Instagram fake profile detection using an ensemble learning method
Open accessAbstract
Counterfeit accounts still pose a big problem for Instagram users. Trust is being eroded, and online security is being compromised as a result of these accounts’ constant contribution to Instagram’s spam, harmful information, and deceptive content problems. To find these profiles, we use a number of analytical parameters. Using machine learning is one of the main reasons for developing a model to effectively combat these false accounts. We investigate and provide a solution to the issue of Instagram’s ability to identify phony accounts in this research. An F1 score of 98%, a recall of 98%, a precision of 98.3%, and an accuracy of 98.24% are all achieved by the new, perfectly accurate model that is used in the proposed research. Our method combines scale_pos_weight optimization technique with XGBoost, SMOTE with balanced classes, and GridSearchCV to fine-tune key hyperparameters of Random Forest for fine-tuning purposes, therefore achieving this goal. This paper provides state-of-the-art methods for reducing the prevalence of false accounts, which will improve the efficiency and trustworthiness of identity verification systems used online. In this study, we provide an improved hybrid system with optimization that finds trends in phony accounts over time using adaptive discovery and strong analysis and class-balancing methods. In addition to improving online identity verification systems’ detection capabilities, this framework establishes a new standard for trust safeguarding via user trust and lays the groundwork for future breakthroughs in social media security.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes an optimized hybrid Instagram fake-profile detector combining Random Forest, XGBoost, and SMOTE with hyperparameter tuning, reporting 98.24% accuracy. It claims the hybrid outperforms baseline and prior models, while noting small-dataset and overfitting concerns.
Key findings
- The proposed model achieved accuracy 98.24%, precision 98.3%, recall 98.0%, and F1-score 98.34% in the conclusion; the abstract reports F1 98%, recall 98%, precision 98.3%, and accuracy 98.24%.
- In the result table, macro average precision/recall/F1 are all 0.98; fake profiles show precision 0.97, recall 1.00, F1 0.98, support 207; real profiles show precision 1.00, recall 0.96, F1 0.98, support 191.
- The confusion-matrix text reports 207 true positives for fake profiles, 184 true negatives for real profiles, 7 false positives, and 0 false negatives; it states 100% recall for fake profiles, 96% specificity, 98% accuracy, and 96% precision for fake accounts.
- Baseline comparison reports proposed accuracy 0.98 versus SVM 0.70, XGBoost 0.75, logistic regression 0.73, random forest 0.75, and decision tree 0.76; a separate comparative table lists proposed 98% versus prior studies ranging from 83% to 96%.
Methods
- Dataset: open-source tagged Instagram accounts with 200 fake and 994 real accounts, eight account authenticity features plus an added `isFake` target; 80:20 train-test split, normalization, and SMOTE for class imbalance.
- Hybrid model: Random Forest + XGBoost with SMOTE; Random Forest tuned via GridSearchCV with three-fold cross-validation, best `n_estimators=100`, `max_depth=10`, `min_samples_split=2`; XGBoost tuned with `scale_pos_weight=2.05`, `n_estimators=100`, `learning_rate=0.05`, `early_stopping_rounds=10`, and `logloss`; predictions combined by weighted averaging.
- Evaluation: accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, confusion matrices, classification reports, and training/validation loss plots; compared against Logistic Regression, SVM, Decision Tree, Random Forest, and XGBoost baselines.
Limitations
- The paper states the dataset was relatively small, which may limit robustness and generalizability, and that deep learning integration was constrained by the structured dataset and lack of textual and image data during experimentation.
- The text makes evident overfitting: training accuracy remains near 100% while validation accuracy stays flat around 98%, and training loss continues to decline while validation loss plateaus after about 10 epochs.
- The text also shows internal inconsistency: the confusion matrix reports 184 true negatives and 7 false positives, while Table 2 lists real-class support as 191; abstract/conclusion metric values also vary slightly, e.g., F1 98% versus 98.34% and precision 98.3% versus fake-class precision 0.97.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
3 of 23 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data
The model had 100% recall for fake profiles.
“while having a recall of 100% because no such fake was left behind.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The model had overall accuracy of 98%.
“Overall, the model is very accurate at 98%, meaning that a very high proportion of predictions is correct.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The dataset is highly imbalanced, with fake profiles significantly outnumbering genuine ones.
“This was a highly imbalanced dataset, as fake profiles significantly outnumbered the genuine ones.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The open-source dataset's labels of real and fake Instagram accounts are accurate.
- Findingown data
The final model achieved 98.24% accuracy against individual classifiers.
“The final model resulted in 98.24% accuracy against individual classifiers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 200 fake and 994 real Instagram accounts in the dataset are representative of Instagram fake profiles generally.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected metadata features are valid indicators of fake profiles.
- Rests on an assumption: SMOTE-generated synthetic samples for the minority class are representative and do not introduce harmful noise.
- Rests on an assumption: The 80:20 train-test split preserves class distributions across subsets.
- Findingown data
The model made 7 false positives, wrongly classifying actual profiles as scams.
“It made 7 errors, wrongly classifying some actual profiles as scams (False Positives)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data
The confusion matrix showed 184 true negatives for real profiles.
“and accurately predicted 184 cases as real profiles (True Negatives).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The model made no false negatives; no fake profile was labelled as real.
“and no fake profile was labelled as an actual one (False Negatives).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The model had 96% specificity for real accounts.
“It is also quite precise in recognizing actual accounts since 96% specificity can speak itself.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The confusion matrix showed 207 true positives for fake profiles.
“it will be revealed from the confusion matrix that the model was perfectly accurate for 207 cases of fake profiles (True Positives)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
F1-score for real and fake profiles is 0.98.
“For real and fake profiles, the F1-score is 0.98, which represents a well-balanced performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
The model's macro average accuracy across the two classes is 0.98.
“The model’s macro average accuracy across the two classes is 0.98, meaning that the performance is well balanced and takes into account the classes’ distribution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Macro and weighted average recall are 0.98.
“The values of macro and weighted normal recall are 0.98, which indicates that it is good at identifying most of the instances from each class.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Recall for fake profiles is 1.00.
“whereas it achieved 1.00 recall for fake profiles, meaning no fake profile was missed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Precision for fake profiles is 0.97.
“In the case of fake profiles, it is at 0.97 in terms of the precision value.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For fake profiles, the accuracy is 1.00.
“For fake profiles, the accuracy is 1.00, meaning every fake profile was correctly identified.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Cross-validation analyses indicated that Random Forest helped classification stability.
“while Random Forest helped classification stability.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Recall for real profiles is 0.96.
“The recall of the model in real profiles is 0.96, which means it correctly identified 96% of all real profiles”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Validation accuracy remains mostly flat around 98% with minor fluctuations in the early epochs over 40 epochs.
“However, the validation accuracy, shown by the orange line, remains mostly flat throughout the training process, staying around 98% with minor fluctuations in the early epochs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
The dataset used in this study is structured and metadata-driven, comprising numerical and categorical features such as number of followers, biography length, and presence of a profile image.
“First, the dataset used in this study is structured and metadata-driven, comprising numerical and categorical features such as the number of followers, biography length, and the presence of a profile image.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 200 fake and 994 real Instagram accounts in the dataset are representative of Instagram fake profiles generally.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected metadata features are valid indicators of fake profiles.
- Findingown data
The weighted average accuracy of the model is 0.98.
“The weighted average accuracy of the model is also 0.98.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The proposed model performed best among the baseline models in Table 5.
“In that way, Table 5 shows the qualified analysis of our proposed model with baseline models and our proposed model performed best.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Precision for real profiles is 1.00.
“if real profiles attain 1.00 as the precision value, this simply means it classifies with a hundred percent accuracy toward distinguishing actual accounts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Final Combined Model Validation Accuracy is 0.9824120603015075.
“Final Combined Model Validation Accuracy: 0.9824120603015075”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Hyperparameter tuning using GridSearchCV increases the training cost for Random Forest and XGBoost.
“Hyperparameter tuning using GridSearchCV increases the training cost to for RF and for XGB.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The accuracy of the model for real profiles is 0.96.
“The accuracy of the model for real profiles is 0.96, which means that 96% of the real profiles were properly ordered.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The precision of identifying fake accounts is 96%.
“The precision of identifying fake accounts is 96%, meaning that most of the flagged profiles are actually fraudulent.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The proposed model consistently surpassed baseline techniques including Logistic Regression, SVM, and DT in recall, precision, and F1-score.
“Using dataset, the proposed model was tested, where the outcome consistently surpassed baseline techniques developed, including Logistic Regression, SVM, and DT, concerning recall, precision, and F1-score.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The real/fake labels in the dataset are correct.
- Findingown data
Cross-validation analyses indicated that XGBoost enhanced feature interpretation of the text.
“Cross validation analyses indicated that XGBoost enhanced feature interpretation of the text”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
The F1 score is about 98%.
“The F1 score is about 98%, which reflects a good balance between recall and precision.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Integration of deep learning techniques was constrained due to the structured nature of the dataset and the lack of textual and image data during experimentation.
“Second, although classical machine learning models performed effectively, the integration of deep learning techniques was constrained due to the structured nature of the dataset and the lack of textual and image data during the experimentation phase.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
The projected model is executed on a dataset containing 994 real accounts and 200 fake accounts.
“The projected model is executed on a dataset containing 994 real accounts and 200 fake accounts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The proposed improved hybrid system finds trends in phony accounts over time using adaptive discovery and strong analysis and class-balancing methods.
“In this study, we provide an improved hybrid system with optimization that finds trends in phony accounts over time using adaptive discovery and strong analysis and class-balancing methods.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The proposed model is perfectly accurate.
“An F1 score of 98%, a recall of 98%, a precision of 98.3%, and an accuracy of 98.24% are all achieved by the new, perfectly accurate model that is used in the proposed research.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Consumers may be exposed to misleading interactions and content through dishonest accounts, negatively impacting their experience.
“Additionally, consumers may be exposed to misleading interactions and content through dishonest accounts, which could negatively impact their experience.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [10] Senthil Raja, M. & Arun Raj, L. Detection of malicious profiles and protecting users in online social networks. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 127(107), 124 (2022). source
- Premisecitation
Fake accounts can distort the online landscape by increasing a person's or group's follower count and popularity.
“By increasing a person’s or group’s follower count, fake accounts can significantly distort the online landscape and increase the popularity of the individual or group9.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] Gurajala, S., White, J. S., Hudson, B., Voter, B. R. & Matthews, J. N. Profile characteristics of fake twitter accounts. Big Data Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674236 (2016). source
- Interpretationreasoning
SMOTE synthesis of the minority class was necessary to balance the dataset.
“SMOTE synthesis of the class was thus necessary to stability the dataset.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Through parameter tuning of models and ensemble of predictions from Random Forest and XGBoost, the proposed method enhances generalizability and resilience.
“Through parameter tuning of models and ensemble of predictions from Random Forest and XGBoost, we enhance generalizability and resilience.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The presence of fake followers and purchased engagement makes it difficult to quantify influence and ROI for influencer campaigns.
“The large number of fake followers and purchased engagement makes it almost impossible to find out the exact influence of the influencer campaigns, thereby diluting the authenticity and impact of the campaign5.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [5] Durga, S. & Reddy, P. Fake profile detection using Machine Learning. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 56–2395 (2019).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Weighted voting combining Random Forest and XGBoost predictions increased robustness by leveraging both models' strengths.
“In addition, the use of weighted voting by combining the Random Forest and XGBoost prediction further increased robustness based on both model strengths”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Integrating models such as BERT or LSTM would have necessitated substantial changes to the data preprocessing pipeline and model architecture, diverging from the study's focus on metadata-based fake profile detection.
“Additionally, integrating models such as BERT or LSTM would have necessitated substantial changes to the data preprocessing pipeline and model architecture, diverging from the study’s focus on metadata-based fake profile detection.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [60] Kenton, J. D. M.-W. C. & Toutanova, L. K. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of naacL-HLT vol. 1 (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2019).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [61] Wei, F. & Nguyen, U. T. Twitter bot detection using bidirectional long short-term memory neural networks and word embeddings. In 2019 First IEEE International conference on trust, privacy and security in intelligent systems and applications (TPS-ISA) 101–109 (IEEE, 2019). source
- Interpretationown data
The higher F1-score suggests a good balance in avoiding false positives while detecting real and fake profiles.
“That even its higher F1-score suggests a good balance on the performance of the model to avoid false positives while detecting real and fake profiles.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The model's high metrics demonstrate strong capability to separate real and fake profiles.
“All these metrics together depict the model’s strong capability to separate between real and fake profiles, with great accuracy, recall, precision, and an F1-score.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
These characteristics lend themselves more effectively to traditional algorithms, with minimal reliance on raw textual data.
“These characteristics lend themselves more effectively to traditional algorithms, with minimal reliance on raw textual data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The contrast between steadily decreasing training loss and plateauing validation loss indicates a possibility of overfitting.
“This means a possibility of overfitting brought about by contrast in the steadily decreasing training loss with a plateauing validation loss.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The use of XGBoost, SMOTE, and Random Forest ensures progressive processing and data opposite, making the classifier robust.
“The use of XGBoost, SMOTE and RF ensures progressive processing and data opposite, thus the classifiers developed is robust.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Near equivalence of training and validation accuracies indicates strong generalization with minimal overfitting.
“and the near equivalence of training and validation accuracies indicates strong generalization with minimal overfitting.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The paper presents a hybrid ML enhanced with optimization techniques to effectively detect fake accounts on Instagram.
“This paper presents a hybrid ML, enhanced with optimization techniques, to effectively detect fake accounts on the platform.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The dataset used was relatively small, which may limit the robustness and generalizability of the findings.
“First, the dataset used was relatively small, which may limit the robustness and generalizability of the findings.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- May combine two claims. 49
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 38
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationSocial media platforms have implemented authentication systems and detection algorithms, but the problem of fake accounts remains persistent.
“To address these issue, social media platforms have implemented various measures, including authentication systems for prominence users and algorithms designed to detect and remove suspicious accounts. However, this problem remains persistent, and the ongoing growth of new methods to identify and block fraudulent accounts remains a urgency for both researchers and platform operatives19.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [19] Alsubaei, F. S. Detection of inappropriate tweets linked to fake accounts on twitter. Appl. Sci. 13, 3013 (2023). source
The Introduction (page unavailable) says Twitter has made numerous attempts to enforce its policy against fake accounts, yet users continue to evade those efforts. The paper also develops a fake-account detector, but it does not establish that social media platforms have implemented authentication systems for prominent users or algorithms to detect and remove suspicious accounts. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationSocial media networks' legitimacy may be threatened by fake accounts, damaging users' confidence and reputations.
“Social media networks’ legitimacy may be threatened by accounts, which would have a damaging effect on users’ confidence and reputations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [12] Bokolo, B. G. & Liu, Q. Advanced algorithmic approaches for scam profile detection on instagram. Electronic 13, 1571 (2024). source
The Literature Review (section 2; page unavailable) describes fake profiles as a threat to user safety and says scams prey on user confidence. The Conclusions (section 6; page unavailable) link detecting fake profiles to a more trustworthy online community. These passages support the concern about confidence and trust, but do not address damage to users’ reputations. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationFake accounts contribute to spreading false information, illegal activities such as identity theft and phishing, and rumours, which may create social rigidities and divergences.
“There are several concerns such as spreading false information, engaging in illegal activities such as character burglary and phishing, and rumours, which may create rigidities and divergences in society7.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Chakraborty, P., Shazan, M. M., Nahid, M., Ahmed, M. K. & Talukder, P. C. Fake profile detection using machine learning techniques. J. Comput. Commun. 10, 74–87 (2022). source
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe proposed model achieves an F1 score of 98%, recall of 98%, precision of 98.3%, and accuracy of 98.24% on Instagram fake profile detection.
“An F1 score of 98%, a recall of 98%, a precision of 98.3%, and an accuracy of 98.24% are all achieved by the new, perfectly accurate model that is used in the proposed research.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe dataset used contains 200 fake Instagram accounts and 994 real accounts, with eight account authenticity features.
“The dataset consists of 200 fake accounts and 994 real accounts, respectively with eight account authenticity features.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The open-source dataset's labels of real and fake Instagram accounts are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The 200 fake and 994 real Instagram accounts in the dataset are representative of Instagram fake profiles generally.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataRandom forest achieved accuracy 0.75, precision 0.77, recall 0.75, and F1-score 0.74.
“| Random forest | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.74 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown datascale_pos_weight tuning selected scale_pos_weight=2.05 as the best value.
“| scale_pos_weight | scale_pos_weight | [1, 2, 3, 4] | 2.05 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataTraining loss starts high, decreases rapidly in the early epochs, and stabilizes at a low value after around 20 epochs.
“The training loss, shown by the blue line, starts high but reductions rapidly in the early epochs, indicating that the model is swiftly learning from the training data. As training progresses, the loss continues to decline and eventually stabilizes at a low value after around 20 epochs”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataGridSearchCV selected max_depth=10 as the best value.
“| GridSearchCV | max_depth | [None, 10, 20] | 10 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataMacro and weighted average F1-score are 0.98.
“The macro average and weighted average of the F1-score also stand at 0.98”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe confusion matrix shows balanced classification with minimal false positives (3.7%) and zero false negatives.
“A related confusion matrix shows balanced classification with minimal false positives (3.7%) and zero false negatives, which reflects reliability in identifying a real profile from a fake profile.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The real/fake labels in the dataset are correct.
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataThe proposed model achieved 98% accuracy in comparison with previous models.
“| Proposed | 98% |”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown datascale_pos_weight tuning selected learning_rate=0.05 as the best value.
“| scale_pos_weight | learning_rate | [0.01, 0.05, 0.1] | 0.05 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataThe proposed model's accuracy (98%) is higher than that of six prior models (93%, 94%, 93%, 96%, 83%, 94%).
“| S. D. Munoz et al62 | 93% |”
- Also stated in: § Result and discussion · plain
“| G. Sonowal et al.63 | 94% |”
- Also stated in: § Result and discussion · plain
“| Proposed | 98% |”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites S. D. Munoz et al62
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites G. Sonowal et al.63 Sonowal, G., Balaji, V. & Kumar, N. A model to detect fake profile on Instagram using rule-based approach. CSI Trans. ICT 1–11(12), 95 (2024). source
- cites M. J. Ekosputra et al.64 Ekosputra, M. J., Susanto, A., Haryanto, F. & Suhartono, D. Supervised machine learning algorithms to detect instagram fake accounts. In 2021 4th International Seminar on Research of Information Technology and Intelligent Systems (ISRITI) 396–400 (IEEE, 2021). source
- Rests on an assumption: The accuracies reported by prior studies are comparable to the proposed model's evaluation.
- Also stated in: § Result and discussion · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataSVM achieved accuracy 0.70, precision 0.70, recall 0.70, and F1-score 0.70.
“| SVM | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningMacro and weighted average precision are both 0.98.
“In the case of precision values both from macro average and weighted average, their score stays constant at 0.98 in both aspects.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataXGBoost achieved accuracy 0.75, precision 0.78, recall 0.75, and F1-score 0.74.
“| XGBoost | 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.74 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataDecision tree achieved accuracy 0.76, precision 0.78, recall 0.76, and F1-score 0.76.
“| Decision tree | 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.76 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataCross-validation analyses indicated that SMOTE boosted minority class representation.
“SMOTE boosted the minority class representation”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataGridSearchCV selected min_samples_split=2 as the best value.
“| GridSearchCV | min_samples_split | [2, 5] | 2 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown datascale_pos_weight tuning selected n_estimators=100 as the best value.
“| scale_pos_weight | n_estimators | [50, 100, 150] | 100 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataGridSearchCV selected n_estimators=100 as the best value for the Random Forest model.
“| GridSearchCV | n_estimators | [50, 100] | 100 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataTraining accuracy remains close to 100% from the beginning and stabilizes around this level over 40 epochs.
“The training accuracy, signified by the blue line, remains dependably high, close to 100%, from the beginning and stabilizes around this level.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe proposed model achieved accuracy 0.98, precision 0.98, recall 0.97, and F1-score 0.98.
“| Proposed | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.98 |”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The real/fake labels in the dataset are correct.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataLogistic regression achieved accuracy 0.73, precision 0.74, recall 0.73, and F1-score 0.72.
“| Logistic regression | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.73 | 0.72 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataValidation loss starts elevated, decreases at a constant rate in earlier epochs, stabilizes after nearly 10 epochs, and remains nearly flat for subsequent epochs.
“Similarly, the validation loss, in orange, starts at an elevated value and continues lowering at a constant rate, as shown for the earlier epochs. Unlike the loss in training, the levels for loss in validation stabilize after nearly 10 epochs and goes nearly flat for the subsequent epochs of training.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe approach uses XGBoost, SMOTE, and Random Forest, with scale_pos_weight and GridSearchCV optimization, resulting in high recall, precision, accuracy, and F1 score.
“It utilizes innovative machine learning techniques, including XGBoost, SMOTE and Random Forest, with scale_pos_weight and GridSearchCV optimization techniques resulting in high recall, precision, accuracy, and F1 score.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe approach achieved overall Recall 98.0%, Precision 98.3%, accuracy 98.24%, and F1-Score 98.34%.
“Our approach has an overall Recall: 98.0%, Precision: 98.3%, accuracy of 98.24%, with F1-Score: 98.34% respectively demonstrating its ability to effectively distinguish between real and fake profiles.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The real/fake labels in the dataset are correct.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenGridSearchCV-based hyperparameter tuning was conducted to fine-tune Random Forest, ensuring optimal depth and tree count to balance performance and generalization.
“First, GridSearchCV-based hyperparameter tuning was conducted to fine-tune Random Forest, ensuring optimal depth and tree count to balance performance and generalization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationFake accounts contribute to the spread of harmful content and misinformation, which can influence civic belief, generate conflicts, and erode trust in online civilizations.
“Fake accounts pay to the spread of harmful content, and misinformation, which can influence civic belief, generate conflicts, and erode trust in online civilizations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [8] Khaled, S., El-Tazi, N. & Mokhtar, H. M. O. Detecting Fake Accounts on Social Media. In Proceedings - 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, Big Data 2018 3672–3681 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2018.8621913. source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningSMOTE was used to correct class imbalance, ensuring the model was exposed to a balanced number of real and fake accounts before the train-test split.
“In order to correct class imbalance within the dataset, SMOTE is used, which ensured the model is exposed to a balanced number of both real and fake accounts prior to dividing the dataset into preparation and justification sets.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe pre-processed dataset was split into training and test sets at an 80:20 ratio, with class distributions preserved across subsets.
“Subsequently, the pre-processed dataset was split into preparation and test sets with 80:20, safeguarding that all class distributions are followed over subsets.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 80:20 train-test split preserves class distributions across subsets.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataFor Random Forest, GridSearchCV-based hyperparameter tuning with three-fold cross-validation was used to tune n_estimators, max_depth, and min_samples_split.
“For RF, GridSearchCV-based hyperparameter tuning with three-fold cross-validation to tune important parameters including the number of estimators tree depth (`max_depth`), (`n_estimators`), and the minimum number of samples needed to split a node (`min_samples_split`) are carried.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSocial media data analysis is central to proper detection and response to growing fake accounts.
“In general, social media data analysis stands at the heart of proper detection and response to growing fake accounts across the systems21.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [21] Sahoo, S. R. & Gupta, B. B. Hybrid approach for detection of malicious profiles in twitter. Comput. Electr. Eng. 76, 65–81 (2019). source
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe proposed method provides state-of-the-art methods for reducing the prevalence of false accounts, improving efficiency and trustworthiness of online identity verification systems.
“This paper provides state-of-the-art methods for reducing the prevalence of false accounts, which will improve the efficiency and trustworthiness of identity verification systems used online.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningCross-validation was used for strict evaluation to verify consistency.
“Feature engineering was performed in the dataset; the process also involved a strict evaluation by making use of cross-validation for verifying consistency.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationFake accounts are used to influence civic belief, change the work atmosphere, and destroy confidence in social networks.
“Fake accounts are used to influence civic belief, change the work atmosphere, and destroy confidence in social networks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [14] Shahbazi, M. & Bunker, D. Social media trust: Fighting misinformation in the time of crisis. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 77, 102780 (2024). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationFraudulent profiles create challenges for businesses that use social media for selling and appointment, as they may target fake or inactive accounts.
“Fraudulent profiles can create challenges for businesses that utilize social media for selling and appointment, as they may inadvertently target numerous fake or inactive accounts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [18] Kaushik, K., Bhardwaj, A., Kumar, M., Gupta, S. K. & Gupta, A. A novel machine learning-based framework for detecting fake Instagram profiles. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp. 34, e7349 (2022). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSMOTE synthesized samples of the smaller class augmented its representation and improved the model's ability to classify fake accounts.
“SMOTE synthesized samples of the smaller class augmented the representation of this class and improved the model’s aptitude to classify fake accounts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: SMOTE-generated synthetic samples for the minority class are representative and do not introduce harmful noise.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe presence of spam accounts erodes confidence in the online environment, leading users to question the credibility of information.
“The presence of spam accounts can lead to an eroding self-confidence in online environment, since the users are more likely to question the credibility of the information they encounter.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [11] Pasieka, N., Kulynych, M., Chupakhina, S., Romanyshyn, Y. & Pasieka, M. Harmful Effects of Fake Social Media Accounts and Learning Platforms. In CPITS 258–271 (2021).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationMost detection methods apply machine learning algorithms on large amounts of data generated from social networking sites.
“Most of them apply the machine learning algorithms on huge amounts of data generated from such social sites20.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [20] Patel, K., Agrahari, S. & Srivastava, S. Survey on Fake Profile Detection on Social Sites by Using Machine Learning Algorithm. In ICRITO 2020 - IEEE 8th Int. Conf. Reliab. Infocom Technol. Optim. (Trends Futur. Dir. 1236–1240 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRITO48877.2020.9197935. source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataHyperparameter tuning and early stopping were performed for the Random Forest and XGBoost classifiers.
“As experimental work in proposed model fine-tuning included hyperparameter tuning and early stopping of the Random Forest as well as the XGBoost classifiers are performed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationFake-account activities can perform harmful illicit tasks including spoofs, phishing, or spamming, posing threats to users' privacy and safety.
“Fake-account activities can perform some harmful illicit tasks, including spoofs, phishing, or spamming, thereby potentially posing threats to the private and safe use of other users’ accounts in social networks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [15] Choudhary, R. R., Paliwal, S. & Meena, G. Image forgery detection system using VGG16 UNET model. Proced. Comput. Sci. 235, 735–744 (2024). source
- cites [16] Mughaid, A. et al. A novel machine learning and face recognition technique for fake accounts detection system on cyber social networks. Multimed. Tools Appl. 82, 26353–26378 (2023). source
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningXGBoost was optimized using scale_pos_weight to handle class imbalance, preventing data duplication and reducing computational overhead.
“Second, rather than oversampling, XGBoost was optimized using scale_pos_weight to handle class imbalance effectively, which prevents data duplication and reduces computational overhead.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationFalse stories can be used to spread information and sway public opinion on important subjects including health information.
“False stories can be used to spread information and sway public opinion on a variety of subjects, including important concerns and health information13.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] Nedaković, A., Hasselgren, A., Kralevska, K. & Gligoroski, D. Hyperledger fabric platform for healthcare trust relations—Proof-of-concept. Blockchain Res. Appl. 4, 100156 (2023). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenFor XGBoost, scale_pos_weight was set to mitigate class imbalance, early stopping with early_stopping_rounds=10 was used to avoid overfitting, and logloss was the evaluation metric.
“For XGBoost, also the model is optimized by setting `scale_pos_weight` to mitigate class imbalance, enabling early stopping with `early_stopping_rounds = 10` to avoid overfitting, and using the evaluation metric of `logloss`.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationExperiments based on Random Forest and XGBoost classifiers have proven to perform well in dealing with structured data.
“Experiments based on RF and XGBoost (XGB)55 classifiers have proven to perform well in dealing with structured data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [55] Tang, Y., Zhang, D., Li, K.-C. & Yuan, J. Uncovering malicious accounts in online social networks using xgboost and graph convolution networks. In IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron. (2024). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenSMOTE has been used for handling data imbalance, but resampling sometimes may introduce noise that degrades performance.
“SMOTE has been used for handling data imbalance, but resampling sometimes may introduce noise that degrades performance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenSteadily increasing accuracy across epochs means the model is learning effectively.
“Steadily increasing accuracy across epochs means that the model is learning effectively”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningAll models were evaluated using recall, precision, accuracy, and F1-score to ensure fair comparisons.
“All models were evaluated using recall, precision, accuracy, and F1-score to ensure fair comparisons.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationAdvanced models like BERT require substantial amounts of labeled textual data, significant computational assets, and extensive fine-tuning, which were beyond the practical scope of this investigation.
“Second, advanced models like BERT naturally require substantial amounts of labeled textual data, significant computational assets, and extensive fine-tuning, all of which were beyond the practical scope of this investigation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [60] Kenton, J. D. M.-W. C. & Toutanova, L. K. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of naacL-HLT vol. 1 (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2019).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe model was robust against any variation in dataset, implying generalization across various scenarios.
“Further analysis showed that the model was robust against any variation in dataset, thereby implying generalization across various scenarios.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSMOTE addresses class imbalance, allowing the model to better identify fake profiles, as shown by better recall metrics.
“SMOTE addresses class imbalance, which allows the model to better identify fake profiles, as shown by better recall metrics.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe hyperparameter adjustments collectively improved robustness, efficiency, and generalization of both models, leading to better classification performance.
“These adjustments collectively improved the robustness, efficiency, and generalization capability of both models, leading to better classification performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenMany earlier fake profile detection approaches focused narrowly on particular features or relied on outdated methods, making them inefficient against changing tactics of fake account creators.
“The literature review points out the fact that many earlier approaches focused narrowly on particular features or relied upon outdated methods that make them inefficient against the changing tactics used by the people who are creating these fake accounts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThese results affirm the model's applicability in real-world scenarios and provide a basis for future research.
“These results affirm the model’s applicability in real-world scenarios and deliver a basis for future research”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The real/fake labels in the dataset are correct.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone givenThe literature rarely explores optimized hybrid frameworks that combine multiple models with fine-tuned parameters for improved classification accuracy.
“The literature rarely explores optimized hybrid frameworks that combine multiple models with fine-tuned parameters for improved classification accuracy.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe study kept evaluation metrics, pre-processing step, and dataset partition the same between models to achieve robust and clear performance comparisons, increasing the validity of the proposed model's supremacy.
“The study keeps evaluation metrics, the pre-processing step and dataset partition all the same between models in a way to achieve robust, as well as clear performance comparisons; this increases the validity of proposed model’s supremacy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe hybrid model's total complexity incorporates both Random Forest and XGBoost and ensures optimal performance while balancing training efficiency.
“The hybrid model’s total complexity, incorporating both approaches, is , ensuring optimal performance while balancing training efficiency.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenWhile SMOTE has been used for class balancing, improper oversampling can introduce noise and hinder model generalization.
“Additionally, while SMOTE has been used for class balancing, improper oversampling can introduce noise and hinder model generalization.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenHyperparameter optimization techniques such as GridSearchCV have not been applied to most previous studies, resulting in suboptimal model configurations.
“Moreover, hyperparameter optimization techniques GridSearchCV have not been applied to most studies, which again results in suboptimal configurations of the model.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSMOTE has been extensively used to handle class imbalance in fake account detection tasks to improve model generalizability.
“Likewise, SMOTE has been extensively used to handle the class imbalance issue in fake account detection tasks to improve model generalizability56.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [56] Shah, A., Varshney, S. & Mehrotra, M. Detection of fake profiles on online social network platforms: Performance evaluation of artificial intelligence techniques. SN Comput. Sci. 5, 489 (2024). source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe paper integrates machine learning techniques with extensive feature engineering and evaluation, presenting a scalable and effective solution to improving online trust.
“This paper integrates the finest cut of machine learning techniques with extensive feature engineering and evaluation and, thus, presents a scalable and effective solution to improving online trust.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
Study design and conductnone givenAll baseline models use SMOTE for class balancing.
“All these above-mentioned models use SMOTE for class balancing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningThe primary gap in fake profile detection research lies in limitations of existing methods, which often struggle with class imbalance, ineffective feature utilization, and suboptimal performance due to lack of hyperparameter tuning.
“The primary gap in fake profile detection research lies in the limitations of existing methods, which often struggle with class imbalance, ineffective feature utilization, and suboptimal performance due to a lack of hyperparameter tuning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe model is overfitting, likely memorizing training data rather than generalizing to unseen data, because validation accuracy does not improve despite high training accuracy.
“The fact that the justification accuracy does not advance much, despite the high training correctness, indicates that the model is overfitting. It is likely memorizing the patterns in the training data rather than learning to generalize to unseen-data, which is why the validation performance stays relatively static.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningXGBoost is more computationally expensive at training time but efficient at prediction time.
“Thus, XGBoost is more computationally expensive at training time but efficient at prediction time.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenMost conventional approaches have focused on manually designed features including user behaviour patterns, language clues, and social network topology, but struggle to handle intelligent fake profiles that mimic human interactions.
“Most conventional approaches have focused on manually designed features including user behaviour patterns, language clues, and social network topology. The drawback to these methods, however, is that they struggle to handle intelligent fake profiles with the ability to mimic human interactions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThrough parallelization and early stopping, XGBoost's runtime is reduced, making the ensemble model feasible for large-scale fake profile detection.
“Through parallelization and early stopping, XGBoost’s runtime is reduced, making the ensemble model feasible for large-scale fake profile detection.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataCompared to baseline models Logistic-Regression, SVM, and DT, the proposed approach validates superior performance in recall, accuracy, F1-scores, and precision.
“Equated to baseline models Logistic-Regression, SVM, and DT, our approach validates superior concert in recall, accuracy, F1-scores, and precision underscoring its usefulness.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe proposed framework solves the problem of class imbalance and displays outstanding adaptability in detecting dynamic behavioural patterns in fake accounts.
“Our proposed framework solves the problem of class imbalance and displays outstanding adaptability in the detection of dynamic behavioural patterns in fake accounts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Premisenone givenTraditional ML models Random Forest and XGBoost have been predominantly used in previous fake profile detection literature but are known to be inefficient for class imbalance and feature selection.
“Since traditional ML models RF and XGBoost have been predominantly used in previous literature on fake profile detection; however, they are known to be inefficient for class imbalance and feature selection.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisenone givenHybrid approaches combining various classifiers have been introduced to further enhance detection efficiency.
“Also, hybrid approaches based on combining various classifiers have been introduced to further enhance detection efficiency.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone givenMany prior studies rely on single-model approaches, such as Random Forest or XGBoost, without leveraging their complementary strengths.
“Many prior studies rely on single-model approaches, such as Random Forest or XGBoost, without leveraging their complementary strengths.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisereasoningXGBoost has exhibited enhanced classification performance due to its capability of capturing complex feature interactions.
“work that leveraged XGBoost has exhibited enhanced classification performance as a result of the capability of capturing complex feature interactions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
Fake profiles are a pervasive problem on Instagram, causing loss of trust, security risks, and reduced authenticity.
“Fake profiles have become a pervasive issue, this has also been a huge problem on Instagram lately, with the presence of fake profiles robbing users of trust in their own data and jeopardizing both security as well as the overall authenticity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Users create fake profiles to artificially inflate their account by increasing visibility and engagement, and Instagram influencers are particularly guilty of buying followers, likes, and comments.
“One of the main drivers to create those fake profiles is users looking for ways to artificially inflate their account by increasing visibility numbers and engagement levels, so it looks like they have a higher influence than reality. This is a trend that Instagram influencers are particularly guilty of, with many falsifying their online presence by buying followers, likes, comments etc.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Fake accounts use tactics such as buying followers, creating phony posts, and misrepresenting themselves to brands, resulting in economic losses and reputational loss.
“The fake accounts, in return, use tactics such as buying followers, creating phony posts, and misrepresenting themselves to brands that invest in influencer marketing, resulting in economic losses and reputational loss.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Machine learning algorithms have proven highly effective in detecting fake profiles, bots, and spam accounts on social media platforms.
“Machine learning algorithms have proven highly effective in detecting fake profiles, bots, and spam accounts on social media platforms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Previous studies tend to emphasize single-modality approaches, while others using multimodality are unable to handle unbalance dataset, restricting detection accuracy.
“With the advancements in machine learning, previous studies tend to emphasize single-modality approaches, while others using multimodality are unable to handle unbalance dataset, restricting detection accuracy.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Hybrid machine learning models are yet to be adequately explored for fake account detection.
“This study makes a contribution to the evolution of more adaptive and scalable solutions for fake account detection, addressing a crucial gap in the literature wherein hybrid machine learning models are yet to be adequately explored for this purpose.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The open-source dataset's labels of real and fake Instagram accounts are accurate.
“The data collection manner complexes an open-source library containing tagged Instagram accounts separated actual and fake profiles for data collecting.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 200 fake and 994 real Instagram accounts in the dataset are representative of Instagram fake profiles generally.
“The dataset used is carefully selected to notice of fake profiles on Instagram34.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The selected metadata features are valid indicators of fake profiles.
“Features selected considered the behavior of users, including userFollowerCount, userFollowingCount, userBiographyLength, userMediaCount, usernameLength, and isFake (target variable).”
The paper relies on this without support.
SMOTE-generated synthetic samples for the minority class are representative and do not introduce harmful noise.
“SMOTE synthesized samples of the smaller class augmented the representation of this class and improved the model’s aptitude to classify fake accounts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 80:20 train-test split preserves class distributions across subsets.
“Subsequently, the pre-processed dataset was split into preparation and test sets with 80:20, safeguarding that all class distributions are followed over subsets.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The real/fake labels in the dataset are correct.
“The projected model is executed on a dataset containing 994 real accounts and 200 fake accounts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The accuracies reported by prior studies are comparable to the proposed model's evaluation.
“Further for comparison, previous other models are used. Table 6 highlight the comparison of proposed model with other models.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Overfitting assessment reverses in the discussion
MajorThe training-curve analysis says the model is overfitting and struggling to generalize, but the later summary interprets the accuracies as strong generalization with minimal overfitting.
“The fact that the justification accuracy does not advance much, despite the high training correctness, indicates that the model is overfitting.”
“Steadily increasing accuracy across epochs means that the model is learning effectively, and the near equivalence of training and validation accuracies indicates strong generalization with minimal overfitting.”
Fake accounts are described as the majority despite being the minority
MinorThe reported dataset has 200 fake accounts and 994 real accounts. Fake profiles therefore do not outnumber genuine ones, contrary to the stated reason for applying SMOTE.
“The dataset consists of 200 fake accounts and 994 real accounts, respectively with eight account authenticity features.”
“This was a highly imbalanced dataset, as fake profiles significantly outnumbered the genuine ones.”
Proposed-model recall differs between results tables
MinorTable 5 gives the proposed model a recall of 0.97, whereas Table 2 gives both its macro-average and weighted-average recall as 0.98.
“| Proposed | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.98 |”
“| Weighted Avg. | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 398 |”
Chosen XGBoost weight was not among the tested values
MinorTable 3 reports 2.05 as the best scale_pos_weight, although its listed tested values are only 1, 2, 3, and 4.
“| scale_pos_weight | scale_pos_weight | [1, 2, 3, 4] | 2.05 |”
“For XGBoost we did not rely on oversampling to balance our classes but actually used scale_pos_weight and found 2.05 is the best with this parameter such that class balance was achieved between the classes.”
Cites
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
Ombabi, A. H., Ouarda, W., & Alimi, A. M. (2020) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-020-00668-1 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Towards Detecting Compromised Accounts on Social Networks
Egele, M., Stringhini, G., Kruegel, C., & Vigna, G. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2015.2479616 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Twitter Bot Detection Using Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory Neural Networks and Word Embeddings
Wei, F., & Nguyen, U. T. (2019) · 2019 First IEEE International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS-ISA) · doi:10.1109/tps-isa48467.2019.00021 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Social fingerprinting: detection of spambot groups through DNA-inspired behavioral modeling
Cresci, S., Di Pietro, R., Petrocchi, M., Spognardi, A., & Tesconi, M. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2017.2681672 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Fake profile detection techniques in large-scale online social networks: A comprehensive review
Devakunchari, R., & Valliyammai, C. (2017) · Computers & Electrical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.05.020 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Detecting Fake Accounts on Social Media
Khaled, S., El-Tazi, N., & Mokhtar, H. M. O. (2018) · 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) · doi:10.1109/bigdata.2018.8621913 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Social media trust: Fighting misinformation in the time of crisis
Shahbazi, M., & Bunker, D. (2024) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102780 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Instagram Fake and Automated Account Detection
Akyön, F. Ç., & Kalfaoglu, M. E. (2019) · Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications Conference (ASYU) · doi:10.1109/asyu48272.2019.8946437 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Hybrid approach for detection of malicious profiles in twitter
Sahoo, S. R., & Gupta, B. B. (2019) · Computers & Electrical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2019.03.003 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Identifying Fake Accounts on Social Networks Based on Graph Analysis and Classification Algorithms
Mohammadrezaei, M., Shiri, M. E., & Rahmani, A. M. (2018) · Security and Communication Networks · doi:10.1155/2018/5923156 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
DeeProBot: a hybrid deep neural network model for social bot detection based on user profile data
Hayawi, K., Mathew, S. S., Venugopal, N., Masud, M. M., & Ho, P. (2022) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-022-00869-w · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Profile characteristics of fake Twitter accounts
Gurajala, S., White, J. S., Hudson, B., Voter, B. R., & Matthews, J. N. (2016) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951716674236 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Shilling Black-Box Recommender Systems by Learning to Generate Fake User Profiles
Lin, C., Chen, S., Zeng, M., Zhang, S., Gao, M., & Li, H. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2022.3183210 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Covering the Sensitive Subjects to Protect Personal Privacy in Personalized Recommendation
Wu, Z., Li, G., Liu, Q., Xu, G., & Chen, E. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/tsc.2016.2575825 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Uppada, S. K., Manasa, K., Vidhathri, B., Harini, R., & Sivaselvan, B. (2022) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-022-00878-9 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Mughaid, A., Obeidat, I., AlZu’bi, S., Elsoud, E. A., Alnajjar, A., Alsoud, A. R., & Abualigah, L. (2023) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-023-14347-8 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
A novel machine learning‐based framework for detecting fake Instagram profiles
Kaushik, K., Bhardwaj, A., Kumar, M., Gupta, S. K., & Gupta, A. (2022) · Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.7349 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Survey on Fake Profile Detection on Social Sites by Using Machine Learning Algorithm
Patel, K., Agrahari, S., & Srivastava, S. (2020) · 2020 8th International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (Trends and Future Directions) (ICRITO) · doi:10.1109/icrito48877.2020.9197935 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Fake Profile Detection Using Machine Learning Techniques
Chakraborty, P., Shazan, M. M., Nahid, M., Ahmed, M. K., & Talukder, P. C. (2022) · Journal of Computer and Communications · doi:10.4236/jcc.2022.1010006 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Image Forgery Detection System using VGG16 UNET Model
Choudhary, R. R., Paliwal, S., & Meena, G. (2024) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2024.04.070 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Detection of Fake and Clone accounts in Twitter using Classification and Distance Measure Algorithms
Sowmya, P., & Chatterjee, M. (2020) · doi:10.1109/iccsp48568.2020.9182353 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Detection of Malicious Profiles and Protecting Users in Online Social Networks
Senthil Raja, M., & Arun Raj, L. (2022) · Wireless Personal Communications · doi:10.1007/s11277-021-08095-x · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Hyperledger fabric platform for healthcare trust relations—Proof-of-Concept
Nedaković, A., Hasselgren, A., Kralevska, K., & Gligoroski, D. (2023) · Blockchain: Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.bcra.2023.100156 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Exploring machine learning techniques for fake profile detection in online social networks
Bharti, B., Gill, N. S., & Gulia, P. (2023) · International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems/International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · doi:10.11591/ijece.v13i3.pp2962-2971 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationA Hybrid Method for Fake Profile Detection in Social NetworkUsing Artificial Intelligence
Ajesh, F., Aswathy, S. U., Philip, F. M., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119776529.ch5 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Singh, V., Shanmugam, R., & Awasthi, S. (2021) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8677-4_19 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
How Impersonators Exploit Instagram to Generate Fake Engagement?
Zarei, K., Farahbakhsh, R., & Crespi, N. (2020) · International Conference on Communications · doi:10.1109/icc40277.2020.9149431 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Impersonation on Social Media: A Deep Neural Approach to Identify Ingenuine Content
Zarei, K., Farahbakhsh, R., Crespi, N., & Gareth Tyson, A. (2020) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) · doi:10.1109/asonam49781.2020.9381437 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
A dataset for the detection of fake profiles on social networking services
Munoz, S. D., & Guillen, E. P. (2020) · International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI) · doi:10.1109/csci51800.2020.00046 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Finite Automata for Fake Profile Identification in Online Social Networks
Krishnan, P., Aravindhar, D. J., & Reddy, P. B. P. (2020) · International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS) · doi:10.1109/iciccs48265.2020.9121086 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Shah, A., Varshney, S., & Mehrotra, M. (2024) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-024-02839-9 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Social bots spoil activist sentiment without eroding engagement
Li, L., Vásárhelyi, O., & Vedres, B. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-74032-0 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
MUSH: Multi-Stimuli Hawkes Process Based Sybil Attacker Detector for User-Review Social Networks
Qu, Z., Lyu, C., & Chi, C. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2022.3186513 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
The more they know: Using transparent online communication to combat fake online reviews
Wang, Y., Zamudio, C., & Jewell, R. D. (2023) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2023.03.004 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Advancing arabic dialect detection with hybrid stacked transformer models
Saleh, H., AlMohimeed, A., Hassan, R., Ibrahim, M. M., Alsamhi, S. H., Hassan, M. R., & Mostafa, S. (2025) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2025.1498297 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Are Social Networks Watermarking Us or Are We (Unawarely) Watermarking Ourself?
Bertini, F., Sharma, R. R., & Montesi, D. (2022) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging8050132 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms to Detect Instagram Fake Accounts
Ekosputra, M. J., Susanto, A., Haryanto, F., & Suhartono, D. (2021) · 2021 4th International Seminar on Research of Information Technology and Intelligent Systems (ISRITI) · doi:10.1109/isriti54043.2021.9702833 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Moore, M. (2023) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2023.1.1680 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Securing social spaces: machine learning techniques for fake profile detection on instagram
Goyal, B., Gill, N. S., & Gulia, P. (2024) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-024-01399-3 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationA New Joint Approach with Temporal and Profile Information for Social Bot Detection
Yang, Z., Chen, X., Wang, H., Wang, W., Miao, Z., & Jiang, T. (2022) · Security and Communication Networks · doi:10.1155/2022/9119388 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Detection of Fake and Clone Accounts in Twitter Using Classification and Distance Measure Algorithms
Krishna, S. S. R., Reddy, K. U., Reddy, T. A., et al. (2021) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-6482-3_39 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Detection of Inappropriate Tweets Linked to Fake Accounts on Twitter
Alsubaei, F. S. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13053013 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
ICON: Instagram Profile Classification Using Image and Natural Language Processing Methods
Güven, E. Y., Boyacı, A., Sarıtemur, F. N., et al. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2023.3275428 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
A model to detect fake profile on Instagram using rule-based approach
Sonowal, G., Balaji, V., & Kumar, N. (2024) · CSI Transactions on ICT · doi:10.1007/s40012-024-00400-w · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Singh, V., Shanmugam, R., & Awasthi, S. (2021) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-9509-7_4 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Profiling Astroturfing Facebook Users During Three Contiguous Israeli Election Periods
Schler, J., Bonchek-Dokow, E., Vainstein, T., Gotam, M., & Teplitsky, M. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata50022.2020.9378207 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
A Review Article on Detection of Fake Profile on Social-Media
Ahmad, S., & Tripathi, M. M. (2023) · International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer Science & Technology · doi:10.55524/ijircst.2023.11.2.9 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Terumalasetti, S., & Reeja, S. R. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3521951 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Advanced Algorithmic Approaches for Scam Profile Detection on Instagram
Bokolo, B. G., & Liu, Q. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13081571 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Uncovering Malicious Accounts in Online Social Networks Using XGBoost and Graph Convolution Networks
Tang, Y., Zhang, D., Li, K.-C., & Yuan, J. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics · doi:10.1109/tce.2024.3406194 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Preserving Users’ Sensitive Data in Physical and Virtual World Using Machine Learning: A Strategy
Gill, N. S., Gulia, P., Sagu, A., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1145/3603765.3603773 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationAdvancing Fake Profile Detection: A Machine Learning Perspective
Goyal, B., Gill, N. S., & Gulia, P. (2024) · International Conference on Intelligent Technologies (CONIT) · doi:10.1109/conit61985.2024.10626194 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citationInterpretability Based Approach to Detect Fake Profiles in Instagram
Sallah, A., Alaoui, E. A. A., & Agoujil, S. (2022) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-15191-0_29 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
ANN Based Fake Profile Detection and Categorization Using Premetric Paradigms On Instagram
Fathima, A. S., Reema, S., & Ahmed, S. T. (2023) · Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies (i-PACT) · doi:10.1109/i-pact58649.2023.10434755 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Identifying fake followers of instagram influencers using logistic regression
Singh, M. (2024) · Computational Methods in Science and Technology · doi:10.1201/9781003501244-80 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Fake Social Media Profile Detection Using Ml AlgorithmsPreprint
Murugan, S., Daniel, K. L., Bernice, A. T., Gunasekaran, V., & Anbumani, A. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5064663 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
THE USE OF SUPERVISED MACHINE LEARNING CLASSIFIERS FOR THE DETECTION OF FAKE INSTAGRAM ACCOUNTS
Durga, D. T. S. P. (2023) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results · doi:10.47750/pnr.2023.14.03.36 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Hybrid deep learning model for Arabic text classification based on mutual information
Abdulghani, F. A., & Abdullah, N. A. Z. (2022) · Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences · doi:10.1080/02522667.2022.2060910
Securing Social Spaces: Machine Learning Techniques for Fake Profile Detection on Instagram
Goyal, B., Gill, N. S., & Gulia, P. (2024) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4587668/v1
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Reddy, S. D. P. Fake profile identification using machine learning. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 6, 1145–1150 (2019).
- Shahane, P. & Gore, D. Detection of fake profiles on twitter using random forest & deep convolutional neural network. Int. J. Manag. Technol. Eng 9, 3663–3667 (2019).
- Perwej, Y. A smart framework for detecting instagram fake accounts using machine learning and correlation & singular value decomposition techniques. J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Res. 10, b772 (2023).
- Nivas, T. S., Sriramkrishna, P., Reddy, S. S. K., Rao, P. V. R. G. & Komali, R. S. P. Fake account detection on instagram using machine learning. Int. J. Res. Eng. Sci. Manag. 7, 24–26 (2024).
- Chowdhury, S. A. et al. Improving Arabic text categorization using transformer training diversification. In Proceedings of the fifth arabic natural language processing workshop 226–236 (2020).
- Kenton, J. D. M.-W. C. & Toutanova, L. K. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of naacL-HLT vol. 1 (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2019).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evaluation of Balancing Techniques in Machine Learning Models for Instagram Bot Detection
Ridani, A., Indriani, F., Mazdadi, M. I., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1109/icts67612.2025.11369684
Hybrid Machine Learning and NLP Framework for Automated Profile Identification in Social Networks
Mrs.J.Adilakshmi, Kumar, M. J. P., Niharika, N., Sathwik, M., & Goud, V. (2026) · International Conference on AI-Driven Smart Systems and Ubiquitous Computing (ICAUC) · doi:10.1109/icauc68182.2026.11440946
Optimizing the Accuracy of Spam Filtration Techniques Through Q-Learning
S., M. A. A., Ruhika Sai, S., & Smitha, T. V. (2026) · International Conference on Intelligent Sustainable Systems (ICISS) · doi:10.1109/iciss67859.2026.11453807
Xu, L., & Fang, D. (2026) · Financial Innovation · doi:10.1186/s40854-026-00936-7
Deep learning with optimization for social media fake profile detection
Goyal, B., Gill, N. S., Gulia, P., Alduaiji, N., Shukla, P. K., Shukla, P. K., & Vishnoi, S. (2026) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-026-01586-4
Self-citationA Comparative Analysis for Multi-Dimensional Fake Influencer Detection using AI
-, S. R. C., Reddy, C. S., Goud, B. S. R., et al. (2026) · International Conference on Inventive Computing and Informatics (ICICI) · doi:10.1109/icici68773.2026.11580945
A Forensic Text Analytics Framework for Fake Social Media Profile Detection
Bokolo, B. G., & Liu, Q. (2026) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics15143212
Enhancing Social Media Security Through Explainable Ensemble Learning
Trivedi, S., Shukla, B., Garg, Y., et al. (2026) · doi:10.1109/evst69093.2026.11660659
Macías, S. Y. S., & Gorozabel, O. A. L. (2026) · Visión Académica · doi:10.70577/30phrd87
Instagram Fake Profile Identification Using Behavioural Metadata and Linguistic Feature Analysis
Thangamariappan, P., Rithick, J., Ranjan David, C., & Sanjay, S. (2026) · International Conference Computational Vision and Bio Inspired Computing · doi:10.1109/iccvbic71195.2026.11689384
- Authors
- Goyal, B., Gill, N. S., Gulia, P., Alduaiji, N., Shukla, P. K., & J, S.
- Affiliations
- Maharshi Dayanand University (IN)
- Majmaah University (SA)
- Rajiv Gandhi Technical University (IN)
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2025-07-21
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26464-26464
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12279990
- OpenAlex
- W4412535952
- Semantic Scholar
- 01eb11143da4101d748b92d39cf90cc65b6e439d
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 12.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal
- 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 › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
- Keywords
- Instagram, fake account detection, social media security, ensemble learning, XGBoost, SMOTE, class imbalance, online identity verification, deceptive content
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.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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