Bots Don't Sit Still: A Longitudinal Study of Bot Behaviour Change, Temporal Drift, and Feature-Structure Evolution
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Social bots are now deeply embedded in online platforms for promotion, persuasion, and manipulation. Most bot-detection systems still treat behavioural features as static, implicitly assuming bots behave stationarily over time. We test that assumption for promotional Twitter bots, analysing change in both individual behavioural signals and the relationships between them. Using 2,615 promotional bot accounts and 2.8M tweets, we build yearly time series for ten content-based meta-features. Augmented Dickey-Fuller and KPSS tests plus linear trends show all ten are non-stationary: nine increase over time, while language diversity declines slightly. Stratifying by activation generation and account age reveals systematic differences: second-generation bots are most active and link-heavy; short-lived bots show intense, repetitive activity with heavy hashtag/URL use; long-lived bots are less active but more linguistically diverse and use emojis more variably. We then analyse co-occurrence across generations using 18 interpretable binary features spanning actions, topic similarity, URLs, hashtags, sentiment, emojis, and media (153 pairs). Chi-square tests indicate almost all pairs are dependent. Spearman correlations shift in strength and sometimes polarity: many links (e.g. multiple hashtags with media; sentiment with URLs) strengthen, while others flip from weakly positive to weakly or moderately negative. Later generations show more structured combinations of cues. Taken together, these studies provide evidence that promotional social bots adapt over time at both the level of individual meta-features and the level of feature interdependencies, with direct implications for the design and evaluation of bot-detection systems trained on historical behavioural features.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Dec 2025.
Builds on
12 of 38 references.
References · 12
- 2014The Rise of Social Botscited by 96
- 2017Online Human-Bot Interactions: Detection, Estimation, and Characterizationcited by 64
- 2017The paradigm-shift of social spambots: Evidence, theories, and tools for the arms racecited by 49
- 2020Uncovering Coordinated Networks on Social Media: Methods and Case Studiescited by 49
- 2020A Decade of Social Bot Detectioncited by 48
- 2019RTbust: Exploiting Temporal Patterns for Botnet Detection on Twittercited by 27
- 2018LOBO -- Evaluation of Generalization Deficiencies in Twitter Bot Classifierscited by 13
- 2017A Longitudinal Assessment of the Persistence of Twitter Datasetscited by 11
- 2016Dissecting a Social Botnet: Growth, Content and Influence in Twittercited by 7
- 2018Measuring bot and human behavioral dynamicscited by 7
- 2022Manipulating Twitter Through Deletionscited by 6
- 2025On the efficacy of old features for the detection of new botscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.