Papers › Measuring and Detecting Virality on Social Media: The Case of Twitter's Viral Tweets Topic
Measuring and Detecting Virality on Social Media: The Case of Twitter's Viral Tweets Topic
Tuğrulcan Elmas, Stephane Selim, Célia Houssiaux
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.
Social media posts may go viral and reach large numbers of people within a short period of time. Such posts may threaten the public dialogue if they contain misleading content, making their early detection highly crucial. Previous works proposed their own metrics to annotate if a tweet is viral or not in order to automatically detect them later. However, such metrics may not accurately represent viral tweets or may introduce too many false positives. In this work, we use the ground truth data provided by Twitter's "Viral Tweets" topic to review the current metrics and also propose our own metric. We find that a tweet is more likely to be classified as viral by Twitter if the ratio of retweets to its author's followers exceeds some threshold. We found this threshold to be 2.16 in our experiments. This rule results in less false positives although it favors smaller accounts. We also propose a transformers-based model to early detect viral tweets which reports an F1 score of 0.79. The code and the tweet ids are publicly available at: https://github.com/tugrulz/ViralTweets
Code
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