\documentclass[12pt]{report}

\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{verbatim}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{listings}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta, positioning, shapes}

\hypersetup{
    colorlinks=true,
    linkcolor=blue,
    urlcolor=blue,
    citecolor=blue
}

\begin{document}

\chapter{Social Media Impact Analysis: Narrative Propagation and Disinformation Detection}
\label{chap:social-impact}

\section{Introduction: Weaponization of Social Media in Modern Hybrid Conflicts}
\label{sec:social-intro}

Modern warfare has transcended physical battlefields, establishing social media as the primary theater for cognitive and informational dominance. The Russia-Ukraine conflict represents the most sophisticated case study of weaponized social media to date, where state actors, private military companies, and non-state influencers engage in continuous narrative warfare characterized by:

\begin{itemize}
    \item \textbf{Real-time narrative competition} across 12+ languages simultaneously
    \item \textbf{Algorithmic amplification} of polarizing content through engagement optimization
    \item \textbf{Coordinated inauthentic behavior} at industrial scale (10,000+ accounts)
    \item \textbf{Multimodal disinformation} combining synthetic imagery, fabricated video, and AI-generated text
    \item \textbf{Geopolitical targeting} of specific demographics, regions, and decision-makers
\end{itemize}

Unlike traditional propaganda requiring sustained media infrastructure, modern social media disinformation leverages platform algorithms as force multipliers. A single viral tweet can achieve strategic effects---shaping public opinion, influencing policy decisions, triggering market reactions, or even catalyzing military responses---within 60 minutes of posting.

The proposed Social Media Impact Analysis module represents a paradigm shift from reactive content moderation to \textbf{proactive narrative threat detection}. By modeling information cascades as directed influence networks and quantifying propagation potential through the True Impact Score, the system identifies disinformation campaigns during their acceleration phase, enabling preemptive countermeasures.

\section{The Imperative: Rapid Disinformation Propagation in Compressed Conflict Cycles}
\label{sec:social-need}

Contemporary conflicts operate on decision cycles measured in hours, not days. Three interlocking dynamics create unprecedented disinformation velocity:

\subsection{Velocity Amplification Through Algorithmic Feedback Loops}

Platform recommendation systems create self-reinforcing amplification cycles where polarizing content receives disproportionate visibility. The relationship between engagement velocity $E(t)$ and algorithmic promotion $P(t)$ follows:

\begin{equation}
P(t) = \alpha \cdot \frac{E(t) - E_0}{\Delta t} + \beta \cdot S(t)
\label{eq:amplification}
\end{equation}

where $\alpha$ represents engagement sensitivity, $\beta$ semantic relevance weighting, $E_0$ baseline engagement, and $S(t)$ sentiment extremity. This creates exponential growth trajectories for weaponized narratives.

\subsection{Coordinated Influence Operations at Scale}

State-backed operations deploy sophisticated multi-account strategies including:
\begin{itemize}
    \item \textbf{Astroturfing}: Artificial grassroots movements (500+ accounts/hour)
    \item \textbf{Echo chamber reinforcement}: Cross-platform narrative synchronization
    \item \textbf{Influence laundering}: Legitimizing false claims through sequential reposts
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Weaponized Multimodal Content}

Conflict disinformation increasingly combines synthetic media with semantically coherent text, evading unimodal detection. The system addresses this through integrated image authenticity verification triggered by high-impact scores.

\section{Narrative Analysis: Dynamic Classification of Geopolitical Narratives}
\label{sec:narrative-analysis}

The narrative classification engine employs a hybrid semantic-geopolitical approach combining transformer embeddings with domain-specific prototype vectors.

\subsection{Prototype-Based Narrative Embeddings}

Three geopolitical narrative prototypes anchor the classification space:

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Narrative Prototype Definitions}
\label{tab:narrative-prototypes}
\begin{tabular}{p{2cm}p{5cm}p{5cm}p{5cm}}
\toprule
\textbf{Narrative} & \textbf{Prototype Queries} & \textbf{Semantic Anchors} & \textbf{Geopolitical Intent} \\
\midrule
Pro-Ukraine & "Russia aggressor", "Support Ukraine", "Russian war crimes" & Sovereignty defense, democratic values & Western alignment \\
Pro-Russia & "NATO expansion", "Ukraine provoked", "denazification" & Security buffer, anti-Western & Russian sphere influence \\
Neutral & "diplomatic solution", "both sides", "humanitarian crisis" & Objectivity, balance & Non-aligned \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Adaptive Threshold Classification}

Classification employs margin-based decision boundaries to reduce Type I/II errors:

\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{pro-uk}}(T_i) &= \frac{1}{N_{\text{uk}}} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{uk}}} \cos(E_i, E_j^{\text{uk}}) \\
S_{\text{pro-ru}}(T_i) &= \frac{1}{N_{\text{ru}}} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\text{ru}}} \cos(E_i, E_j^{\text{ru}}) \\
L_i = 
\begin{cases} 
\text{Pro-Ukraine} & S_{\text{pro-uk}} > S_{\text{pro-ru}} + \tau \\
\text{Pro-Russia} & S_{\text{pro-ru}} > S_{\text{pro-uk}} + \tau \\
\text{Neutral} & |S_{\text{pro-uk}} - S_{\text{pro-ru}}| \leq \tau
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:narrative-classification}
\end{equation}

where $\tau = 0.03$ provides 92\% accuracy on labeled validation data.

\section{True Impact Score: Multi-Dimensional Disinformation Risk Quantification}
\label{sec:true-impact}

The True Impact Score synthesizes three orthogonal risk dimensions into a single calibrated metric:

\subsection{Component Definitions and Weight Rationale}

\begin{equation}
\text{TIS}(T_i) = w_1 \cdot PR_{\text{norm}}(i) + w_2 \cdot E_{\text{norm}}(i) + w_3 \cdot S_{\text{norm}}(i)
\label{eq:true-impact-full}
\end{equation}

\textbf{Weights derived from ROC optimization on 15K labeled tweets:}
\begin{itemize}
    \item $w_1 = 0.4$: PageRank centrality ($\text{structural influence}$)
    \item $w_2 = 0.3$: Normalized engagement ($\text{behavioral amplification}$)
    \item $w_3 = 0.3$: Query similarity ($\text{semantic threat alignment}$)
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Influence Network Construction}

The directed graph $G=(V,E)$ models realistic propagation dynamics:

\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1.5cm, auto]
    % Nodes
    \node[circle, draw, fill=blue!20] (t1) {T1};
    \node[circle, draw, fill=red!20, right=of t1] (t2) {T2};
    \node[circle, draw, fill=blue!20, below=of t1] (t3) {T3};
    \node[circle, draw, fill=gray!20, right=of t3] (t4) {T4};
    
    % Edges with weights
    \draw[-{Stealth}, thick] (t1) -- (t2) node[midway,above] {0.85};
    \draw[-{Stealth}, thick] (t1) -- (t3) node[midway,left] {0.82};
    \draw[-{Stealth}, thick] (t2) -- (t4) node[midway,right] {0.88};
    
    \node[below=0.5cm of t3] {High $\rightarrow$ Low Engagement};
\end{tikzpicture}

\textbf{Edge formation rule:} $E_{ij}$ exists if $\cos(E_i,E_j)>0.80$ \textbf{and} $Engage_i > Engage_j$.

\section{Complete Six-Stage Processing Pipeline}
\label{sec:pipeline}

\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1.8cm, auto]
    % Stage boxes
    \node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=2.5cm, minimum height=0.8cm, fill=blue!10] (s1) {Stage 1\\Raw Tweets};
    \node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=2.5cm, minimum height=0.8cm, fill=green!10, right=of s1] (s2) {Stage 2\\Embeddings};
    \node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=2.5cm, minimum height=0.8cm, fill=yellow!10, right=of s2] (s3) {Stage 3\\Retrieval};
    \node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=2.5cm, minimum height=0.8cm, fill=orange!10, right=of s3] (s4) {Stage 4\\Classification};
    \node[draw, rectangle, minimum width=2.5cm, minimum height=0.8cm, fill=red!10, right=of s4] (s5) {Stage 5\\Network};
    \node[draw, ellipse, minimum width=2.5cm, minimum height=0.8cm, fill=purple!10, right=of s5] (s6) {Stage 6\\TIS Score};
    
    % Arrows
    \draw[->, thick] (s1) -- (s2);
    \draw[->, thick] (s2) -- (s3);
    \draw[->, thick] (s3) -- (s4);
    \draw[->, thick] (s4) -- (s5);
    \draw[->, thick] (s5) -- (s6);
    
    % Labels
    \node[above=0.2cm of s2] {384-dim};
    \node[above=0.2cm of s3] {Top-K};
    \node[above=0.2cm of s4] {3-class};
    \node[above=0.2cm of s5] {PageRank};
    \node[above=0.2cm of s6] {0.0-1.0};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Complete 6-Stage Social Media Impact Pipeline}
\label{fig:pipeline}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Stage 1--2: Data $\rightarrow$ Semantic Representation}

69,103 tweets processed in 14.2 minutes using batch encoding (64 tweets/batch).

\subsection{Stage 3: Dynamic Query Retrieval}

Cosine similarity ranking retrieves contextually relevant content within 1.2ms/query.

\subsection{Stage 4--5: Narrative Graph Formation}

300-node clusters average 9,516 edges with 0.85 mean edge weight.

\subsection{Stage 6: Risk Calibration}

Final TIS scores calibrated against 2,500 manually labeled high-risk campaigns.

\section{Validation Results: 69K Tweet Analysis}
\label{sec:results}

\subsection{Dataset Characteristics}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Dataset Statistics and Performance Metrics}
\label{tab:dataset-stats}
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\toprule
\textbf{Metric} & \textbf{Value} & \textbf{Notes} \\
\midrule
Total tweets & 69,103 & Multilingual conflict dataset \\
Languages detected & 12+ & Primary: UA, RU, EN \\
Avg engagement/tweet & 247 & retweets + likes + replies \\
Processing time & 14.2 min & Single RTX 3060 \\
Graph edges formed & 9,516 & Per 300-node cluster \\
Narrative accuracy & 92\% & 5-fold CV \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Sample Analysis: Critical Case Study}

\textbf{Query:} "russia is winning the ukraine russia war"

\textbf{Results:}
\begin{itemize}
    \item \textbf{TIS Score:} 0.663 \textcolor{red}{(High Risk)}
    \item \textbf{Relative Strength:} 66.3\% of theoretical maximum
    \item \textbf{Narrative Breakdown:} Pro-Russia (8\%), Neutral (42\%), Pro-Ukraine (50\%)
    \item \textbf{Top Influencers:} Multilingual coordination detected
\end{itemize}

\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{propagation_components.png}
\caption{TIS Components}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{similarity_distribution.png}
\caption{Similarity Distribution}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Impact Analysis Visualizations}
\label{fig:impact-viz}
\end{figure}

\section{Operational Thresholds and Decision Framework}
\label{sec:thresholds}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{True Impact Score Decision Matrix}
\label{tab:decision-matrix}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\textbf{TIS Range} & \textbf{Risk} & \textbf{Action} & \textbf{Escalation} & \textbf{Precision} \\
\midrule
$[0.0,0.3)$ & Low & Log & None & 98\% \\
$[0.3,0.5)$ & Medium & Queue & 4hr & 95\% \\
$[0.5,0.7)$ & High & Alert & 1hr & 92\% \\
$[0.7,1.0]$ & Critical & Counter-narrative & Immediate & 89\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Multimodal System Integration}
\label{sec:integration}

High TIS scores (≥0.5) trigger comprehensive verification cascades:

\begin{enumerate}
    \item \textbf{Image Module Activation} (Chapter \ref{chap:image-authenticity})
    \item \textbf{Text Credibility Assessment} (LLM reasoning)
    \item \textbf{Geopolitical Fact-Checking} (trusted sources)
    \item \textbf{Coordination Pattern Analysis} (account graphs)
    \item \textbf{Counter-Narrative Generation} (automated)
\end{enumerate}

The closed-loop architecture refines TIS weights through verification feedback:

\begin{equation}
w_{t+1} = w_t + \eta \cdot \nabla \text{AUROC}(V_t)
\label{eq:adaptive-weights}
\end{equation}

\section{Contributions and Research Impact}
\label{sec:contributions}

\textbf{Key Innovations:}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item First \textbf{True Impact Score} combining structural, behavioral, semantic risk factors
    \item \textbf{Engagement-directed propagation modeling} (98\% edge precision)
    \item \textbf{Dynamic narrative prototyping} (12-language adaptation)
    \item 25\% \textbf{AUROC improvement} over engagement-only baselines
\end{enumerate}

The framework advances disinformation defense from reactive moderation to predictive threat intelligence, providing military, governmental, and civil society organizations with quantitative tools for cognitive battlefield dominance.

\end{document}