Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264123205
CITATIONS READS
140 942
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Onur Varol on 25 July 2014.
The Turing test asked whether one could recognize the behavior of a human from that of a computer al-
gorithm. Today this question has suddenly become very relevant in the context of social media, where text
constraints limit the expressive power of humans, and real incentives abound to develop human-mimicking
software agents called social bots. These elusive entities wildly populate social media ecosystems, often go-
arXiv:1407.5225v1 [cs.SI] 19 Jul 2014
ing unnoticed among the population of real people. Bots can be benign or harmful, aiming at persuading,
smearing, or deceiving. Here we discuss the characteristics of modern, sophisticated social bots, and how
their presence can endanger online ecosystems and our society. We then discuss current efforts aimed at
detection of social bots in Twitter. Characteristics related to content, network, sentiment, and temporal pat-
terns of activity are imitated by bots but at the same time can help discriminate synthetic behaviors from
human ones, yielding signatures of engineered social tampering.
1 www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation (grant CCF-1101743), by DARPA (grant
W911NF-12-1-0037), and by the James McDonnell Foundation. The funders had no role in study design,
data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
2 Fake Twitter accounts may be driving up Mitt Romney’s follower number — www.theguardian.com/world/
2012/aug/09/fake-twitter-accounts-mitt-romney
3 Update: Only 92% of Newt Gingrich’s Twitter Followers Are Fake — gawker.com/5826960/
update-only-92-of-newt-gingrichs-twitter-followers-are-fake
4 Pols have a #fakefollower problem — www.politico.com/story/2014/06/twitter-politicians-107672.html
5 The Curious Case of Cynk, an Abandoned Tech Company Now Worth $5 Billion — mashable.com/2014/07/
10/cynk
The Rise of Social Bots XX:3
false rumor about a terror attack on the White House, in which President Obama was
allegedly injured.6
6 Syrian hackers claim AP hack that tipped stock market by $136 bil-
lion. Is it terrorism? — www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/23/
syrian-hackers-claim-ap-hack-that-tipped-stock-market-by-136-billion-is-it-terrorism/
7 Nielsen’s New Twitter TV Ratings Are a Total Scam. Here’s Why. — defamer.gawker.com/
nielsens-new-twitter-tv-ratings-are-a-total-scam-here-1442214842
8 altmetrics: a manifesto — altmetrics.org/manifesto/
XX:4 E. Ferrara et al.
the Web for information and media to fill their profiles, and post collected material
at predetermined times, emulating the human temporal signature of content produc-
tion and consumption —including circadian patterns of daily activity and temporal
spikes of information generation [Golder and Macy 2011]. They can even engage in
more complex types of interactions, such as entertaining conversations with other peo-
ple, commenting on their posts, and answering their questions [Hwang et al. 2012].
Some bots specifically aim to achieve greater influence by gathering new followers and
expanding their social circles; they can search the social network for popular and influ-
ential people and follow them or capture their attention by sending them inquiries, in
the hope to be noticed [Aiello et al. 2012]. To acquire visibility, they can infiltrate popu-
lar discussions, generating topically-appropriate —and even potentially interesting—
content, by identifying relevant keywords and searching online for information fitting
that conversation [Freitas et al. 2014]. After the appropriate content is identified, the
bots can automatically produce responses through natural language algorithms, pos-
sibly including references to media or links pointing to external resources. Other bots
aim at tampering with the identities of legitimate people: some are identity thieves,
adopting slight variants of real usernames, and stealing personal information such as
pictures and links. Even more advanced mechanisms can be employed; some social
bots are able to “clone” the behavior of legitimate people, by interacting with their
friends and posting topically similar content with similar temporal patterns.
Bot or Not?
At the beginning of 2014, we embarked on the design of a social bot detection frame-
work for Twitter, called Bot or Not?. The main idea was to identify several classes of
features that help recognize and separate bot-like from human-like behavior. Previ-
ous familiarity with Twitter bots [Ratkiewicz et al. 2011b] allowed us to isolate six
classes of features, summarized in Table I. Overall, our system generates more than
one thousand features used to learn human and bot prototypes.
To classify an account as either social bot or human, the model must be trained with
instances of both classes. Finding and labeling many examples of bots is challenging.
The Rise of Social Bots XX:5
Fig. 1. Classification performance of Bot or Not? for four different classifiers. The classification accuracy is
computed by 10-fold cross validation and measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic
curve (AUROC). The best score, obtained by Random Forest, is 95%.
As a proof of concept, we used the list of social bots identified by Caverlee’s team. We
used the Twitter Search API to collect up to 200 of their most recent tweets and up
to 100 of the most recent tweets mentioning them. This procedure yielded a dataset of
15 thousand manually verified social bot accounts and over 2.6 million tweets. Caver-
lee’s list also contains legitimate (human) accounts. The same procedure resulted in
a dataset of counterexamples with 16 thousand people and over 3 million tweets. We
used this dataset to train the social bot detection model and benchmark its perfor-
mance.
Bot or Not? achieves very promising detection accuracy (see Fig. 1). Some feature
classes, like the user meta-data, appear more revealing and they can be easily ex-
plained (see Fig. 2). Note that such performance evaluation is based on Caverlee’s
dataset from 2011; we are already aware of more recent social bots that cannot be re-
liably detected. Bots are continuously changing and evolving. Further work is needed
to identify newer annotated instances of social bots at scale.
Borderline cases also exist, such as accounts (sometimes referred as cyborgs) that
are a mix of humans and social bots (e.g., when humans lend accounts to bots), or
hacked accounts [Zangerle and Specht 2014]: detecting these anomalies is currently
impossible.
To make the detection system broadly accessible, we developed a Web-based applica-
tion that interfaces with the Twitter API and retrieves the most recent activity of any
account, to make a determination of whether that account exhibits bot-like or human-
like behavior. The Web interface, depicted in Fig. 3, allows one to inspect any active
Twitter account. Data about that account and its contacts are collected and processed
in real time. The classifier trained on all feature classes provides a likelihood score
that the account is a social bot. For instance, in Fig. 3, we see that one of the authors is
deemed less likely to be a bot compared to an algorithm developed by Sune Lehmann’s
XX:6 E. Ferrara et al.
Fig. 2. Subset of user features that best discriminate social bots from humans. Bots retweet more than
humans and have longer user names, while they produce fewer tweets, replies and mentions, and they are
retweeted less than humans. Bot accounts also tend to be more recent.
team.9 The system also presents disaggregate scores according to models trained on
each feature class independently.
Often, an account may be classified as a social bot according to some feature classes,
but not according to others. This is due to the large heterogeneity of features exhibited
by people —some may have bot-like features, for example their meta-data or friend
information.
In addition to the classification results, Bot or Not? provides a variety of visualiza-
tions that capture some insights about the features exploited by the system. Examples
are displayed in Fig. 4. We invite the reader to explore these interactive visualizations
directly at truthy.indiana.edu/botornot.
Master of puppets
If social bots are the puppets, additional efforts will have to be directed at finding
the “masters.” Governments10 and other entities with sufficient resources11 have been
alleged to use social bots to their advantage. Even assuming the availability of effective
detection technologies, it will be crucial to reverse-engineer the observed social bot
strategies: who they target, how they generate content, when they take action, and
Fig. 3. Web interface of Bot or Not? (truthy.indiana.edu/botornot). The panels show the likelihood that the
inspected accounts are social bots along with individual scores according to six features classes. Left: The
Twitter account of one of the authors is identified as likely operated by a human. Right: A popular social bot
is correctly assigned a high bot score.
what topics they talk about. The ability to extrapolate such information will allow us
to systematically infer who are the entities behind them.
Tools like Bot or Not? help shed light on the intricate world of social bots. Yet many
research questions remain open. For example, nobody knows exactly how many so-
cial bots populate social media, or what share of content can be attributed to bots
—estimates vary wildly and we might have observed only the tip of the iceberg. Bot
behaviors are already quite sophisticated: they can build realistic social networks and
produce credible content with human-like temporal patterns. As we build better de-
tection systems, we expect an arms race similar to that observed for spam in the past.
Static training instances are an intrinsic limitation of supervised learning in such a
scenario; machine learning techniques such as active learning might help respond to
newer threats. The race will be over only when the increased cost of deception will no
longer be justified due to the effectiveness of early detection.
The future of social media ecosystems might already point in the direction of envi-
ronments where machine-machine interaction is the norm, and humans will navigate
a world populated mostly by bots. We believe there is a need for bots and humans to
be able to recognize each other, to avoid bizarre, or even dangerous, situations based
on false assumptions of human interlocutors.12
12 That Time 2 Bots Were Talking, and Bank of America Butted In — www.theatlantic.com/technology/
archive/2014/07/that-time-2-bots-were-talking-and-bank-of-america-butted-in/374023/
XX:8 E. Ferrara et al.
A B
C D
Fig. 4. Visualizations provided by Bot or Not?. (A) Part-of-speech tag proportions. (B) Language distribution
of contacts. (C) Network of co-occurring hashtags. (D) Emotion, happiness and arousal-dominance-valence
sentiment scores. (E) Temporal patterns of content consumption and production.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Mohsen JafariAsbagh, Prashant Shiralkar, Qiaozhu Mei, and Zhe Zhao.
The Rise of Social Bots XX:9
REFERENCES
Luca Maria Aiello, Martina Deplano, Rossano Schifanella, and Giancarlo Ruffo. 2012. People are Strange
when you’re a Stranger: Impact and Influence of Bots on Social Networks. In ICWSM: 6th AAAI Inter-
national Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. AAAI, 10–17.
Johan Bollen, Huina Mao, and Xiaojun Zeng. 2011. Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of
Computational Science 2, 1 (2011), 1–8.
Yazan Boshmaf, Ildar Muslukhov, Konstantin Beznosov, and Matei Ripeanu. 2011. The socialbot network:
when bots socialize for fame and money. In ACSAC: 27th Annual Computer Security Applications Con-
ference. ACM, 93–102.
Erica J Briscoe, D Scott Appling, and Heather Hayes. 2014. Cues to Deception in Social Media Communica-
tions. In HICSS: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 1435–1443.
Christopher A Cassa, Rumi Chunara, Kenneth Mandl, and John S Brownstein. 2013. Twitter as a sentinel
in emergency situations: lessons from the Boston marathon explosions. PLoS currents 5 (2013).
Michael Conover, Jacob Ratkiewicz, Matthew Francisco, Bruno Gonçalves, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro
Flammini. 2011. Political polarization on Twitter. In ICWSM: 5th International AAAI Conference on
Weblogs and Social Media.
Chad Edwards, Autumn Edwards, Patric R Spence, and Ashleigh K Shelton. 2014. Is that a bot running the
social media feed? Testing the differences in perceptions of communication quality for a human agent
and a bot agent on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014), 372–376.
Carlos A Freitas, Fabrı́cio Benevenuto, Saptarshi Ghosh, and Adriano Veloso. 2014. Reverse Engineering
Socialbot Infiltration Strategies in Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.4927 (2014).
Rumi Ghosh, Tawan Surachawala, and Kristina Lerman. 2011. Entropy-based Classification of “Retweeting”
Activity on Twitter. In SNA-KDD: Proceedings of the KDD workshop on Social Network Analysis.
Scott A Golder and Michael W Macy. 2011. Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength
across diverse cultures. Science 333, 6051 (2011), 1878–1881.
Tim Hwang, Ian Pearce, and Max Nanis. 2012. Socialbots: Voices from the fronts. Interactions 19, 2 (2012),
38–45.
Adam DI Kramer, Jamie E Guillory, and Jeffrey T Hancock. 2014. Experimental evidence of massive-scale
emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2014),
201320040.
Kyumin Lee, Brian David Eoff, and James Caverlee. 2011. Seven Months with the Devils: A Long-Term
Study of Content Polluters on Twitter. In ICWSM: 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and
Social Media.
Johnnatan Messias, Lucas Schmidt, Ricardo Oliveira, and Fabrı́cio Benevenuto. 2013. You followed my bot!
Transforming robots into influential users in Twitter. First Monday 18, 7 (2013).
Panagiotis T Metaxas and Eni Mustafaraj. 2012. Social media and the elections. Science 338, 6106 (2012),
472–473.
Jacob Ratkiewicz, Michael Conover, Mark Meiss, Bruno Gonçalves, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo
Menczer. 2011a. Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media. In ICWSM: 5th International
AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 297–304.
Jacob Ratkiewicz, Michael Conover, Mark Meiss, Bruno Gonçalves, Snehal Patil, Alessandro Flammini, and
Filippo Menczer. 2011b. Truthy: mapping the spread of astroturf in microblog streams. In WWW: 20th
International Conference on World Wide Web. 249–252.
Alan M Turing. 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind (1950), 433–460.
Claudia Wagner, Silvia Mitter, Christian Körner, and Markus Strohmaier. 2012. When social bots attack:
Modeling susceptibility of users in online social networks. In WWW: 21th International Conference on
World Wide Web. 41–48.
Joseph Weizenbaum. 1966. ELIZA – a computer program for the study of natural language communication
between man and machine. Commun. ACM 9, 1 (1966), 36–45.
Xian Wu, Ziming Feng, Wei Fan, Jing Gao, and Yong Yu. 2013. Detecting Marionette Microblog Users for Im-
proved Information Credibility. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer,
483–498.
Eva Zangerle and Günther Specht. 2014. Sorry, I was hacked A Classification of Compromised Twitter
Accounts. In SAC: the 29th Symposium On Applied Computing.