skip to main content
10.1145/3106426.3106467acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Measures for topical cohesion of user communities on Twitter

Published:23 August 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Nowadays, Online Social Networks (OSN) are commonly used by groups of users to communicate. Members of a family, colleagues, fans of a brand, political groups: the demand for a precise identification of these groups is increasing from brand monitoring, business intelligence and e-reputation management.

However, a gap can be observed between the communities detected by many data analytics algorithms on OSN, and effective groups existing in real life: the detected communities often lack of meaning and internal semantic cohesion. Most of existing literature on OSN either focuses on the community detection problem in graphs without considering the topic of the messages exchanged, or concentrates exclusively on the messages without taking into account the social links.

In this article, we support the hypothesis that communities extracted on OSN should be topically coherent. We therefore propose a model to represent the interaction between users on Twitter, the reference on micro-blogging OSN, and metrics to evaluate the topical cohesion of the detected communities. As an evaluation, we measure the topical cohesion of the groups of users detected by a baseline community detection algorithm, using two measures inspired from the classification domain, and one measure inspired from the NLP domain.

A detailed analysis is performed on a big tweet dataset, from which a user graph is built. Introduced measures are compared with statistics to better picture the experiment, and yield interesting insights on a social and textual corpus.

References

  1. Alessia Amelio and Clara Pizzuti. 2015. Analysis of the Italian Tweet Political Sentiment in 2014 European Elections. In Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), 2015 IEEE 27th International Conference on. IEEE, 713--720. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Thomas Aynaud and Jean-Loup Guillaume. 2010. Static community detection algorithms for evolving networks. In Modeling and optimization in mobile, ad hoc and wireless networks (WiOpt), 2010 proceedings of the 8th international symposium on. IEEE, 513--519.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Vincent D Blondel, Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefebvre. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment 2008, 10 (2008), P10008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Pete Burnap, Omer F Rana, Nick Avis, Matthew Williams, William Housley, Adam Edwards, Jeffrey Morgan, and Luke Sloan. 2015. Detecting tension in online communities with computational Twitter analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 95 (2015), 96--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Remy Cazabet and Frederic Amblard. 2011. Simulate to detect: a multi-agent system for community detection. In Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on, Vol. 2. IEEE, 402--408. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Laurence Cholvy. 2016. Influence-Based Opinion Diffusion. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1355--1356. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Aaron Clauset, Mark EJ Newman, and Cristopher Moore. 2004. Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical review E 70, 6 (2004), 066111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Qi Gao, Fabian Abel, Geert-Jan Houben, and Yong Yu. 2012. A comparative study of usersâĂŹ microblogging behavior on Sina Weibo and Twitter. In International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. Springer, 88--101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Christos Giatsidis, Fragkiskos D Malliaros, and Michalis Vazirgiannis. 2013. Advanced graph mining for community evaluation in social networks and the web. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. ACM, 771--772. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Derek Greene, Derek O'Callaghan, and Pádraig Cunningham. 2012. Identifying Topical Twitter Communities via User List Aggregation. COMMPER 2012 (2012), 41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Steve Gregory. 2008. A fast algorithm to find overlapping communities in networks. Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases (2008), 408--423.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Adrien Guille and Cécile Favre. 2015. Event detection, tracking, and visualization in twitter: a mention-anomaly-based approach. Social Network Analysis and Mining 5, 1 (2015), 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Akshay Java, Xiaodan Song, Tim Finin, and Belle Tseng. 2007. Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis. ACM, 56--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Nal Kalchbrenner, Edward Grefenstette, and Phil Blunsom. 2014. A convolutional neural network for modelling sentences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.2188 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Nikolay Kinash, Alexei Tikhomirov, Andrey Trufanov, Olga Berestneva, Alexandr Boukhanovsky, and Zamira Ashurova. 2015. Analysis of large-scale networks using high performance technology (vkontakte case study). In Creativity in Intelligent, Technologies and Data Science. Springer, 531--541.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Haewoon Kwak, Changhyun Lee, Hosung Park, and Sue Moon. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. ACM, 591--600. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Cédric Lagnier, Ludovic Denoyer, Eric Gaussier, and Patrick Gallinari. 2013. Predicting information diffusion in social networks using content and userâĂŹs profiles. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 74--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Thomas K Landauer, Peter W Foltz, and Darrell Laham. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes 25, 2--3 (1998), 259--284.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Quoc Le and Tomas Mikolov. 2014. Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-14). 1188--1196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Changhyun Lee, Haewoon Kwak, Hosung Park, and Sue Moon. 2010. Finding influentials based on the temporal order of information adoption in twitter. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web. ACM, 1137--1138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kwan Hui Lim and Amitava Datta. 2012. Finding Twitter communities with common interests using following links of celebrities. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Modeling social media. ACM, 25--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Kwan Hui Lim and Amitava Datta. 2016. An interaction-based approach to detecting highly interactive twitter communities using tweeting links. In Web Intelligence, Vol. 14. IOS Press, 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Yan Liu, Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil, and Wojciech Gryc. 2009. Topic-link LDA: joint models of topic and author community. In proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning. ACM, 665--672. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Gabriel Magno, Giovanni Comarela, Diego Saez-Trumper, Meeyoung Cha, and Virgilio Almeida. 2012. New kid on the block: Exploring the google+ social graph. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Internet measurement conference. ACM, 159--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 3111--3119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mark EJ Newman. 2006. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 103, 23 (2006), 8577--8582.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Pieter Noordhuis, Michiel Heijkoop, and Alexander Lazovik. 2010. Mining twitter in the cloud: A case study. In Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2010 IEEE 3rd International Conference on. IEEE, 107--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Olutobi Owoputi, Brendan O'Connor, Chris Dyer, Kevin Gimpel, Nathan Schneider, and Noah A Smith. 2013. Improved part-of-speech tagging for online conversational text with word clusters. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Warren Pearce, Kim Holmberg, Iina Hellsten, and Brigitte Nerlich. 2014. Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 report. PloS one 9, 4 (2014), e94785.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Pascal Pons and Matthieu Latapy. 2005. Computing communities in large networks using random walks. In International Symposium on Computer and Information Sciences. Springer, 284--293. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. François Queyroi, Laurent Beauguitte, and Hugues Pecout. 2015. RSS Flows, World Structure & Community detection. In European Colloquium of Theoretical and Quantitative Geography.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Adithya Rao, Nemanja Spasojevic, Zhisheng Li, and Trevor DSouza. 2015. Klout score: Measuring influence across multiple social networks. In Big Data (Big Data), 2015 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2282--2289. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Kevin Dela Rosa, Rushin Shah, Bo Lin, Anatole Gershman, and Robert Frederking. 2011. Topical clustering of tweets. Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR: SWSM (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. M Rosvall and CT Bergstrom. 2007. Maps of information flow reveal community structure in complex networks. Technical Report. Technical report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Yulia Tyshchuk, William A Wallace, Hao Li, Heng Ji, and Sue E Kase. 2014. The nature of communications and emerging communities on Twitter following the 2013 Syria sarin gas attacks. In Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (JISIC), 2014 IEEE Joint. IEEE, 41--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Christo Wilson, Bryce Boe, Alessandra Sala, Krishna PN Puttaswamy, and Ben Y Zhao. 2009. User interactions in social networks and their implications. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM European conference on Computer systems. Acm, 205--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Zhijun Yin, Liangliang Cao, Quanquan Gu, and Jiawei Han. 2012. Latent community topic analysis: Integration of community discovery with topic modeling. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 3, 4 (2012), 63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Zhongying Zhao, Shengzhong Feng, Qiang Wang, Joshua Zhexue Huang, Graham J Williams, and Jianping Fan. 2012. Topic oriented community detection through social objects and link analysis in social networks. Knowledge-Based Systems 26 (2012), 164--173. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    WI '17: Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence
    August 2017
    1284 pages
    ISBN:9781450349512
    DOI:10.1145/3106426

    Copyright © 2017 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 23 August 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    WI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate118of178submissions,66%Overall Acceptance Rate118of178submissions,66%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader