The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Online Social Spammer Detection
Open accessAbstract
The explosive use of social media also makes it a popular platform for malicious users, known as social spammers, to overwhelm normal users with unwanted content. One effective way for social spammer detection is to build a classifier based on content and social network information. However, social spammers are sophisticated and adaptable to game the system with fast evolving content and network patterns. First, social spammers continually change their spamming content patterns to avoid being detected. Second, reflexive reciprocity makes it easier for social spammers to establish social influence and pretend to be normal users by quickly accumulating a large number of "human" friends. It is challenging for existing anti-spamming systems based on batch-mode learning to quickly respond to newly emerging patterns for effective social spammer detection. In this paper, we present a general optimization framework to collectively use content and network information for social spammer detection, and provide the solution for efficient online processing. Experimental results on Twitter datasets confirm the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed framework.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“Different kinds of user behaviors can be observed on the Internet [6] and digital DNA is a flexible and compact way of modeling such behaviors.”
From DNA-Inspired Online Behavioral Modeling and Its Application to Spambot Detection (2016) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“New waves of malicious accounts present different and advanced features, making their detection with existing systems extremely challenging [4], [6].”
From DNA-Inspired Online Behavioral Modeling and Its Application to Spambot Detection (2016) · cites this paper as [6]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2003) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/944919.944937 · Cited by 32,337
Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization
Lee, D. D., & Seung, H. S. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/44565 · Cited by 14,137
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2002) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1120.003.0082 · Cited by 12,683
ALGORITHMS FOR NON-NEGATIVE MATRIX FACTORIZATION
Lee, D. D., & Seung, H. S. (2000) · Cited by 7,972
Solving Least Squares Problems
Lawson, C. L., & Hanson, R. J. (1995) · doi:10.1137/1.9781611971217 · Cited by 7,103
Chung, F. (1996) · Regional conference series in mathematics · doi:10.1090/cbms/092 · Cited by 5,918
ALGORITHMS FOR NON-NEGATIVE MATRIX FACTORIZATION
Seung, D., & Lee, L.-W. (2001) · Cited by 4,753
Non-negative matrix factorization with sparseness constraintsPreprint
Hoyer, P. O. (2004) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.5555/1005332.1044709 · Cited by 2,620
Online Learning for Matrix Factorization and Sparse CodingPreprint
Mairal, J., Bach, F., Ponce, J., & Sapiro, G. (2009) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.1145/1756006.1756008 · Cited by 2,305
Online dictionary learning for sparse coding
Mairal, J., Bach, F., Ponce, J., & Sapiro, G. (2009) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.1145/1553374.1553463 · Cited by 2,191
Weng, J., Lim, E., Jiang, J., & He, Q. (2010) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/1718487.1718520 · Cited by 1,780
Magno, G., Rodrigues, T., & Almeida, V. A. F. (2010) · Cited by 649
Uncovering social spammers: social honeypots + machine learning
Lee, K., Caverlee, J., & Webb, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/1835449.1835522 · Cited by 619
All your contacts are belong to us
Bilge, L., Strufe, T., Balzarotti, D., & Kirda, E. (2009) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/1526709.1526784 · Cited by 551
Laplacians and the Cheeger Inequality for Directed Graphs
Chung, F. (2005) · Annals of Combinatorics · doi:10.1007/s00026-005-0237-z · Cited by 535
Seven Months with the Devils: A Long-Term Study of Content Polluters on Twitter
Lee, K., Eoff, B. D., & Caverlee, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14106 · Cited by 461
Suspended accounts in retrospect: an analysis of twitter spam
Thomas, K., Grier, C., Song, D., & Paxson, V. (2011) · Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement conference · doi:10.1145/2068816.2068840 · Cited by 439
User-level sentiment analysis incorporating social networks
Tan, C., Lee, L., Tang, J., Jiang, L., Zhou, M. Q., & Li, P. (2011) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/2020408.2020614 · Cited by 421
Self-citationLearning from labeled and unlabeled data on a directed graph
Zhou, D., Huang, J., & Schölkopf, B. (2005) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.1145/1102351.1102482 · Cited by 410
Unsupervised sentiment analysis with emotional signals
Hu, X., Tang, J., Gao, H., & Liu, H. (2013) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/2488388.2488442 · Cited by 391
Self-citationUnderstanding and combating link farming in the twitter social network
Ghosh, S., Viswanath, B., Kooti, F., Sharma, N. K., Korlam, G., Benevenuto, F., Ganguly, N., & Gummadi, K. P. (2012) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/2187836.2187846 · Cited by 355
Exploiting homophily effect for trust prediction
Tang, J., Gao, H., Hu, X., & Liu, H. (2013) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/2433396.2433405 · Cited by 309
Self-citationExploiting internal and external semantics for the clustering of short texts using world knowledge
Hu, X., Sun, N., Zhang, C., & Chua, T. (2009) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/1645953.1646071 · Cited by 246
Self-citationGu, Q., Zhou, J., & Ding, C. H. Q. (2010) · SIAM International Conference on Data Mining · doi:10.1137/1.9781611972801.18 · Cited by 241
Multi-label informed latent semantic indexing
Yu, K., Yu, S., & Tresp, V. (2005) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/1076034.1076080 · Cited by 238
TwitterRank: Finding topic-sensitive influential Twitterers
Weng, J., Lim, E. P., Jiang, J., & He, Q. (2010) · Cited by 194
Social spammer detection in microblogging
Hu, X., Tang, J., Zhang, Y., & Liu, H. (2013) · Cited by 168
Self-citationUncovering social network sybils in the wild
Yang, Z., Wilson, C., Wang, X., Gao, T., Zhao, B. Y., & Dai, Y. (2011) · Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement conference · doi:10.1145/2068816.2068841 · Cited by 164
Incremental subspace learning via non-negative matrix factorization
Bucak, S. S., & Günsel, B. (2008) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2008.09.002 · Cited by 127
Community-based anomaly detection in evolutionary networks
Chen, Z., Hendrix, W., & Samatova, N. F. (2011) · Journal of Intelligent Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10844-011-0183-2 · Cited by 116
Social Honeypots: Making Friends With A Spammer Near You.
Webb, S., Caverlee, J., & Pu, C. (2008) · Cited by 110
Discovering Spammers in Social Networks
Zhu, Y., Wang, X., Zhong, E., Liu, N., He, L., & Yang, Q. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8116 · Cited by 97
Online Learning for Group Lasso
Yang, H., Xu, Z., King, I., & Lyu, M. R.-T. (2010) · Cited by 84
Splog detection using self-similarity analysis on blog temporal dynamics
Lin, Y., Sundaram, H., Chi, Y., Tatemura, J., & Tseng, B. L. (2007) · Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web · doi:10.1145/1244408.1244410 · Cited by 59
Detecting and Tracking Community Dynamics in Evolutionary Networks
Chen, Z., Wilson, K. A., Jin, Y., Hendrix, W., & Samatova, N. F. (2010) · IEEE ... International Conference on Data Mining workshops · doi:10.1109/icdmw.2010.32 · Cited by 49
Online Non-Negative Convolutive Pattern Learning for Speech Signals
Wang, D., Vipperla, R., Evans, N., & Zheng, T. F. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/tsp.2012.2222381 · Cited by 25
Efficient online learning and prediction of users' desktop actions
Madani, O., Bui, H., & Yeh, E. (2009) · Cited by 11
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective
Shu, K., Sliva, A., Wang, S., Tang, J., & Liu, H. (2017) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3137597.3137600 · Cited by 3,304
Self-citationA survey on fake news and rumour detection techniques
Bondielli, A., & Marcelloni, F. (2019) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2019.05.035 · Cited by 658
Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining PerspectivePreprint
Shu, K., Sliva, A. L., Wang, S., Tang, J., & Liu, H. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.01967 · Cited by 585
Self-citationThe 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
The paradigm-shift of social spambots: Evidence, theories, and tools for the arms race
Cresci, S., Pietro, R. D., Petrocchi, M., Spognardi, A., & Tesconi, M. (2017) · Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1701.03017 · Cited by 237
Metadata
- Authors
- Hu, X., Tang, J., & Liu, H.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Published
- 2014-06-19
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
- 2374-3468
- OpenAlex
- W113059239
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 15.36
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research (N000141410095)
- Army Research Office (#025071)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- online learning, spam social media, Twitter
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
