Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Boosting Bot Detection via Heterophily-Aware Representation Learning and Prototype-Guided Cluster Discovery

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read BotHP, a generative graph self-supervised learning framework, boosts graph-based bot detectors by modeling homophily and heterophily together and by clustering dispersed bot collectives.

desk verdict Solid empirical contribution for bot detection; the main table is credible, but the cross-community generalization claim rests on a leaked pre-training protocol and needs a rerun. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00989 v1 pith:ZJONDDQ6 submitted 2025-06-01 cs.AI

Buyun He , Xiaorui Jiang , Qi Wu , Hao Liu , Yingguang Yang , Yong Liao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords botdetectiongraphneuralnetworksself-supervisedlearningheterophilyprototype-guidedclusteringlabelefficiencycross-communitygeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that graph-based bot detectors fail in practice because they assume connected accounts resemble each other (homophily) and because they only learn local patterns, missing botnets spread across the graph. It proposes BotHP, a self-supervised pre-training method that adds a second encoder using only each account's own features and a cluster-discovery task that pulls dispersed accounts together in representation space. On two Twitter bot benchmarks, BotHP raises accuracy and F1 over the strong RGT detector (a relational graph transformer) and matches full supervision with only 40% of the labels. If true, bot detection could improve without new labeled data and transfer better across different communities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a dual-encoder architecture plus a prototype-guided cluster discovery pretext. The graph-aware encoder $E_g$ performs message passing and captures node commonality, while the graph-agnostic encoder $E_l$ is a lightweight linear map over ego features that preserves node uniqueness. A semantic consistency loss, motivated by canonical correlation analysis, aligns the two views while decorrelating their dimensions. The prototype-guided cluster discovery uses $K$ learnable prototypes as semantic cluster centers, soft assignments $q_{ij}$ from a heavy-tailed kernel, a sharpened target distribution $p_{ij}$, and the KL divergence $L_C = KL(P\parallel Q)$ to enforce global consistency, with targets refreshed every $T$ epochs. The pre-training objective is $L_P = L_N + L_E + L_S + L_C$, combining neighbor-based feature reconstruction, ego-based feature reconstruction, semantic consistency, and cluster discovery. This machinery carries the argument by supplying the two signals—node uniqueness and global cluster alignment—that standard generative graph self-supervised learning lacks.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to take a freshly collected, independently labeled Twitter graph, run BotHP (RGT) and the plain RGT backbone under the same pre-training and fine-tuning budget and label fractions, and check whether BotHP's F1 gain over RGT persists and whether the 40%-label match to full supervision survives; if the gains vanish or reverse, the central claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the two obstacles to using generative graph self-supervised learning for bot detection—interaction camouflage and distributed deployment—can be removed by redesigning the encoder and the pretext tasks. BotHP keeps the usual graph-aware encoder that passes messages between neighbors, but adds a graph-agnostic encoder that encodes only each node's own features, so a bot deliberately connected to humans is still represented by its own distinctive traits. It then adds prototype-guided cluster discovery: learnable prototype vectors act as cluster centers, soft assignments are computed with a heavy-tailed kernel, and a KL-divergence loss pulls topologically separated accounts toward the same prototype. On TwiBot-20 and MGTAB, the framework raises accuracy and F1 over the RGT backbone (for example, MGTAB F1 from 77.77 to 83.74), matches fully supervised RGT with only 40% of labels, and improves average cross-community accuracy by 1.71 percentage points. The claim is that these gains come from simultaneously capturing homophily and heterophily and from restoring a global view that local reconstruction pretexts lack.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the human and bot labels in TwiBot-20 and MGTAB are accurate enough that score gains measured against them mean better detection in the wild; the paper cites evidence that such labels are often unreliable but does not audit or fix them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deployed graph-based bot detectors can be upgraded by pre-training on unlabeled interaction graphs, with no change to the detector's architecture.
  • Annotation budgets can be cut by more than half: BotHP (RGT) with 40% of training labels matches the fully supervised RGT backbone.
  • Detectors become more portable across communities: pre-trained BotHP improves average cross-community accuracy by 1.71 percentage points over its backbone in the MGTAB ten-fold experiment.
  • Homophily-biased generative self-supervised methods degrade on heterophilic bot graphs, but preserving node uniqueness prevents that degradation, so the same pre-training scheme works on both kinds of networks.
  • Macro-level cluster discovery adds a global view that local edge- or node-reconstruction pretexts lack, enabling detection of spatially dispersed bot collectives.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension not tested here: the same heterophily-aware dual encoder should transfer to other abuse-detection graphs, such as fake reviews or sybil accounts, because the enemy-befriends-victim camouflage pattern is not Twitter-specific.
  • If prototypes are updated on streaming graphs rather than static snapshots, cluster discovery could function as an early-warning system for newly forming botnets; the paper only evaluates static benchmark snapshots.
  • Because the paper itself cites evidence that benchmark labels may be unreliable, the most informative follow-up is a label-audit study: if fresh manual annotation of TwiBot-20 and MGTAB changes many labels, the reported margins and label-efficiency numbers should be recomputed against the corrected labels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BotHP, a generative graph self-supervised learning (GSL) framework for boosting graph-based bot detectors. BotHP combines a graph-aware encoder (capturing node commonality) with a graph-agnostic encoder (preserving node uniqueness), and trains them with four pretext objectives: neighbor-based feature reconstruction, ego-based feature reconstruction, a semantic-consistency loss, and a prototype-guided cluster discovery loss. The framework is evaluated on TwiBot-20 and MGTAB, with two backbone variants (RGCN and RGT), and compared against homophilic, heterophilic, supervised, contrastive-GSL, and generative-GSL baselines. The paper also reports ablations, parameter sensitivity, a label-efficiency study, and a cross-community generalization study.

Significance. If the reported results hold, BotHP addresses two real limitations of prior graph-based bot detection: the homophily bias of masked graph autoencoders and the difficulty of discovering globally coherent but topologically dispersed bot collectives. The paper is careful in several respects: it releases code, provides pseudocode for both pre-training and fine-tuning, reports means and standard deviations over five runs, and includes ablations for each component. I do not share the circularity concern raised in the reader's report: the prototype-guided target distribution is a standard deep-clustering self-training loop, and the paper does not derive its conclusions from those same targets. However, the generalization claim, one of the three headline contributions, currently rests on the RQ5 protocol, which leaks unlabeled target-community data to GSL methods during pre-training. In addition, the claim that BotHP 'consistently boosts' its backbone is slightly overstated: Table 2 shows a 2.52-point precision drop for BotHP (RGT) on MGTAB, even though accuracy, F1, and recall improve.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.6 (RQ5)] The cross-community generalization experiment does not measure generalization to unseen communities. Section 4.6 states that 'GSL methods undergo pre-training across all communities without label supervision before the fine-tuning phase.' This means that for every target community j, BotHP, GraphMAE, and the other GSL baselines have already seen the full unlabeled graph (nodes, features, and edges) of community j during pre-training, while the supervised baselines (RGT, RGCN, etc.) have never seen community j. The reported 1.71% average-accuracy improvement over RGT therefore compares a model with transductive access to the target community's unlabeled structure and features against a model with no access at all. This does not support the abstract and conclusion claim that BotHP 'enhances generalization capability.' A fair inductive protocol would restrict GSL pre-training to the training community (or to all communities except the target), then fine-tune on community i and test on community j. The authors should rerun Figure 5 under such a protocol, or explicitly reframe the experiment as a transductive semi-supervised setting and add appropriate supervised baselines that also receive unlabeled target-community data.
  2. [4.1.3] The 2-hop edge augmentation applied to TwiBot-20 is ambiguous and potentially confounds Table 2. The text says: 'Given the relatively sparse edges in TwiBot-20 for neighbor-based feature reconstruction, we apply a graph augmentation strategy that adds edges via 2-hop neighbors.' It is not stated whether the same augmented graph was used for the generative GSL baselines (GAE, MGAE, GraphMAE), for the contrastive GSL baselines (CBD, SEBot), or only for BotHP. If the augmentation was applied only to BotHP, the TwiBot-20 improvements in Table 2 could be due in part to the extra graph structure rather than to the proposed architecture and pretext tasks. Please clarify whether the augmentation was applied uniformly to all methods, and if not, rerun the comparison with matched graph preprocessing.
  3. [Section 4.1.1 / Discussion] The paper cites Hays et al. [16] for the claim that simplistic collection and labeling practices limit the utility of Twitter bot detection benchmarks, but it does not address label quality in TwiBot-20 or MGTAB. If the benchmark labels are systematically noisy or biased, the measured accuracy and F1 gains are relative to flawed ground truth. This is an external-validity concern rather than an internal inconsistency, but the authors should at least add an explicit limitation statement and, if feasible, a sensitivity analysis on label noise or a discussion of what is known about the reliability of these two benchmarks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The phrase 'consistently boosts graph-based bot detectors' is too strong given that BotHP (RGT) decreases precision on MGTAB by 2.52 points (85.99 vs. 88.51). The discussion should qualify the improvement as being in accuracy, F1, and recall, not in all metrics.
  2. [Figure 4 (RQ4)] The label-efficiency study shows only point estimates without error bars or significance tests. Given that the paper reports standard deviations elsewhere, adding error bars (or at least stating the number of runs) would strengthen the claim that BotHP achieves competitive performance with 40% of the labels.
  3. [Figure 5] The heatmap in Figure 5 is visually dense and the axis labels are difficult to read in the manuscript rendering; a clearer presentation with colorbars and legible row/column labels would help readers verify the off-diagonal generalization pattern.
  4. [Appendix A.2] The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is described verbally but the test statistic, sample size (number of dimensions), and exact p-values are not reported. Reporting these values would make the statistical claim reproducible.
  5. [Table 3] The ablation study reports only accuracy. Since the full model's headline gains in Table 2 are partly driven by F1, reporting F1 (and ideally precision/recall) for the ablations would show whether each component helps the balanced detection objective or only accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: BotHP's gains are measured against external benchmarks and its pretext tasks are standard self-supervised objectives; the RQ5 generalization protocol is confounded but this is a validity issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. BotHP's contributions are architectural (dual encoder, fusion) and objective-level (feature reconstruction, semantic consistency, prototype-guided cluster discovery). The PGCD loss (Eqs. 11-14) is a DEC-style self-training objective: prototypes are initialized by k-means on encoder outputs, soft assignments Q are computed from the same encoder, and target P is a sharpened Q. This is a consistency regularizer, not a claim that the pretext task independently predicts labels; the paper's actual claims are evaluated externally on TwiBot-20 and MGTAB F1/accuracy. The gains over RGT/RGCN backbones are empirical, not forced by construction. Self-citations ([17], [19], [44]) appear only as baselines or as one of two citations for standard deep clustering (the other being DEC [41]), so they are not load-bearing. The one notable flaw is Section 4.6, where GSL methods pre-train on all communities including the target community before fine-tuning, so the cross-community generalization comparison is confounded; that is an experimental-validity concern rather than a circularity, and it does not affect the main RQ1/RQ4 results. Score 1 reflects the absence of definitional circularity with a minor caveat about the generalization protocol.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method leans on several unproven background assumptions: benchmark label quality, the relevance of heterophily as a camouflage signal, the transductive use of unlabeled data in the generalization experiment, and the 2-hop edge augmentation. Together they define the applicability envelope of the claimed boost.

free parameters (7)
  • Number of prototypes K = Not reported
    Number of latent cluster centers in Eq (11); sensitivity is shown in Fig 3a, but the chosen value is not stated in the text.
  • Target distribution update interval T = Not reported
    Update frequency of the target distribution P in Eq (13); sensitivity is shown in Fig 3b, but the value is not stated.
  • Student's t degrees of freedom alpha = Not reported
    Kernel sharpness in Eq (12); the common default is 1.0, but the paper does not state the value.
  • Dynamic mask schedule parameters = Not reported
    Linear scheduling of the mask rate inspired by HGMAE [34]; the exact schedule is not given in the text.
  • Feature dropout probability p = Not reported
    Corruption rate in Eq (7); not reported in the text.
  • L2 regularization weight lambda = Not reported
    Weight decay coefficient in the fine-tuning loss Eq (18); not reported in the text.
  • Hidden dimension d_h = Not reported
    Dimension of the encoders' output embeddings; set by hand but not given in the text.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The benchmark labels in TwiBot-20 and MGTAB are reliable enough to measure bot-detection improvement
    The paper uses these labels as ground truth in all experiments despite citing [16], which argues that collection and labeling practices limit the utility of Twitter bot detection datasets. Enters at Section 4.1.1.
  • domain assumption Edge heterophily ratio is a meaningful proxy for interaction camouflage
    The motivation assumes that bots camouflaging by befriending humans create heterophilic links that expose them; this is the basis for the dual-encoder design in Section 3.1 but is not tested directly.
  • domain assumption Unlabeled pre-training on the deployment community is a valid scenario
    In the generalization study (Section 4.6), GSL methods pre-train on all communities, including the test community, before fine-tuning on a single community; this assumes the operator can collect unlabeled data from the target community in advance.
  • domain assumption The 2-hop edge augmentation for TwiBot-20 does not distort the detection signal
    Section 4.1.3 adds 2-hop neighbor edges to address sparse edges; this alters the graph topology and may affect homophily statistics, and the text does not specify whether baselines received the same augmentation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boosting Bot Detection via Heterophily-Aware Representation Learning and Prototype-Guided Cluster Discovery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJONDDQ6

@misc{pith2026250600989,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boosting Bot Detection via Heterophily-Aware Representation Learning and Prototype-Guided Cluster Discovery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJONDDQ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00989}
}
read the original abstract

Detecting social media bots is essential for maintaining the security and trustworthiness of social networks. While contemporary graph-based detection methods demonstrate promising results, their practical application is limited by label reliance and poor generalization capability across diverse communities. Generative Graph Self-Supervised Learning (GSL) presents a promising paradigm to overcome these limitations, yet existing approaches predominantly follow the homophily assumption and fail to capture the global patterns in the graph, which potentially diminishes their effectiveness when facing the challenges of interaction camouflage and distributed deployment in bot detection scenarios. To this end, we propose BotHP, a generative GSL framework tailored to boost graph-based bot detectors through heterophily-aware representation learning and prototype-guided cluster discovery. Specifically, BotHP leverages a dual-encoder architecture, consisting of a graph-aware encoder to capture node commonality and a graph-agnostic encoder to preserve node uniqueness. This enables the simultaneous modeling of both homophily and heterophily, effectively countering the interaction camouflage issue. Additionally, BotHP incorporates a prototype-guided cluster discovery pretext task to model the latent global consistency of bot clusters and identify spatially dispersed yet semantically aligned bot collectives. Extensive experiments on two real-world bot detection benchmarks demonstrate that BotHP consistently boosts graph-based bot detectors, improving detection performance, alleviating label reliance, and enhancing generalization capability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00989 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interaction Camouflage and Distributed Deployment are two challenges when adapting generative GSL to social network bot detection. Sophisticated bots interact with legiti￾mate users to evade detection, while bot clusters are deployed in a distributed manner to expand influence. distributions through pretext tasks [25, 42]. While generative GSL has demonstrated remarkable success in various domains [46, 47], its appl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of BotHP, which leverages a dual encoder architecture to address the interaction camouflage issue and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Parameter Sensitivity of social networks for effective bot detection. When the graph￾agnostic encoder is removed, the performance decline is more pro￾nounced on TwiBot-20, while the reduction on MGTAB is less substantial. This result suggests that the graph-agnostic encoder is particularly critical for heterophilic social networks in effectively preserving node uniqueness, thereby ensuring distinguishable user repre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Accuracy scores of different methods trained on the row-indexed community and tested on the column-indexed one. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Embedding distribution of Twibot-20 and MGTAB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: User representations visualization on MGTAB. Red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Chris Hays, Zachary Schutzman, Manish Raghavan, Erin Walk, and Philipp Zimmer. 2023. Simplistic collection and labeling practices limit the utility of benchmark datasets for Twitter bot detection. In WWW. 3660–3669

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Oriol Barranco, Carlos Lozares, and Dafne Muntanyola-Saura. 2019. Heterophily in social groups formation: a social network analysis. Quality & Quantity 53, 2 (2019), 599–619

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Vincent D Blondel, Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefeb- vre. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment 2008, 10 (2008), P10008

    2008

  4. [3]

    Deyu Bo, Xiao Wang, Chuan Shi, and Huawei Shen. 2021. Beyond low-frequency information in graph convolutional networks. In AAAI, Vol. 35. 3950–3957

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Stefano Cresci. 2020. A decade of social bot detection. Commun. ACM 63, 10 (2020), 72–83

    2020

  6. [5]

    Shangbin Feng, Zhaoxuan Tan, Rui Li, and Minnan Luo. 2022. Heterogeneity- aware twitter bot detection with relational graph transformers. In AAAI, Vol. 36. 3977–3985

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Shangbin Feng, Zhaoxuan Tan, Herun Wan, Ningnan Wang, Zilong Chen, Binchi Zhang, Qinghua Zheng, Wenqian Zhang, Zhenyu Lei, Shujie Yang, et al. 2022. TwiBot-22: Towards graph-based Twitter bot detection. NIPS 35 (2022), 35254– 35269

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Shangbin Feng, Herun Wan, Ningnan Wang, Jundong Li, and Minnan Luo. 2021. Twibot-20: A comprehensive twitter bot detection benchmark. In CIKM. 4485– 4494

    work page 2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Shangbin Feng, Herun Wan, Ningnan Wang, and Minnan Luo. 2021. BotRGCN: Twitter bot detection with relational graph convolutional networks. InProceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining. 236–239

    2021

  2. [9]

    Emilio Ferrara. 2017. Disinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 French presidential election. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00086 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Emilio Ferrara. 2022. Twitter spam and false accounts prevalence, detection and characterization: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05913 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Emilio Ferrara, Herbert Chang, Emily Chen, Goran Muric, and Jaimin Patel. 2020. Characterizing social media manipulation in the 2020 US presidential election. First Monday (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Emilio Ferrara, Wen-Qiang Wang, Onur Varol, Alessandro Flammini, and Aram Galstyan. 2016. Predicting online extremism, content adopters, and interac- tion reciprocity. In Social Informatics: 8th International Conference, SocInfo 2016, Bellevue, W A, USA, November 11-14, 2016, ...

    2016

  6. [13]

    Matthias Fey and Jan Eric Lenssen. 2019. Fast graph representation learning with PyTorch Geometric. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02428 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Agrim Gupta, Stephen Tian, Yunzhi Zhang, Jiajun Wu, Roberto Martín-Martín, and Li Fei-Fei. 2022. Maskvit: Masked visual pre-training for video prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.11894 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    John A Hartigan, Manchek A Wong, et al. 1979. A k-means clustering algorithm. Applied statistics 28, 1 (1979), 100–108

    1979

  9. [17]

    Buyun He, Yingguang Yang, Qi Wu, Hao Liu, Renyu Yang, Hao Peng, Xiang Wang, Yong Liao, and Pengyuan Zhou. 2024. Dynamicity-aware social bot detection with dynamic graph transformers. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence ....

    2024

  10. [18]

    Zhenyu Hou, Xiao Liu, Yukuo Cen, Yuxiao Dong, Hongxia Yang, Chunjie Wang, and Jie Tang. 2022. Graphmae: Self-supervised masked graph autoencoders. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 594–604

    2022

  11. [19]

    Xiaorui Jiang, Zhongyi Ma, Yulin Fu, Yong Liao, and Pengyuan Zhou. 2024. Heterogeneity-Aware Federated Deep Multi-View Clustering towards Diverse Feature Representations. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 9184–9193

    2024

  12. [20]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Variational graph auto-encoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07308 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Jintang Li, Ruofan Wu, Wangbin Sun, Liang Chen, Sheng Tian, Liang Zhu, Changhua Meng, Zibin Zheng, and Weiqiang Wang. 2023. What’s Behind the Mask: Understanding Masked Graph Modeling for Graph Autoencoders. In Pro- ceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Disco...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Xiang Li, Renyu Zhu, Yao Cheng, Caihua Shan, Siqiang Luo, Dongsheng Li, and Weining Qian. 2022. Finding global homophily in graph neural networks when meeting heterophily. In ICML. PMLR, 13242–13256

    2022

  16. [24]

    Bei Lin, You Li, Ning Gui, Zhuopeng Xu, and Zhiwu Yu. 2023. Multi-view Graph Representation Learning Beyond Homophily. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 17, 8 (2023), 1–21

    2023

  17. [25]

    Yixin Liu, Ming Jin, Shirui Pan, Chuan Zhou, Yu Zheng, Feng Xia, and S Yu Philip

  18. [26]

    Yuhan Liu, Zhaoxuan Tan, Heng Wang, Shangbin Feng, Qinghua Zheng, and Min- nan Luo. 2023. Botmoe: Twitter bot detection with community-aware mixtures of modal-specific experts. In SIGIR. 485–495

    2023

  19. [27]

    Sitao Luan, Chenqing Hua, Qincheng Lu, Liheng Ma, Lirong Wu, Xinyu Wang, Minkai Xu, Xiao-Wen Chang, Doina Precup, Rex Ying, et al. 2024. The heterophilic graph learning handbook: Benchmarks, models, theoretical analysis, applications and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.0...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Sitao Luan, Chenqing Hua, Qincheng Lu, Jiaqi Zhu, Mingde Zhao, Shuyuan Zhang, Xiao-Wen Chang, and Doina Precup. 2022. Revisiting heterophily for graph neural networks. NIPS 35 (2022), 1362–1375

    2022

  21. [29]

    Laurensvander Maaten and GeoffreyE. Hinton. 2008. Visualizing Data using t- SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research,Journal of Machine Learning Research (Jan 2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer

  23. [31]

    Sippo Rossi, Matti Rossi, Bikesh Upreti, and Yong Liu. 2020. Detecting political bots on Twitter during the 2019 Finnish parliamentary election. (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Shuhao Shi, Kai Qiao, Jian Chen, Shuai Yang, Jie Yang, Baojie Song, Linyuan Wang, and Bin Yan. 2023. Mgtab: A multi-relational graph-based twitter account detection benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01123 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Qiaoyu Tan, Ninghao Liu, Xiao Huang, Rui Chen, Soo-Hyun Choi, and Xia Hu

  26. [34]

    Yijun Tian, Kaiwen Dong, Chunhui Zhang, Chuxu Zhang, and Nitesh V Chawla

  27. [35]

    Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of machine learning research 9, 11 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02534 (2022)

    Mgae: Masked autoencoders for self-supervised learning on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02534 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Yuxiang Wang, Xiao Yan, Chuang Hu, Quanqing Xu, Chuanhui Yang, Fangcheng Fu, Wentao Zhang, Hao Wang, Bo Du, and Jiawei Jiang. 2024. Generative and contrastive paradigms are complementary for graph self-supervised learning. In ICDE. IEEE, 3364–3378

    2024

  31. [39]

    Evan M Williams, Valerie Novak, Dylan Blackwell, Paul Platzman, Ian McCulloh, and Nolan Edward Phillips. 2020. Homophily and Transitivity in Bot Disinfor- mation Networks. In 2020 Seventh International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security (SNAMS) . IEEE, 1–7

    2020

  32. [40]

    Onur Varol, Emilio Ferrara, Clayton Davis, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2017. Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. In AAAI, Vol. 11. 280–289

    2017

  33. [41]

    Jin Xie, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. 2016. Unsupervised deep embedding for clustering analysis. ICML (Jun 2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Yaochen Xie, Zhao Xu, Jingtun Zhang, Zhengyang Wang, and Shuiwang Ji. 2022. Self-supervised learning of graph neural networks: A unified review. IEEE trans- actions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 45, 2 (2022), 2412–2429

    2022

  35. [43]

    Kai-Cheng Yang, Onur Varol, Pik-Mai Hui, and Filippo Menczer. 2020. Scalable and generalizable social bot detection through data selection. In AAAI, Vol. 34. 1096–1103

    2020

  36. [44]

    Qi Wu, Yingguang Yang, Buyun He, Hao Liu, Xiang Wang, Yong Liao, Renyu Yang, and Pengyuan Zhou. 2023. Heterophily-aware social bot detection with supervised contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07478 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Yingguang Yang, Renyu Yang, Hao Peng, Yangyang Li, Tong Li, Yong Liao, and Pengyuan Zhou. 2023. FedACK: Federated Adversarial Contrastive Knowledge Distillation for Cross-Lingual and Cross-Model Social Bot Detection. In WWW. 1314–1323

    2023

  38. [46]

    Yaowen Ye, Lianghao Xia, and Chao Huang. 2023. Graph masked autoencoder for sequential recommendation. In SIGIR. 321–330

    2023

  39. [47]

    Shu Yin, Peican Zhu, Lianwei Wu, Chao Gao, and Zhen Wang. 2024. GAMC: an unsupervised method for fake news detection using graph autoencoder with masking. In AAAI, Vol. 38. 347–355

    2024

  40. [48]

    Yingguang Yang, Qi Wu, Buyun He, Hao Peng, Renyu Yang, Zhifeng Hao, and Yong Liao. 2024. SeBot: Structural Entropy Guided Multi-View Contrastive Learn- ing for Social Bot Detection. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 3841–3852

    2024

  41. [49]

    Xin Zheng, Yi Wang, Yixin Liu, Ming Li, Miao Zhang, Di Jin, Philip S Yu, and Shirui Pan. 2022. Graph neural networks for graphs with heterophily: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07082 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Yimei Zheng and Caiyan Jia. 2024. ProtoMGAE: prototype-aware masked graph auto-encoder for graph representation learning. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 18, 6 (2024), 1–22

    2024

  43. [51]

    Ming Zhou, Dan Zhang, Yuandong Wang, Yangli-Ao Geng, and Jie Tang. 2023. Detecting social bot on the fly using contrastive learning. In CIKM. 4995–5001

    2023

  44. [52]

    Hengrui Zhang, Qitian Wu, Junchi Yan, David Wipf, and Philip S Yu. 2021. From canonical correlation analysis to self-supervised graph neural networks. NIPS 34 (2021), 76–89

    2021

  45. [56]

    Jiong Zhu, Yujun Yan, Lingxiao Zhao, Mark Heimann, Leman Akoglu, and Danai Koutra. 2020. Beyond homophily in graph neural networks: Current limitations and effective designs. NIPS 33 (2020), 7793–7804. Boosting Bot Detection via Heterophily-Aware Representation Learning and Pr...

    2020

  46. [2017]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch. (2017)

    2017

  47. [2022]

    IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering 35, 6 (2022), 5879–5900

    Graph self-supervised learning: A survey. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering 35, 6 (2022), 5879–5900

    2022

  48. [2023]

    In AAAI, Vol

    Heterogeneous graph masked autoencoders. In AAAI, Vol. 37. 9997–10005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.