Luca Luceri

Minh Duc Chu, Yifan Wu, Zhiyi Chen et al.

Millions turn to AI companion chatbots during loneliness, grief, and personal crises. How these companion platforms respond in such moments can shape the trajectory of a user's vulnerable state. Yet we lack tools to characterize what each platform actually does when users open up. Existing audits score reactions to pre-defined crisis prompts and miss the underlying decision policy that governs sustained interaction. We address these gaps with two key contributions. First, we introduce the AI Companion Vulnerability-Response Taxonomy, a paired taxonomy of user vulnerability and chatbot response designed for analyzing extended companion chatbot interactions. Second, we infer the response policy each platform follows across distinct vulnerability scenarios by applying Inverse Reinforcement Learning to ~48k turns of real-world user conversations with GPT-4.1, Character.AI, and Replika. Our findings reveal what AI companions prioritize in conversations with vulnerable users: GPT-4.1 reaches for advice, Character.AI spreads its response across different strategies without a dominant mode, and Replika consistently asks questions and stays present. Each, however, downweights the responses that introduce corrective friction: GPT-4.1 probes less as conversations continue and when interacting with psychologically high-risk users; Replika advises bonded users more and challenges them less; Character.AI shows no committed engagement strategy on internal distress. Estimated policies are invisible to output-level audits, providing a new lens for auditing chatbots in the wild and enabling more realistic safety evaluation.

Luca Luceri, Eric Boniardi, Emilio Ferrara

Social media influence campaigns pose significant challenges to public discourse and democracy. Traditional detection methods fall short due to the complexity and dynamic nature of social media. Addressing this, we propose a novel detection method using Large Language Models (LLMs) that incorporates both user metadata and network structures. By converting these elements into a text format, our approach effectively processes multilingual content and adapts to the shifting tactics of malicious campaign actors. We validate our model through rigorous testing on multiple datasets, showcasing its superior performance in identifying influence efforts. This research not only offers a powerful tool for detecting campaigns, but also sets the stage for future enhancements to keep up with the fast-paced evolution of social media-based influence tactics.

Fatima Ezzeddine, Luca Luceri, Omran Ayoub et al.

The detection of state-sponsored trolls operating in influence campaigns on social media is a critical and unsolved challenge for the research community, which has significant implications beyond the online realm. To address this challenge, we propose a new AI-based solution that identifies troll accounts solely through behavioral cues associated with their sequences of sharing activity, encompassing both their actions and the feedback they receive from others. Our approach does not incorporate any textual content shared and consists of two steps: First, we leverage an LSTM-based classifier to determine whether account sequences belong to a state-sponsored troll or an organic, legitimate user. Second, we employ the classified sequences to calculate a metric named the "Troll Score", quantifying the degree to which an account exhibits troll-like behavior. To assess the effectiveness of our method, we examine its performance in the context of the 2016 Russian interference campaign during the U.S. Presidential election. Our experiments yield compelling results, demonstrating that our approach can identify account sequences with an AUC close to 99% and accurately differentiate between Russian trolls and organic users with an AUC of 91%. Notably, our behavioral-based approach holds a significant advantage in the ever-evolving landscape, where textual and linguistic properties can be easily mimicked by Large Language Models (LLMs): In contrast to existing language-based techniques, it relies on more challenging-to-replicate behavioral cues, ensuring greater resilience in identifying influence campaigns, especially given the potential increase in the usage of LLMs for generating inauthentic content. Finally, we assessed the generalizability of our solution to various entities driving different information operations and found promising results that will guide future research.

Daniel C. Ruiz, Anna Serbina, Ashwin Rao et al.

As large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly participate in online discourse, red-teaming their capacity to support political influence campaigns is critical for information integrity. In pursuit of this goal, we focus on locally deployed open-source LLMs, as opposed to frontier API-only models, given their superior alignment with the operational constraints of privacy-conscious malicious actors deployed in social media environments. We introduce an empirical red-teaming framework for measuring LLM Overton Windows (OWs), defined as the range of political opinions a model can reliably express on controversial topics, and for quantifying how simple natural-language jailbreaks expand that range. We evaluate more than 30 LLMs spanning 10 model families and five countries of origin. We find systematic asymmetries in political expressivity: open-source LLMs are typically more willing to generate left-leaning social media content, OWs tend to contract inversely to model size, and regional differences are substantial despite uneven representation in the open-source ecosystem. Jailbreak potency also varies sharply across model families, motivating a workflow for identifying effective combinations of jailbreak techniques. Taken together, our results establish a practical framework for auditing the political steerability of open-source LLMs and for helping future researchers design stronger countermeasures against LLM-enabled influence campaigns.

Tommaso Fornaciari, Luca Luceri, Emilio Ferrara et al.

Detecting misinformation threads is crucial to guarantee a healthy environment on social media. We address the problem using the data set created during the COVID-19 pandemic. It contains cascades of tweets discussing information weakly labeled as reliable or unreliable, based on a previous evaluation of the information source. The models identifying unreliable threads usually rely on textual features. But reliability is not just what is said, but by whom and to whom. We additionally leverage on network information. Following the homophily principle, we hypothesize that users who interact are generally interested in similar topics and spreading similar kind of news, which in turn is generally reliable or not. We test several methods to learn representations of the social interactions within the cascades, combining them with deep neural language models in a Multi-Input (MI) framework. Keeping track of the sequence of the interactions during the time, we improve over previous state-of-the-art models.

Tuğrulcan Elmas, Filipi Nascimento Silva, Manita Pote et al.

Coordinated campaigns on social media play a critical role in shaping crisis information environments, particularly during the onset of conflicts when uncertainty is high and verified information is scarce. We study the interplay between coordinated campaigns and information integrity through a case study of the 2023 Israel-Hamas War on Twitter (X). We analyze 4.5~million tweets and employ established coordination detection methods to identify 11 coordinated groups involving 541 accounts. We characterize these groups through a multimodal analysis that includes topics, account amplification, toxicity, emotional tone, visual themes, and misleading claims. Our analysis reveal that coordinated campaigns rely predominantly on low-complexity tactics, such as retweet amplification and copy-paste diffusion, and promote distinct narratives consistent with a fragmented manipulation landscape, without centralized control. Widely amplified misleading claims concentrate within just three of the identified coordinated groups; the remaining groups primarily engage in advocacy, religious solidarity, or humanitarian mobilization. Claim-level integrity, toxicity, and emotional signals are mutually uncorrelated: no single behavioral signal is a reliable proxy for the others. Targeting the most prolific spreaders of misleading content for moderation would be effective in reducing such content. However, targeting prolific amplifiers in general would not achieve the same mitigation effect. These findings suggest that evaluating coordination structures jointly with their specific content footprints is needed to effectively prioritize moderation interventions.

Abhinav Kumar Thakur, Filip Ilievski, Hông-Ân Sandlin et al.

In the current context where online platforms have been effectively weaponized in a variety of geo-political events and social issues, Internet memes make fair content moderation at scale even more difficult. Existing work on meme classification and tracking has focused on black-box methods that do not explicitly consider the semantics of the memes or the context of their creation. In this paper, we pursue a modular and explainable architecture for Internet meme understanding. We design and implement multimodal classification methods that perform example- and prototype-based reasoning over training cases, while leveraging both textual and visual SOTA models to represent the individual cases. We study the relevance of our modular and explainable models in detecting harmful memes on two existing tasks: Hate Speech Detection and Misogyny Classification. We compare the performance between example- and prototype-based methods, and between text, vision, and multimodal models, across different categories of harmfulness (e.g., stereotype and objectification). We devise a user-friendly interface that facilitates the comparative analysis of examples retrieved by all of our models for any given meme, informing the community about the strengths and limitations of these explainable methods.

Bijean Ghafouri, Dorsaf Sallami, Luca Luceri et al.

Research on misinformation has focused almost exclusively on supply, asking what falsehoods circulate, who produces them, and whether corrections work. A basic demand-side question remains unanswered. When ordinary people can fact-check anything they want, what do they actually ask about? We provide the first large-scale evidence on this question by analyzing close to 2{,}500 statements submitted by 457 participants to an open-ended AI fact-checking system. Each claim is classified along five semantic dimensions (domain, epistemic form, verifiability, target entity, and temporal reference), producing a behavioral map of public verification demand. Three findings stand out. First, users range widely across topics but default to a narrow epistemic repertoire, overwhelmingly submitting simple descriptive claims about present-day observables. Second, roughly one in four requests concerns statements that cannot be empirically resolved, including moral judgments, speculative predictions, and subjective evaluations, revealing a systematic mismatch between what users seek from fact-checking tools and what such tools can deliver. Third, comparison with the FEVER benchmark dataset exposes sharp structural divergences across all five dimensions, indicating that standard evaluation corpora encode a synthetic claim environment that does not resemble real-world verification needs. These results reframe fact-checking as a demand-driven problem and identify where current AI systems and benchmarks are misaligned with the uncertainty people actually experience.

Saurav Joshi, Filip Ilievski, Luca Luceri

Internet memes have emerged as a novel format for communication and expressing ideas on the web. Their fluidity and creative nature are reflected in their widespread use, often across platforms and occasionally for unethical or harmful purposes. While computational work has already analyzed their high-level virality over time and developed specialized classifiers for hate speech detection, there have been no efforts to date that aim to holistically track, identify, and map internet memes posted on social media. To bridge this gap, we investigate whether internet memes across social media platforms can be contextualized by using a semantic repository of knowledge, namely, a knowledge graph. We collect thousands of potential internet meme posts from two social media platforms, namely Reddit and Discord, and develop an extract-transform-load procedure to create a data lake with candidate meme posts. By using vision transformer-based similarity, we match these candidates against the memes cataloged in IMKG -- a recently released knowledge graph of internet memes. We leverage this grounding to highlight the potential of our proposed framework to study the prevalence of memes on different platforms, map them to IMKG, and provide context about memes on social media.

Jehyeok Yeon, Federico Cinus, Yifan Wu et al.

Large language models (LLMs) face critical safety challenges, as they can be manipulated to generate harmful content through adversarial prompts and jailbreak attacks. Many defenses are typically either black-box guardrails that filter outputs, or internals-based methods that steer hidden activations by operationalizing safety as a single latent feature or dimension. While effective for simple concepts, this assumption is limiting, as recent evidence shows that abstract concepts such as refusal and temporality are distributed across multiple features rather than isolated in one. To address this limitation, we introduce Graph-Regularized Sparse Autoencoders (GSAEs), which extends SAEs with a Laplacian smoothness penalty on the neuron co-activation graph. Unlike standard SAEs that assign each concept to a single latent feature, GSAEs recover smooth, distributed safety representations as coherent patterns spanning multiple features. We empirically demonstrate that GSAE enables effective runtime safety steering, assembling features into a weighted set of safety-relevant directions and controlling them with a two-stage gating mechanism that activates interventions only when harmful prompts or continuations are detected during generation. This approach enforces refusals adaptively while preserving utility on benign queries. Across safety and QA benchmarks, GSAE steering achieves an average 82% selective refusal rate, substantially outperforming standard SAE steering (42%), while maintaining strong task accuracy (70% on TriviaQA, 65% on TruthfulQA, 74% on GSM8K). Robustness experiments further show generalization across LLaMA-3, Mistral, Qwen, and Phi families and resilience against jailbreak attacks (GCG, AutoDAN), consistently maintaining >= 90% refusal of harmful content.

Alexandros Efstratiou, Giuseppe Russo, Luca Luceri

Online discussions of science involve complex interactions among experts, news media, and social media users as they interpret and disseminate scientific findings. While prior work has examined these actors in isolation, their interplay in shaping science communication remains poorly understood. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, we analyze 1.24M tweets and 211k news articles that reference pandemic-related scientific papers. We find that the most influential Twitter accounts in this discourse are predominantly individuals with medical or research credentials. However, we also identify a coordinated network that disproportionately amplifies a small set of prominent credentialed experts who advance contrarian, anti-consensus positions on vaccines, lockdowns, and related topics. The papers promoted by these influential actors substantially overlap with those covered by news media, but with key differences: pro-consensus experts primarily engage with studies featured by mainstream and medical outlets, whereas contrarian experts align more closely with papers promoted by low-quality, pseudoscientific, or conspiratorial sources. Notably, news outlets tend to report on scientific studies after they have been highlighted by social media superspreaders. Together, these findings reveal multi-level pathways of information flow and coordinated amplification structures that shape science communication across social media and news, offering new insights into the dynamics of the broader information ecosystem.

Marco Minici, Luca Luceri, Francesco Fabbri et al.

Social media platforms have become vital spaces for public discourse, serving as modern agoràs where a wide range of voices influence societal narratives. However, their open nature also makes them vulnerable to exploitation by malicious actors, including state-sponsored entities, who can conduct information operations (IOs) to manipulate public opinion. The spread of misinformation, false news, and misleading claims threatens democratic processes and societal cohesion, making it crucial to develop methods for the timely detection of inauthentic activity to protect the integrity of online discourse. In this work, we introduce a methodology designed to identify users orchestrating information operations, a.k.a. IO drivers, across various influence campaigns. Our framework, named IOHunter, leverages the combined strengths of Language Models and Graph Neural Networks to improve generalization in supervised, scarcely-supervised, and cross-IO contexts. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple sets of IOs originating from six countries, significantly surpassing existing approaches. This research marks a step toward developing Graph Foundation Models specifically tailored for the task of IO detection on social media platforms.

Zhiyi Chen, Eun Cheol Choi, Yingjia Luo et al.

People increasingly seek advice online from both human peers and large language model (LLM)-based chatbots. Such advice rarely involves identifying a single correct answer; instead, it typically requires navigating trade-offs among competing values. We aim to characterize how LLMs navigate value trade-offs across different advice-seeking contexts. First, we examine the value trade-off structure underlying advice seeking using a curated dataset from four advice-oriented subreddits. Using a bottom-up approach, we inductively construct a hierarchical value framework by aggregating fine-grained values extracted from individual advice options into higher-level value categories. We construct value co-occurrence networks to characterize how values co-occur within dilemmas and find substantial heterogeneity in value trade-off structures across advice-seeking contexts: a women-focused subreddit exhibits the highest network density, indicating more complex value conflicts; women's, men's, and friendship-related subreddits exhibit highly correlated value-conflict patterns centered on security-related tensions (security vs. respect/connection/commitment); by contrast, career advice forms a distinct structure where security frequently clashes with self-actualization and growth. We then evaluate LLM value preferences against these dilemmas and find that, across models and contexts, LLMs consistently prioritize values related to Exploration & Growth over Benevolence & Connection. This systemically skewed value orientation highlights a potential risk of value homogenization in AI-mediated advice, raising concerns about how such systems may shape decision-making and normative outcomes at scale.

Nikos Kanakaris, Heng Ping, Xiongye Xiao et al.

Detecting organized political campaigns is of paramount importance in fighting against disinformation on social media. Existing approaches for the identification of such organized actions employ techniques mostly from network science, graph machine learning and natural language processing. Their ultimate goal is to analyze the relationships and interactions (e.g. re-posting) among users and the textual similarities of their posts. Despite their effectiveness in recognizing astroturf campaigns, these methods face significant challenges, notably the class imbalance in available training datasets. To mitigate this issue, recent methods usually resort to data augmentation or increasing the number of positive samples, which may not always be feasible or sufficient in real-world settings. Following a different path, in this paper, we propose a novel framework for identifying astroturf campaigns based solely on large language models (LLMs), introducing a Balanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Balanced RAG) component. Our approach first gives both textual information concerning the posts (in our case tweets) and the user interactions of the social network as input to a language model. Then, through prompt engineering and the proposed Balanced RAG method, it effectively detects coordinated disinformation campaigns on X (Twitter). The proposed framework does not require any training or fine-tuning of the language model. Instead, by strategically harnessing the strengths of prompt engineering and Balanced RAG, it facilitates LLMs to overcome the effects of class imbalance and effectively identify coordinated political campaigns. The experimental results demonstrate that by incorporating the proposed prompt engineering and Balanced RAG methods, our framework outperforms the traditional graph-based baselines, achieving 2x-3x improvements in terms of precision, recall and F1 scores.

Philipp Eibl, Erica Coppolillo, Simone Mungari et al.

Online encyclopedias are central to contemporary information infrastructures and have become focal points of debates over ideological bias. Wikipedia, in particular, has long been accused of left-leaning bias, while Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia launched by xAI, has been framed as a right-leaning alternative. This paper presents a comparative analysis of Wikipedia and Grokipedia on well-established politically contested topics. Specifically, we examine differences in semantic framing, political orientation, and content prioritization. We find that semantic similarity between the two platforms decays across article sections and diverges more strongly on controversial topics than on randomly sampled ones. Additionally, we show that both encyclopedias predominantly exhibit left-leaning framings, although Grokipedia exhibits a more bimodal distribution with increased prominence of right-leaning content. The experimental code is publicly available.

Davide Andreoletti, Luca Luceri, Tiziano Leidi et al.

The importance of emotions in service and in product design is well known. However, it is still not very well understood how users' emotions can be incorporated in a product or service lifecycle. We argue that this gap is due to a lack of a methodological framework for an effective investigation of the emotional response of persons when using products and services. Indeed, the emotional response of users is generally investigated by means of methods (e.g., surveys) that are not effective for this purpose. In our view, Virtual Reality (VR) technologies represent the perfect medium to evoke and recognize users' emotional response, as well as to prototype products and services (and, for the latter, even deliver them). In this paper, we first provide our definition of emotion-driven services, and then we propose a novel methodological framework, referred to as the Virtual-Reality-Based Emotion-Elicitation-and-Recognition loop (VEE-loop), that can be exploited to realize it. Specifically, the VEE-loop consists in a continuous monitoring of users' emotions, which are then provided to service designers as an implicit users' feedback. This information is used to dynamically change the content of the VR environment, until the desired affective state is solicited. Finally, we discuss issues and opportunities of this VEE-loop, and we also present potential applications of the VEE-loop in research and in various application areas.

Samar Haider, Luca Luceri, Ashok Deb et al.

Social media have been deliberately used for malicious purposes, including political manipulation and disinformation. Most research focuses on high-resource languages. However, malicious actors share content across countries and languages, including low-resource ones. Here, we investigate whether and to what extent malicious actors can be detected in low-resource language settings. We discovered that a high number of accounts posting in Tagalog were suspended as part of Twitter's crackdown on interference operations after the 2016 US Presidential election. By combining text embedding and transfer learning, our framework can detect, with promising accuracy, malicious users posting in Tagalog without any prior knowledge or training on malicious content in that language. We first learn an embedding model for each language, namely a high-resource language (English) and a low-resource one (Tagalog), independently. Then, we learn a mapping between the two latent spaces to transfer the detection model. We demonstrate that the proposed approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models, including BERT, and yields marked advantages in settings with very limited training data -- the norm when dealing with detecting malicious activity in online platforms.

Luca Luceri, Silvia Giordano, Emilio Ferrara

Since the 2016 US Presidential election, social media abuse has been eliciting massive concern in the academic community and beyond. Preventing and limiting the malicious activity of users, such as trolls and bots, in their manipulation campaigns is of paramount importance for the integrity of democracy, public health, and more. However, the automated detection of troll accounts is an open challenge. In this work, we propose an approach based on Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) to capture troll behavior and identify troll accounts. We employ IRL to infer a set of online incentives that may steer user behavior, which in turn highlights behavioral differences between troll and non-troll accounts, enabling their accurate classification. As a study case, we consider the troll accounts identified by the US Congress during the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 US Presidential election. We report promising results: the IRL-based approach is able to accurately detect troll accounts (AUC=89.1%). The differences in the predictive features between the two classes of accounts enables a principled understanding of the distinctive behaviors reflecting the incentives trolls and non-trolls respond to.