IP Library Granted Patent US 12,355,811
Granted Patent B2
US 12,355,811 · App. 17/736,111 · Granted Jul 8, 2025

System and method for social network analysis

Inventors: Alex Smith (Chadron, NE); Andras Benke (Bellevue, WA); Jonathan R Dodson (San Francisco, CA); Jeffrey Fenchel (San Francisco, CA); Loretta Jimenez (San Francisco, CA); Michael Kramer (San Francisco, CA); Fabien Vives (San Francisco, CA); Adam Beaugh (Kensington, CA); Felix Medina Wong (Fremont, CA); Melinda Chu (San Francisco, CA); Christopher Miller (San Francisco, CA); Ali Zafarani (San Francisco, CA)
H04L63/1483G06F16/951G06Q50/01
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,355,811
App. No.
17/736,111
Granted
Jul 8, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A system and method for detecting interactive network of automated accounts, the interactive network of automated accounts comprising a plurality of automated accounts posting to a social media channel, the system comprising: an ingestion engine operated by a computational device for connecting to the social media channel and receiving a plurality of social media postings from a plurality of posting entities; a bot model operated by a computational device for determining whether at least one posting entity is a suspected bot; and a computer network for communication between said computational devices.

Claims (35)

1. A system for detecting an interactive network of a plurality of automated accounts posting to a social media channel, wherein each automated account is operated by at least one social media account computational device, the system comprising: an ingestion computational device comprising a first memory for storing a plurality of first instructions and a first processor for executing said first instructions, wherein said first instructions include instructions for:

connecting to the social media channel; and

receiving a plurality of social media postings from a plurality of social media accounts;

the system further comprising an analysis computational device comprising a second memory for storing a plurality of second instructions and a second processor for executing said second instructions, wherein said second instructions include instructions for:

analyzing said social media postings according to interactions between said social media accounts; and

determining which of said posting entities are in a community according to said analyzing;

and a computer network for communication between said computational devices;

wherein said ingestion engine obtains social media messages for a plurality of social media accounts, said ingestion computational device transmitting said social media messages to said analysis computational device; and

wherein said analyzing said interactions is performed according to an algorithm selected from the group consisting of: page rank variations, Louvain community detection, K-core Decomposition for virality measurement, Triangle Count, Heuristic rules, Story-level features, Author features and Graph-level features.

2. The system of claim 1 , wherein said interactions between said social media accounts are selected from the group consisting of likes, re-posting, quote posting, commenting, replies and mentions.

3. The system of claim 1 , wherein said instructions on said analysis computational device further comprise instructions for placing said social media accounts as nodes on a graph, with said interactions between said social media accounts being represented as edges; and analyzing said interactions according to one or more features of said graph.

4. The system of claim 3 , wherein each set of interactions between each pair of nodes is decomposed to a plurality of edges, wherein each edge represents a type of interaction.

5. The system of claim 4 , wherein said edge is weighted according to a number of each type of interaction.

6. The system of claim 3 , wherein each set of interactions between each pair of nodes is decomposed to a plurality of edges, wherein each edge represents a single interaction.

7. The system of claim 3 , wherein said instructions on said analysis computational device further comprise instructions for analyzing said interactions between said nodes to determine if a node belongs to a community according to one or more graph parameters selected from the group consisting of: Minimum PageRank score of interacting nodes; Maximum PageRank score of interacting nodes; Standard Deviation PageRank score of interacting nodes; Standard Deviation Triangle Count score of interacting nodes; Stdev Triangle Count score of interacting nodes; 90th percentile of Triangle Count score of interacting nodes; 90th percentile of PageRank score of interacting nodes; 99.9th percentile of Triangle Count score of interacting nodes; or 99.9th percentile of PageRank score of interacting nodes; or a combination thereof.

8. The system of claim 1 , wherein said interactions are analyzed for automatic behavior by a social media account, such that said social media account is at least partially determined to belong to said community according to said automatic behavior.

9. The system of claim 1 , wherein said social media computational device comprises one or more of a laptop, a PC, a mobile communication device, a mobile telephone, a tablet computational device and a plurality of cloud based computational services.

10. The system of claim 9 , wherein said social media computational device comprises a support social media application for posting social media messages to said social media channel in an automated manner, wherein said analysis computational device determines an automation behavior score for a social media account associated with said social media computational device at least partially according to a characterization of said support social media application, such that said automation behavior score at least partially determines whether said social media account belongs to said community.

11. The system of claim 1 , wherein said memory of said analysis computational device comprises a first set of machine codes selected from the native instruction set for receiving instructions from said ingestion computational device, and a second set of machine codes selected from the native instruction set for executing functions of analysis engine; wherein said analysis computational device comprises an operating system and wherein said operating system determines said native instruction set; and wherein each set of machine codes is stored on a memory associated with said computational device.

12. The system of claim 1 , wherein said analyzing said interactions further comprises recursively analyzing a plurality of interacting social media accounts, to detect one or more suspect accounts that are suspected of belonging to the community; calculating a score for each suspect account; and labelling a suspect account as member of the community if said score is above a cut-off threshold.

13. The system of claim 12 , wherein said score comprises an automation score and said community comprises a plurality of automated social media accounts.

14. The system of claim 13 , wherein said automated social media accounts engage in a concerted effort to change sentiment about another social media account that is not a member of the community.

15. The system of claim 13 wherein said analyzing said interactions further comprises creating a map of interactions between members of the community.

16. The system of claim 15 , wherein said map of interactions is determined as a graph, wherein said graph comprises a plurality of nodes, wherein said nodes represent members of the community and links between said nodes represent interactions between said members.

17. The system of claim 1 , wherein said analyzing said interactions further comprises recursively analyzing a plurality of interacting social media accounts, to detect one or more suspect accounts that are suspected of belonging to the community; wherein members of the community are determined to interact with each other bidirectionally and with social media accounts outside of the community unidirectionally, such that said members of the community respond to social media accounts outside of the community but said social media accounts outside of the community fail to respond to said members of the community.

18. The system of claim 1 , wherein said analyzing said interactions further comprises analyzing interactions of social media accounts with each other to classify said social media accounts as influencers, repeaters, authentic users, and spammers.

19. A system for detecting an interactive network of a plurality of automated accounts posting to a social media channel, wherein each automated account is operated by at least one social media account computational device, the system comprising: an ingestion computational device comprising a first memory for storing a plurality of first instructions and a first processor for executing said first instructions, wherein said first instructions include instructions for:

connecting to the social media channel; and

receiving a plurality of social media postings from a plurality of social media accounts;

the system further comprising an analysis computational device comprising a second memory for storing a plurality of second instructions and a second processor for executing said second instructions, wherein said second instructions include instructions for:

analyzing said social media postings according to interactions between said social media accounts;

wherein said analyzing said interactions is performed according to an algorithm selected from the group consisting of: page rank variations, Louvain community detection, K-core Decomposition for virality measurement, Triangle Count, Heuristic rules, Story-level features, Author features and Graph-level features; and

determining which of said posting entities are in a community according to said analyzing;

and a computer network for communication between said computational devices; wherein said ingestion engine obtains social media messages for a plurality of social media accounts, said ingestion computational device transmitting said social media messages to said analysis computational device; and wherein said analyzing said interactions further comprises recursively analyzing a plurality of interacting social media accounts, to detect one or more suspect accounts that are suspected of belonging to the community; wherein members of the community are determined to interact with each other bidirectionally and with social media accounts outside of the community unidirectionally, such that said members of the community respond to social media accounts outside of the community but said social media accounts outside of the community fail to respond to said members of the community.

20. The system of claim 19 , wherein said automated social media accounts engage in a concerted effort to change sentiment about another social media account that is not a member of the community.

Assignments (4)
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Jun 17, 2025
From: ZIGNAL LABS, INC.
To: AQUILINE AGENT SERVICES LP
Reel/Frame 071428/0716 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded May 29, 2025
From: ZIGNAL LABS, INC.
To: NORTH ATLANTIC VENTURE FUND V, L.P.
Reel/Frame 071251/0120 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Apr 14, 2025
From: ZIGNAL LABS, INC.
To: AQUILINE AGENT SERVICES LP (F/K/A AQUILINE AGENT SERVICES LLC)
Reel/Frame 070832/0197 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 7, 2022
From: SMITH, ALEX; BENKE, ANDRAS; DODSON, JONATHAN R; FENCHEL, JEFFREY; JIMENEZ, LORETTA; KRAMER, MICHAEL; VIVES, FABIEN; BEAUGH, ADAM; WONG, FELIX MEDINA; CHU, MELINDA; MILLER, CHRISTOPHER; ZAFARANI, ALI
To: ZIGNAL LABS, INC.
Reel/Frame 060739/0078 →
Continuity (3)
Continuation In Part 16452640 · Jun 26, 2019
Provisional Application 62689889 · Jun 26, 2018
Related Publication 20220360604A1 · Nov 10, 2022
References Cited (89)
US 8326880B2 · Carson, Jr. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8464346B2 · Barai · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8719283B2 · Koski · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 8892523B2 · Amarendran · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 8949263B1 · Rosner · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 8955129B2 · Cao · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 9037464B1 · Mikolov · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9043417B1 · Jones · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 9077744B2 · Beutel · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 9191411B2 · Foster · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 9213997B2 · Chatterjee · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 9659185B2 · Elovici · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 9762596B2 · Wang · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9852111B2 · Dasgupta · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9886501B2 · Krishnamurthy · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 11003703B1 · Beaugh · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11356476B2 · Smith · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11640420B2 · Beaugh · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20080307526A1 · Chung · 2008 [cited by examiner]
US 20110134137A1 · Lee · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120101965A1 · Hennig · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130124556A1 · Chowdhury · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130151525A1 · Ankan · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130232263A1 · Kelly · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130340089A1 · Steinberg · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20140214840A1 · Gupta · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140317736A1 · Cao · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20140358930A1 · Lerman · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20150154305A1 · Lightner · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150188941A1 · Boshmaf · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20150264068A1 · Beauchesne · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20150310862A1 · Dauphin · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150324707A1 · Zhou · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150339477A1 · Abrams · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20160019324A1 · Kanderian · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160042276A1 · Lightner · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160162538A1 · Basson · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20180005131A1 · Yin · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180046475A1 · Wei · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180089152A1 · Maksak · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180114136A1 · Kumar · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180176168A1 · Tsou · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180232359A1 · Crudele · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180293607A1 · Huddleston · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180322411A1 · Wang · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180329985A1 · Bao · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190014148A1 · Foster · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190026367A1 · Boss · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190332694A1 · Tcherechansky · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190332849A1 · Gupta · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190370440A1 · Gu · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190385062A1 · Alcala · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190394231A1 · Smith · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200012919A1 · Bathaee · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200202071A1 · Ghulati · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20210256221A1 · Beaugh · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20230090601A1 · Benke · 2023 [cited by applicant]
CN 101404658 · 2009 [cited by applicant]
CN 101404658B · 2011 [cited by applicant]
KR 101045331B1 · 2011 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2017027320A1 · 2017 [cited by examiner]
He, Qi, et al. “Keep it simple with time: A reexamination of probabilistic topic detection models.” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 32.10: 1795-1808 (Year: 2010). [cited by applicant]
Lau, Jey Han, Nigel Collier, and Timothy Baldwin. “On-line trend analysis with topic models:# twitter trends detection topic model online.” Proceedings of COLING 2012. (Year: 2012) 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Newman, David, et al. “Distributed algorithms for topic models.” Journal of Machine Learning Research 10.8 (Year: 2009) 28 pages. [cited by applicant]
Office Action (Non-Final Rejection) dated Jan. 10, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/438,751 (pp. 1-34). [cited by applicant]
Office Action (Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)) dated Feb. 10, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/224,224 (pp. 1-2). [cited by applicant]
Office Action (Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)) dated Dec. 23, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/224,224 (pp. 1-11). [cited by applicant]
Yao, Limin, David Mimno, and Andrew McCallum. “Efficient methods for topic model inference on streaming document collections.” Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data … [cited by applicant]
A. Conneau, D. Kiela, H. Schwenk, L. Barrault, A. Bordes, Supervised Learning of Universal Sentence Representations from Natural Language Inference Data, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natura… [cited by applicant]
Cer et al (“Universal Sentence Encoder”, https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/46808.pdf, published Mar. 29, 2018), 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
Gupta et al., “Detection and Characterization of Anomalous Entities in Social Communication Networks”, 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, ICPR 2010, Istanbul, Turkey, Aug. 23-26, 2010, 738-741. [cited by applicant]
http://pyvandenbussche.info/2017/translating-embeddings-transe, by Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche, published Aug. 29, 2017, 8 pages. [cited by applicant]
https://medium.com/@gautam.karmakar/manhattan-lstm-model-for-text-similarity-2351f80d72f1 (published Mar. 31, 2018 by Gautam Karmakar, Medium.com), 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
https://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/, by Pennington et al, first published in Aug. 2014, 3 pages. [cited by applicant]
https://wordnet.princeton.edu/, by Fellbaum, Christiane (first published in 2005), 4 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kevin, WebGL Lesson One: Getting Started, posted on Jun. 26, 2011 on https://www.learnopengles.com/ webgl-lesson-one-getting-started/, accessed on Oct. 24, 2020, 12 pages. (Year: 2011). [cited by applicant]
Mikolov et al (“Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality”; Arxiv Oct. 16, 2013), 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Mikolov et al (“Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space”; Arxiv Sep. 7, 2013), 12 pages. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance dated Dec. 31, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/580,098 (pp. 1-5). [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 17, 2021 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/580,098 (pp. 1-5). [cited by applicant]
Office Action (Final Rejection) dated Jul. 25, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/224,224 (pp. 1-29). [cited by applicant]
Office Action (Non-Final Rejection) dated Oct. 21, 2021 for U.S. Appl. No. 17/224,224 (pp. 1-22). [cited by applicant]
Office Action (Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)) dated Feb. 4, 2022 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/452,640 (pp. 1-13). [cited by applicant]
Office Action dated Jun. 28, 2021 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/452,640 (pp. 1-20). [cited by applicant]
Office Action dated Oct. 29, 2020 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/580,098 (pp. 1-27). [cited by applicant]
S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler (“On Information and Sufficiency”, Ann. Math. Statist., vol. 22, No. 1 (1951), 79-86). [cited by applicant]
Z. Wu and M. Palmer (“Verb Semantics and Lexical Selection”, Arxiv, Jun. 24, 1994), 7 pages. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance dated Jul. 5, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/438,751 (pp. 1-9). [cited by applicant]
Office Action (Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)) dated Jul. 5, 2023 for U.S. Appl. No. 16/438,751 (pp. 1-9). [cited by applicant]