Cited by 260Spam and Phishing DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

DeBot: Twitter Bot Detection via Warped Correlation

Chavoshi, Nikan, Hamooni, Hossein, Mueen, Abdullah·2016·2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)

Abstract

We develop a warped correlation finder to identify correlated user accounts in social media websites such as Twitter. The key observation is that humans cannot be highly synchronous for a long duration, thus, highly synchronous user accounts are most likely bots. Existing bot detection methods are mostly supervised, which requires a large amount of labeled data to train, and do not consider cross-user features. In contrast, our bot detection system works on activity correlation without requiring labeled data. We develop a novel lag-sensitive hashing technique to cluster user accounts into correlated sets in near real-time. Our method, named DeBot, detects thousands of bots per day with a 94% precision and generates reports online everyday. In September 2016, DeBot has accumulated about 544,868 unique bots in the previous one year. We compare our detection technique with per-user techniques and with Twitter's suspension system. We observe that some bots can avoid Twitter's suspension mechanism and remain active for months, and, more alarmingly, we show that DeBot detects bots at a rate higher than the rate Twitter is suspending them.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icdm.2016.0096

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Key signals for unsupervised bot detection include temporal activities, common retweets, and URLs shared in tweets.

    “Key signals include temporal activities (Chavoshi et al., 2016;Keller et al., 2017), common retweets (Nizzoli et al., 2021), and URLs shared in tweets (Pacheco et al., 2021;Giglietto et al., 2020).”

    From Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet (2024) · cites this paper as Chavoshi et al., 2016

  • Facebook, Twitter and Reddit banned tens of thousands of accounts involved in coordinated activities since 2016.

    “These results are backed by the same platforms where information operations took place - namely, Facebook 2 , Twitter 3 and Reddit 4 - that banned tens of thousands accounts involved in coordinated activities since 2016.”

    From A decade of social bot detection (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chavoshi, N., Hamooni, H., & Mueen, A.
Affiliations
University of New Mexico (US)
Venue
2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2016-12
Pages
817-822
ISSN
1550-4786 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2583516892
Cited by
260
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 9
FWCI
18.68
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
Twitter bot detection, social bots, activity synchronization

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