<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Identifying Fake Profile in Online Social Network</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Himanshi Gupta Nagariya</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Neha Dhanotiya</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Shruti Joshi</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Sarika Jain</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>National Institute of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Kurukshetra</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="IN">India</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Online Social Networks involve a huge amount of people from all over the world and it has become a big part of their life. People use social networks to share their feelings, to make new friends, to set up new businesses, to connect with friends and family and what not. The Online Social Networks provides a great advantage to individuals in different ways but it also suffers with some disadvantages. There are many people who use these networks to cause harm to others by making fake accounts on these networks. For detection of such fake and genuine accounts we can use machine learning algorithms. The machine learning algorithms are applied for the prediction and classification of datasets through the different models that are prepared. It sometimes become difficult to differentiate between the results of different models and so we to use a hybrid approach of machine learning algorithm can make this task easy. In our work we compared the 8 different combinations of classification algorithms and calculated their accuracy on the dataset of an Online Social Network. We used the combination of Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression, KNN, and Decision Trees. After comparing the result of each hybrid approach, we concluded that the best accuracy was obtained by combination of SVM and Logistic Regression and Neural Network. So, we proposed a model for the detection of fake account with the hybrid approach giving the best accuracy among all the combinations.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>eol&gt;Online Social Network</kwd>
        <kwd>Fake Account Detection</kwd>
        <kwd>Feature Extraction</kwd>
        <kwd>Spammer</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>Machine Learning is a branch of
artificial intelligence (AI) which is able to
provide a system the ability to act without
being programmed explicitly. It is used in
many fields like Google cars,
recommendation engines, friend suggestions
in social media networks, shopping apps,
cybercrimes etc.</p>
      <p>Machine Learning has made a
phenomenal change in the way how data
was extracted and interpreted by replacing
the old statistical techniques. Classifications
of machine learning techniques are:
Reinforcement, Supervised and
Unsupervised Machine Learning.</p>
      <p>Our work is concerned with the
Classification algorithms that come under
the Supervised Machine Learning.
Classification is a supervised learning
approach in which the machine takes the
input data learns from that data and then
further classifies the testing data according
to its training data.</p>
      <p>Although classification algorithms
(Support Vector Machine, Logistic
Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest,
Artificial Neural Network) can be used
separately and individually but in our
system we are developing a hybrid model
combining two or three machine learning
models has helped in increasing the
accuracy of the model and its predicative
power. The fact that which hybrid model
will perform better is unknown, but it is
also affected by the dataset provided and
also the feature selection. The concept to
develop a hybrid model is in a two- stage
manner, first using clustering or
classification techniques for pre-processing
of data and in second stage the output of the
first stage to build second stage predictive
classifier. It can be made using different
algorithms of supervised or unsupervised
learning but in our work, we developed the
model using classification algorithms of
supervised learning. Our main contribution
is to propose a hybrid approach of machine
learning algorithms and to compare the
hybrid of different classification algorithms.
Eight different experiments were conducted,
and the accuracy thus obtained was
compared.</p>
      <p>The total number of users in online
social networking sites is continuously
increasing and with that the number of fake
accounts is also increasing. As in
September 2019, monthly active users on
Facebook are 2.45 billion worldwide.
According to Alexa, after Google and
YouTube the third most visited website is
Facebook. In a survey it is found that there
are a greater number of female accounts in
the world than the total population of
female. From this, we can infer how many
fake profiles have been created. According
to Statistics April 2018 stats report,
Facebook has more than 336 million active
Twitter accounts, but Facebook is the leader
with 2,196 million users worldwide. In
September 2019, monthly active users on
Facebook are 2.45 billion, of which India
has the most. 270 million users. People who
log on to Facebook daily are approximately
1.62 billion. And among these 83 million
accounts are fake on Facebook. This
statistics was given by Facebook in their
Wall Street reports (SOURCE: Zephoria
Digital Marketing). Figure 1 shows the
monthly active users in the year 2019 on
various OSNs.</p>
      <p>As the number of people using OSN
increases, so does the fake social media
accounts creation. The main motivational
factor in identifying those fake accounts is
the cyber-crime rate, as these accounts were
created primarily to commit cyber robbery
or to commit cybercrime anonymously or
unidentified is a significant increase from
last few years. Fake account owners also try
to take advantage of people's kindness by
composing fake messages and spreading
false news through these fake accounts in
order to steal money from sinless people. In
addition, people want to create multiple
accounts that don't belong to anyone,
created just to raise votes in an online
voting system, and receive referral
incentives, as in online games.</p>
      <p>The detection of fake accounts in OSN
attracts many researchers, so several
algorithms for detection of fake accounts have
been developed using machine learning
techniques and various functions to connect to
the account. Spammers can also find ways to
support such techniques. These security
technologies provide sophisticated detection
mechanisms that require the continuous
development of new approaches to spam
detection. The main hazards in detection of
fake accounts are to achieve accuracy and
response time in the analysis of
characteristics.
1.2.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Challenges</title>
      <p>Modeling a Fake Profile Detection
System is an old problem but due to the
many challenges this problem presents there
still exist a lot of gaps that have been
identified and need to be worked upon. The
many challenges this system presents have
been listed below:</p>
      <p> The data is not readily available:
accounts on online social networks are
highly private and protected, so the
networking sites do not reveal any account
information to maintain the confidential
nature and keep the trust of their users.</p>
      <p> There is a lot of overlapping
between genuine and fake accounts: At
times the feature set of legitimate and fake
accounts overlap, and this poses a
considerable setback when it comes to
training the neural network by making it
learn the pattern to differentiate between
them.</p>
      <p> The number of parameters to
process: The enormous number of
parameters between learning and decision
making is a major obstacle in developing
systems for detecting fake accounts.</p>
      <p> Selection of optimal features
(variables) is a big challenge: When it
comes to optimal feature selection, it needs
to be really dealt with care as the
performance of whole system depends on
which features it’s taking into consideration
for classification of fake and genuine
accounts. And at times it’s really perplexing
to decide on these optimal features.</p>
      <p> Ability to handle noise in the data:
Noise means missing or incorrect data
which poses challenges while processing
the dataset. There is no means by which we
can make up for this lost information as
such systems aren’t partition tolerant, so
this adversely affects the outcome.</p>
      <p> Heterogeneity in features.
 Single user multiple accounts.</p>
      <p> Many of the times it resembles a
legitimate transaction: At times the fake
account activities are stacked up in close
resemblance with the legitimate ones.
Hence, it becomes difficult to comprehend
them and abort them before they make it to
completion.
1.3.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Gaps Identified</title>
      <p> We can extend the evaluation of
propose feature by testing on different
social networking sites like Facebook,
Twitter etc. as most the previous researches
were done on any one social site among
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Myspace etc.</p>
      <p> The existing system does not work
for the real time accurately on changing
the features.</p>
      <p> Identification of rumor sources on
social media by using the content-based
features.
1.4.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Related Work</title>
      <p>Fake Profile Detection is an old problem
and there has been a lot of work done in
providing an optimal solution. But the fact
that the mannerism of fake accounts keeps
on evolving with time and there are
enormous numbers of challenges and gaps
still left to tackle, this problem still has a lot
of significance. In order to study the work
already done on Fake Account Detection we
searched articles and research papers on two
major sources: i) general online indexing
websites, ii) publisher databases. Examples
of former are Research Gate, Towards Data
Science, IEEE Explorer and Google Scholar
and examples of latter are Scopus, Springer,
ACM Digital Library and Elsevier
databases.</p>
      <p>The major machine learning techniques
we used in detection of fake accounts are
Neural Network, Support Vector Machine,
Random Forest, and Hybrid Models for
Comparative analysis of Fake Account
Detection.</p>
      <p>Yang et al. trained SVM using the
ground- truth obtained by Ren Ren for
detecting fake accounts. By making use of
simple features like frequency of friend
requests, accepted requests and
peraccount clustering coefficient they trained
the classifier and got 99% true-positive rate
(TPR) and 0.7% false- positive rate (FPR).
Íntegro draws out low-cost features from
user-level activities to train the classifier for
the identification of undetermined victims
in social graph and used feature-based
detection.</p>
      <p>A different approach for hybrid was
introduced by Mateen et al., by using
content- based features like total number of
tweets, hash tag ratio, URL’s ratio and
some graph- based features also and used
the dataset of Twitter. They also made a
comparison J48, Decorate and Naïve Bayes
in which Decorate was the best performer.
Somya et al.’s approach was quite different
from others for detection as they tried to
detect the account as fake on the user’s
homepage using Chrome extension which
runs on the user site. Along with this they
used Petri net based solution for the
identification of source of malicious content
running on Pn2 simulator environment.</p>
      <p>
        Using a support vector machine and a
neural network, Khaled et al [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
        ] obtained
98% accuracy and compared the accuracy
obtained by the hybrid of SVM and NN.
BalaAnand et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] achieved 90.3% accuracy
using a random forest classifier, support
vector machine, and k-nearest neighbor
method. For their work, Gupta et al [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]
selected a dataset on Twitter and used a
labeled dataset with a specific user and tweet
feature. They used a hybrid of naive
algorithms to classify, cluster, and make
highly accurate decisions.
1.5.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Organization</title>
      <p>In our work we have implemented various
algorithm to find the most efficient
algorithm. To do so we have conducted
several experiments and compared their
results. Further, in this paper we have three
sections which are briefly define below:</p>
      <p>This section is followed by Section 2,
System Architecture. In this section, flow
diagram and architecture of our work is
introduced and is described in brief.</p>
      <p>In Section 3, Experimental Results, of up
to now what modules we have implemented
is shown along with pseudocode and
discussed the various results produced by
our system and have shown the outputs
generated on various inputs in the form of
the graph for the better understanding and
algorithm of the technique is also
mentioned in this section.</p>
      <p>In Section 4, Conclusion, we provide an
understanding of the overall conclusion of
the proposed solution i.e. the combination
of the techniques which is efficient than
others and is given better accuracy.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>2. System Architecture</title>
      <p>Although fake profile detection is a
robust field, but it has many challenges and
gaps which we have discussed and have
based our work on. There are a lot of
existing solutions to fake profile detection
but all of them have some or the other
drawback. There is a lot of work already
done in this field and a lot more needs to be
done like improving upon the response time,
prevention from fake accounts instead of
detecting and dealing with their aftermaths.
Our work is aiming to deliver a system
which will have the highest accuracy and
hence will be effective in prevention from
such fake profiles by implementing and
comparing different algorithms. This is done
by ensemble machine learning technique
which speeds up the training of neural
networks and helps them to take decisions
faster. Efficient parameter selection is also
one of the major objectives of this work for
which we are selecting six features manually
which will give a better control on the
output of neural networks. The proposed
solution makes use of the hybrid of the
machine learning techniques and combines
their advantages and uses one to cancel out
the loopholes of the other and hence
delivering an efficient and cost-effective
system.</p>
      <p>In our proposed system we are aiming to
design a hybrid system using artificial
neural network, support vector machine and
logistic regression that will be able to
precisely and accurately detect fake profiles
in online social network. Goal of the work
is to maximize the accuracy and to
minimize the time required by using hybrid
approach of the Neural Network, Support
vector machine and Logistic Regression.</p>
      <p>Figure 2 depicts the flowchart of our
system. The dataset which we have is
partitioned into two sets, Train Dataset and
Test Dataset in the ratio 4:1.The train
dataset then goes into Support Vector
Machine and Logistic Regression Classifier
where classes are predicted. Then these
classifiers are appended to a voting
classifier where final decision of class is
made. The output from voting classifier i.e.
train data and the predicted class from
voting classifier is fed to Neural Network
classifier as input. After training has been
completed, we get a Trained System on
which Test dataset is ran to find the
accuracy of the system.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>3. Experimental Result</title>
      <p>No proposal can be modeled into a
system without some experiments to
support it. In this section we have included
the results and outputs produced during
experiment with our system and by our
system under various inputs and parameters.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>3.1. Implementation Details</title>
      <p>Each phase of our proposed system is
briefly described in this section along with
description, results at each stage are also
provided.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>3.1.1. Data Collection</title>
      <p>For the model to work upon, there is a
need for data collection. The dataset can be
collected from various online platforms and
can also be created by using Crawler. We
have collected two datasets through online
from well-known websites Kaggle and
GitHub. But we worked on the dataset
which is collected by Kaggle and in that we
are using two CSV files corresponding to
fake and genuine users. Figure 5 shows the
sample of csv file. And the code for reading
both the files are:
genuineusers=pd.read_csv("users.csv")
fakeusers= pd.read_csv(“fusers.csv")
,</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>3.1.2. Data Preprocessing</title>
      <p>Data pre-processing is used to achieve
the better result from any machine learning
model and data processing is used to clean
the data from raw data we import the useful
libraries which will rescale or clean our data
and the libraries we import are numpy,
panda, scikit-learn and from sklearn we
import preprocessing to clean our data.</p>
      <p>Now in the next part for data
preprocessing we use feature extraction
technique first we try the principal
component analysis technique and then we
use the genetic algorithm and then after we
select the features manually and we
compare the result obtained from three
ways and we get better result from the
manually selection of features and the
features we select manually are:






statuses_count
followers_count
friends_count
favourites_count
listed_count
lang_code</p>
      <p>The language code feature is of string
type we convert it into integer. After calling
extract feature function it prints the
extracted feature name and describes the
entire extracted feature in summarized by
printing mean, quartile, count, std, min,
max etc.</p>
      <p>Figure 4 shows the data distribution in
each column or feature in terms of count,
mean, standard deviation, minimum and
maximum values, and average of 25%, 50%
and 75% of the data points when taken in
ascending order.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>3.1.3. Training of Classifiers</title>
      <p>As we are using the hybrid approach of
the techniques in our proposed system, so
we have done experiments with six
techniques i.e. SVM, RF, LR, DTC, NN,
KNN and finalize the techniques that gives
the best result and they are Support Vector
Machine, Logistic Regression and Neural
Network. First we train our data using
support vector machine independently and
then we train our data on Logistic
Regression independently and after
analyzing the result of both the
classification techniques we merge both the
techniques to check the accuracy of both of
them together and hybrid approach of both
the techniques gives us the best result and
after training the data from both the voting
classifier is used to get the best result from
both and then passing value for any one of
them and then we use 5 fold cross
validation technique to avoid the situation
of overfitting as in k-fold cross validation
technique dataset in divided into k folds
where 1 fold is used for validation or testing
while others are used for training and in
these way we can avoid the situation of
overfitting. After getting the score of each
fold final estimated score is printed and in
these we got 0.91 and the accuracy on
testing dataset is 99.56.and after that the
confusion matrix is plotted which will gives
us the 261 true positive value and 7 false
negative value and 29 false positive and 267
true negative value and then we plot the
normalized confusion matrix which gives us
all the four (TP,TN,FP,FN) values in
percentage form along with precision,
recall, f1 score and support and all these are
evaluation criteria. For fake recall we got is
0.98 and for genuine it is 1.00 and f1 score
for both is 0.99 and overall accuracy is0.99.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-12">
      <title>3.1.4. Training of Neural Network</title>
      <p>called epoch. For this instance, we have
taken our epoch to be 10, total number of
layers to be 3, it took approximately minutes
and seconds to train the system with final
accuracy and loss value to be respectively.</p>
      <p>Now the output produced by several
hybrid techniques. We have collected two
datasets say, D1 and D2 and the difference
between these datasets is in their size, D2 is
large as compared to D1. D2 contains
approx. 3500 rows while D1 contains
approx. 1500 rows. The results that we have
obtained with different algorithms on both
datasets are different and D2 gives less
system with less accuracy as compared to
D1.</p>
      <p>As we can see there is an accuracy
difference between both datasets used by
different algorithms so further, we will be
working and showing results for only
dataset, D1. We are using two csv files one
is of genuine users and other one is of fake
users.</p>
      <p>Figure 7 shows the accuracy of each of
our experimental model in ascending order
and the model with highest accuracy being
our trained system.
Table 2 shows the results of the seven
experiments that we performed using
different combination of classification
algorithms like Support Vector Machine,
Random Forest, Logistic Regression, KNN
with Neural Network. In the above table we
can see that SVM, Log Reg, and NN is
giving the maximum of true positive true
negative resulting in maximum accuracy of
all.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-13">
      <title>4. Conclusion</title>
      <p>If we look at the system designs, majority
of implementations for fake account
detection is either graph-based or
featurebased and they may use the graph analysis
techniques or machine learning techniques to
identification of accounts as fake or real. In
our proposed framework we use feature-based
dataset and selected the features manually.
This approach is based upon the user-level
activities and the user’s account details. We
are comparing the hybrid approach of different
classification algorithms and pass them in
voting classifier and then pass the result in
Neural network what we got from the voting
classifier. In addition to our satisfying
conclusion, we have maintained the
highest accuracy in detecting fake accounts by
testing and training the dataset on different
hybrid approach of classification algorithms.
The results show the increase of the accuracy
results of the different classification algorithm.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-14">
      <title>5. References</title>
      <p>Hoda MO Mokhtar. "Detecting fake
accounts on social media." 2018 IEEE
International Conference on Big Data
(Big Data). IEEE, 2018.
[21] Gupta, Aditi, and Rishabh Kaushal.
"Towards detecting fake user accounts in
facebook." 2017 ISEA Asia Security and
Privacy (ISEASP). IEEE, 2017.
[22] Benevenuto, Fabricio, et al. "Detecting
spammers on twitter." Collaboration,
electronic messaging, anti-abuse and
spam conference (CEAS). Vol. 6. No.
2010. 2010.
[23] Stein, Tao, Erdong Chen, and Karan
Mangla. "Facebook immune system."
Proceedings of the 4th workshop on
social network systems. 2011.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Joshi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shruti</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>"Identifying Fake Profile in Online Social Network: An Overview and Survey."</article-title>
          <source>International Conference on Machine Learning, Image Processing, Network Security and Data Sciences</source>
          . Springer, Singapore,
          <year>2020</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mohanty</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sachi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <source>Recommender System with Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence</source>
          . Wiley-Scrivener,
          <year>2020</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Balaanand</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Muthu</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>"An enhanced graph-based semi-supervised learning algorithm to detect fake users on Twitter."</article-title>
          <source>The Journal of Supercomputing 75.9</source>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          ):
          <fpage>6085</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>6105</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Boshmaf</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yazan</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>"Integro: Leveraging Victim Prediction for Robust Fake Account Detection in OSNs."</article-title>
          <source>NDSS</source>
          . Vol.
          <volume>15</volume>
          .
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Erşahin</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Buket</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>"Twitter fake account detection." 2017 International Conference on Computer Science and Engineering (UBMK)</article-title>
          . IEEE,
          <year>2017</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mateen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Malik</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>"A hybrid approach for spam detection for</article-title>
          <source>Twitter." 2017 14th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST)</source>
          . IEEE,
          <year>2017</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gupta</surname>
            , Arushi, and
            <given-names>Rishabh</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kaushal</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>"Improving spam detection in online social networks." 2015 International conference on cognitive computing and information processing (CCIP)</article-title>
          . IEEE,
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rahman</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sazzadur</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>"Detecting malicious Facebook applications</article-title>
          .
          <source>" IEEE/ACM transactions on networking 24.2</source>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          ):
          <fpage>773</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>787</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sahoo</surname>
          </string-name>
          , SomyaRanjan, and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Brij</surname>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gupta</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>"Hybrid approach for detection of malicious profiles in twitter."</article-title>
          <source>Computers &amp; Electrical Engineering</source>
          <volume>76</volume>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          ):
          <fpage>65</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>81</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kaur</surname>
            , Ravneet, and
            <given-names>Sarbjeet</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Singh</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>"A survey of data mining and social network analysis based anomaly detection techniques."</article-title>
          <source>Egyptian informatics journal 17.2</source>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          ):
          <fpage>199</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>216</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jia</surname>
            , Jinyuan,
            <given-names>Binghui</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and Neil Zhenqiang Gong.
          <article-title>"Random walk based fake account detection in online social networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>" 2017 47th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN)</source>
          . IEEE,
          <year>2017</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dhawan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Sanjeev.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>"Implications of Various Fake Profile Detection Techniques in Social Networks."</article-title>
          <source>IOSR Journal of Computer</source>
          Engineering (IOSRJCE),
          <source>AETM'16</source>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          ):
          <fpage>49</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>55</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gurajala</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Supraja</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>"Fake Twitter accounts: profile characteristics obtained using an activity-based pattern detection approach."</article-title>
          <source>Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Social Media &amp; Society</source>
          .
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Xiao</surname>
            , Cao, David Mandell Freeman, and
            <given-names>Theodore</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hwa</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>"Detecting clusters of fake accounts in online social networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>" Proceedings of the 8th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security</source>
          .
          <year>2015</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Adikari</surname>
            , Shalinda, and
            <given-names>Kaushik</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dutta</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>"Identifying fake profiles in linkedin." arXiv preprint arXiv:</article-title>
          <year>2006</year>
          .
          <volume>01381</volume>
          (
          <year>2020</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Al-Qurishi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Muhammad, et al.
          <article-title>"A prediction system of Sybil attack in social network using deep-regression model</article-title>
          .
          <source>" Future Generation Computer Systems</source>
          <volume>87</volume>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          ):
          <fpage>743</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>753</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Masood</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Faiza</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>"Spammer detection and fake user identification on social networks." IEEE Access 7 (</article-title>
          <year>2019</year>
          ):
          <fpage>68140</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>68152</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [18]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cresci</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stefano</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>"Fame for sale:Efficient detection of fake Twitter followers." Decision Support Systems 80 (</article-title>
          <year>2015</year>
          ):
          <fpage>56</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>71</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          [19]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yang</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zhi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>"Uncovering social network sybils in the wild." ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 8</article-title>
          .1 (
          <year>2014</year>
          ):
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>29</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          [20]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Khaled</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Sarah, Neamat
          <string-name>
            <surname>El-Tazi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>