Not All Duplicates Are Coordination: Generic vs. Non-Generic Duplicate Campaigns in Information Operations
Organizations: Mathematics and Computer Science, Augustana College, USA · Beacom College of Computer and Cyber Sciences, Dakota State University, USA
Abstract
Duplicate content is widely used to study coordinated behavior in social media information operations (IOs), but not all repetition provides equally meaningful evidence of coordination. Generic, reusable, or low-information posts may create noisy account-account links when projected into coordination graphs. We study this problem using 187,000 English-language tweets from six Russian Twitter Information Operations datasets. We introduce a generic/non-generic distinction for duplicate campaigns, label tweets using an LLM-assisted protocol with independent human validation, and train supervised classifiers over sentence embeddings to scale the labels. We construct duplicate campaigns using lexical similarity and two embedding-based methods. Generic campaigns are rare under lexical matching but account for nearly 39% of campaigns detected by embedding-based methods. Restricting graphs to non-generic campaigns reduces graph size and the largest connected component while increasing density, suggesting a smaller but more focused coordination structure. These findings show that duplicate-based coordination analysis should consider both textual similarity and semantic specificity.
Figures & tables
| Type | Example Tweet |
|---|---|
| Generic | “A best friend is someone who came into your life, stayed with you through ups and downs, and never left.” |
| Generic | “No matter how much you feed the wolf, he keeps looking at the forest.” |
| Non-Generic | “The Syrian government and Red Crescent helped return families from al-Hawl camp at Albania’s request.” |
| Non-Generic | “If Cuba were racist apartheid-style dictatorship, no one would be so eager to do business with it” |
| Model | Acc. | Generic | Non-Generic | Macro F1 | Weighted F1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | R | F1 | P | R | F1 | ||||
| Logistic Regression | 0.911 | 0.767 | 0.913 | 0.833 | 0.971 | 0.911 | 0.939 | 0.886 | 0.914 |
| Linear SVM | 0.908 | 0.793 | 0.851 | 0.818 | 0.952 | 0.926 | 0.938 | 0.878 | 0.909 |
| RBF SVM | 0.926 | 0.828 | 0.884 | 0.853 | 0.962 | 0.939 | 0.951 | 0.902 | 0.927 |
| Random Forest | 0.885 | 0.914 | 0.581 | 0.708 | 0.881 | 0.982 | 0.928 | 0.818 | 0.875 |
| Extra Trees | 0.901 | 0.893 | 0.672 | 0.765 | 0.904 | 0.974 | 0.937 | 0.851 | 0.896 |
| Method | Type | Campaigns | Tweets/ | Accounts/ | Max | Unique | Words/ | Avg. | Hashtag | URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Campaign | Campaign | Accounts | Accounts | Text | Duration | % | % | |||
| Ratcliff/Obershelp | Generic | 109 | 2.17 | 2.13 | 4 | 116 | 5.91 | 0.12 | 7.34 | 33.94 |
| Non-Generic | 2,294 | 2.80 | 2.65 | 33 | 268 | 11.09 | 0.03 | 11.46 | 5.27 | |
| Embedding + Clustering | Generic | 2,961 | 4.28 | 2.71 | 21 | 373 | 8.59 | 280.29 | 4.19 | 28.54 |
| Non-Generic | 4,690 | 5.06 | 4.80 | 46 | 348 | 10.85 | 17.22 | 8.91 | 6.12 | |
| Embedding + Similarity | Generic | 2,949 | 4.29 | 2.71 | 20 | 375 | 8.67 | 273.94 | 4.27 | 28.86 |
| Method | Campaign Type | Nodes | Edges | Density | Avg. Degree | Components | Largest Comp. | Avg. Edge Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ratcliff/Obershelp | Both Generic and Non-Generic | 312 | 4,086 | 0.084 | 26.19 | 40 | 138 | 2.14 |
| Only Non-Generic | 266 | 4,027 | 0.114 | 30.28 | 30 | 138 | 2.14 | |
| Embedding + Clustering | Both Generic and Non-Generic | 497 | 12,020 | 0.098 | 48.37 | 16 | 428 | 8.93 |
| Only Non-Generic | 348 | 10,433 | 0.173 | 59.96 | 25 | 166 | 9.39 | |
| Embedding + Cosine Similarity | Both Generic and Non-Generic | 503 | 12,096 | 0.096 | 48.10 | 16 | 435 | 9.62 |
| Only Non-Generic | 362 | 10,528 | 0.161 | 58.17 | 26 | 207 | 10.17 |