Papers › An in-depth characterisation of Bots and Humans on Twitter

An in-depth characterisation of Bots and Humans on Twitter

5 Apr 2017arXiv:1704.01508links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Zafar Gilani, Reza Farahbakhsh, Gareth Tyson, Liang Wang, Jon Crowcroft

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Recent research has shown a substantial active presence of bots in online social networks (OSNs). In this paper we utilise our past work on studying bots (Stweeler) to comparatively analyse 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. We divide and filter the dataset in four popularity groups in terms of number of followers. 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 bot and human characteristics using metrics within and among four popularity groups. From the comparative analysis we draw important differences as well as surprising similarities between the two entities, thus paving the way for reliable classification of automated political infiltration, advertisement campaigns, and general bot detection.

PaperPDFCode

Code

zafargilani/stcs officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections