skip to main content
research-article

A Large-scale Behavioural Analysis of Bots and Humans on Twitter

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 February 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Recent research has shown a substantial active presence of bots in online social networks (OSNs). In this article, we perform a comparative analysis of the usage and impact of bots and humans on Twitter—one of the largest OSNs in the world. We collect a large-scale Twitter dataset and define various metrics based on tweet metadata. Using a human annotation task, we assign “bot” and “human” ground-truth labels to the dataset and compare the annotations against an online bot detection tool for evaluation. We then ask a series of questions to discern important behavioural characteristics of bots and humans using metrics within and among four popularity groups. From the comparative analysis, we draw clear differences and interesting similarities between the two entities.

References

  1. Norah Abokhodair, Daisy Yoo, and David W. McDonald. 2015. Dissecting a social botnet: Growth, content and influence in Twitter. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8 Social Computing. ACM, 839--851. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 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 Proceedings of the 6th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM’12).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Aris Anagnostopoulos, Ravi Kumar, and Mohammad Mahdian. 2008. Influence and correlation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’08). ACM, 7--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Marco Avvenuti, Salvatore Bellomo, Stefano Cresci, Mariantonietta Noemi La Polla, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2017. Hybrid crowdsensing: A novel paradigm to combine the strengths of opportunistic and participatory crowdsensing. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion (WWW’17 Companion). 1413--1421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Alessandro Bessi and Emilio Ferrara. 2016. Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential election online discussion. First Monday 21, 11 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. D. Boyd, S. Golder, and G. Lotan. 2010. Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’10). 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Florian Brachten, Stefan Stieglitz, Lennart Hofeditz, Katharina Kloppenborg, and Annette Reimann. 2017. Strategies and influence of social bots in a 2017 German state election - A case study on Twitter. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07562.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nikan Chavoshi, Hossein Hamooni, and Abdullah Mueen. 2016. DeBot: Twitter bot detection via warped correlation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM’16). 817--822.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Nikan Chavoshi, Hossein Hamooni, and Abdullah Mueen. 2016. Identifying correlated bots in Twitter. In Social Informatics, Emma Spiro and Yong-Yeol Ahn (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 14--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Nikan Chavoshi, Hossein Hamooni, and Abdullah Mueen. 2017. Temporal patterns in bot activities. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion (WWW’17 Companion). 1601--1606. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Z. Chu, S. Gianvecchio, H. Wang, and S. Jajodia. 2012. Detecting automation of Twitter accounts: Are you a human, bot, or cyborg? IEEE Trans. Depend. Sec. Comput. 9, 6 (Nov. 2012), 811--824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Measure. 20, 1 (1960), 37--46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Stefano Cresci, Roberto Di Pietro, Marinella Petrocchi, Angelo Spognardi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2017. Exploiting digital DNA for the analysis of similarities in Twitter behaviours. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA’17). 686--695.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Stefano Cresci, Roberto Di Pietro, Marinella Petrocchi, Angelo Spognardi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2017. The paradigm-shift of social spambots: Evidence, theories, and tools for the arms race. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion (WWW’17 Companion). 963--972. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Stefano Cresci, Roberto Di Pietro, Marinella Petrocchi, Angelo Spognardi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2018. Social fingerprinting: Detection of spambot groups through DNA-inspired behavioral modeling. IEEE Trans. Depend. Sec. Comput. 15, 4 (2018), 561--576.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Stefano Cresci, Fabrizio Lillo, Daniele Regoli, Serena Tardelli, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2018. Cashtag piggybacking: Uncovering spam and bot activity in stock microblogs on Twitter. CoRR abs/1804.04406 (2018). arxiv:1804.04406 http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.04406Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Stefano Cresci, Fabrizio Lillo, Daniele Regoli, Serena Tardelli, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2018. FAKE: Evidence of spam and bot activity in stock microblogs on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 12th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM’18).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Stefano Cresci, Roberto Di Pietro, Marinella Petrocchi, Angelo Spognardi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2015. Fame for sale: Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers. Decision Supp. Syst. 80, C (2015), 56--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Stefano Cresci, Roberto Di Pietro, Marinella Petrocchi, Angelo Spognardi, and Maurizio Tesconi. 2016. DNA-Inspired online behavioral modeling and its application to spambot detection. IEEE Intell. Syst. 31, 5 (Sep. 2016), 58--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Nicolas Dugué, Anthony Perez, Maximilien Danisch, Florian Bridoux, Amélie Daviau, Tennessy Kolubako, Simon Munier, and Hugo Durbano. 2015. A reliable and evolutive web application to detect social capitalists. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM’15). ACM, 741--744. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 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. Comput. Hum. Behav. 33 (2014), 372--376. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Emilio Ferrara, Onur Varol, Clayton Davis, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2016. The rise of social bots. Commun. ACM 59, 7 (Jun. 2016), 96--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Zafar Gilani, Reza Farahbakhsh, and Jon Crowcroft. 2017. Do bots impact Twitter activity? In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion (WWW’17 Companion). 781--782. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Zafar Gilani, Reza Farahbakhsh, Gareth Tyson, Liang Wang, and Jon Crowcroft. 2017. Of bots and humans (on Twitter). In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM’17). ACM, New York, NY, 349--354. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Zafar Gilani, Liang Wang, Jon Crowcroft, Mario Almeida, and Reza Farahbakhsh. 2016. Stweeler: A framework for Twitter bot analysis. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (WWW’16 Companion). 37--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Kyumin Lee, Brian David Eoff, and James Caverlee. 2011. Seven months with the devils: A long-term study of content polluters on Twitter. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM’11).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Amanda Minnich, Nikan Chavoshi, Danai Koutra, and Abdullah Mueen. 2017. BotWalk: Efficient adaptive exploration of Twitter bot networks. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM’17). ACM, New York, NY, 467--474. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. B. Monsted, P. Sapiezynski, E. Ferrara, and S. Lehmann. 2017. Evidence of complex contagion of information in social media: An experiment using Twitter bots. PLoS ONE 12, 9 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Alessandro Murgia, Daan Janssens, Serge Demeyer, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2016. Among the machines: Human-bot interaction on social Q8A websites. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’16). ACM, New York, NY, 1272--1279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Lauren Scissors, Moira Burke, and Steven Wengrovitz. 2016. What’s in a like?: Attitudes and behaviors around receiving likes on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 8 Social Computing (CSCW’16). ACM, 1501--1510. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Onur Varol, Emilio Ferrara, Clayton A. Davis, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2017. Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03107 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. A. Vishwanath, Jiazhen Zhu, K. Hinton, R. Ayre, and R. S. Tucker. 2013. Estimating the energy consumption for packet processing, storage and switching in optical-IP routers. In Proceedings of the Annual Optical Fiber Communication Conferend and the National Fiber Optic Engineers Conference (OFC/NFOEC’13). 1--3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Claudia Wagner, Silvia Mitter, Christian Körner, and Markus Strohmaier. 2012. When social bots attack: Modeling susceptibility of users in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Making Sense of Microposts Held in Conjunction with the 21st World Wide Web Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Xian Wu, Ziming Feng, Wei Fan, Jing Gao, and Yong Yu. 2013. Detecting Marionette Microblog Users for Improved Information Credibility. Springer, Berlin, 483--498.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Large-scale Behavioural Analysis of Bots and Humans on Twitter

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!