · see citing works
A Survey on Deep Learning Techniques for Joint Named Entities and Relation Extraction
Kambar, M. E. Z. N., Esmaeilzadeh, A., & Heidari, M. (2022) · IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT) · doi:10.1109/aiiot54504.2022.9817231 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
On pushing DeepFake Tweet Detection capabilities to the limits
Gambini, M., Fagni, T., Falchi, F., & Tesconi, M. (2022) · 14th ACM Web Science Conference 2022 · doi:10.1145/3501247.3531560 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Bot or Human? Detection of DeepFake Text with Semantic, Emoji, Sentiment and Linguistic Features
Chong, A. T. Y., Chua, H. N., Jasser, M. B., & Wong, R. T. K. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on System Engineering and Technology (ICSET) · doi:10.1109/icset59111.2023.10295100 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
A novel approach to identify deepfake text using social media data
Devi, B. T., & Rajasekaran, R. (2025) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-025-01536-6 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Automation of Vulnerability Information Extraction Using Transformer-Based Language Models
Chaleshtori, F. H., & Ray, I. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25460-4_37 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationAutomated Code Extraction from Discussion Board Text Dataset
Saravani, S. M., Ghaffari, S., Luther, Y., Folkestad, J., & Moraes, M. C. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-31726-2_16 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationBeyond Words: Stylometric Analysis for Detecting AI Manipulation on Social Media
Ullah, U., Laudanna, S., Vinod, P., Sorbo, A. D., Visaggio, C. A., & Canfora, G. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-70879-4_11 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Arzani, M., Vahdat‐Nejad, H., & Hossein-Pour, M. (2024) · International Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1109/iccke65377.2024.10874567 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
DeBERTa-based framework for detecting machine-generated content on social media: a comparative study
Sweidan, S., Farouk, N., Abouhawwash, M., Askar, S., & Taha, M. (2026) · Journal Of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-025-01349-6 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Graph Attention Neural Network Distributed Model Training
Esmaeilzadeh, A., Kambar, M. E. Z. N., & Heidari, M. (2022) · IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT) · doi:10.1109/aiiot54504.2022.9817156
Analyzing the Efficacy of Bot Detection Methods on Twitter/XPreprint
Javed, D., Zaman, N., Khan, N. A., Ray, S. K., Mazroa, A. A., Ayaz, R., & Das, S. R. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4665612
Comprehensive Strategies for Identifying X(Twitter) Bots
Dhanesh, A., Jyothika, K., Jayaraj, M., Antony, N. J., & George, A. T. (2025) · INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT · doi:10.55041/ijsrem43583
Enhancing COVID-19 Tweet Analysis with Transformer Hybrid Models
Yandrapati, P. B., Kumar, A. B. P., & Karanam, S. R. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05855-3_29
The anatomy of conspiratorial infodemic: exploring super-spreaders in COVID-19 discourse on Twitter
Shao, C., & Kwon, K. H. (2025) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-025-02495-y
BotEvo: LLM-Driven social bot detection via behavioral evolution modeling and cross-modal fusion
Zhang, Y., Qiao, K., Shi, S., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Chen, J., Li, L., & Yan, B. (2026) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s44443-026-00814-3
- Authors
- Saravani, S. M., Ray, I., & Ray, I.
- Affiliations
- Colorado State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Saravani, Sina Mahdipour
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2021
- Pages
- 111-123
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W4206070471
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 7.33
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- misinformation, Twitter, end-to-end neural network, real-time detection, spam
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.
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