Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2835776.2835800acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Who Will Reply to/Retweet This Tweet?: The Dynamics of Intimacy from Online Social Interactions

Published: 08 February 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Friendships are dynamic. Previous studies have converged to suggest that social interactions, in both online and offline social networks, are diagnostic reflections of friendship relations (also called social ties). However, most existing approaches consider a social tie as either a binary relation, or a fixed value (named tie strength). In this paper, we investigate the dynamics of dyadic friend relationships through online social interactions, in terms of a variety of aspects, such as reciprocity, temporality, and contextuality. In turn, we propose a model to predict repliers and retweeters given a particular tweet posted at a certain time in a microblog-based social network. More specifically, we have devised a learning-to-rank approach to train a ranker that considers elaborate user-level and tweet-level features (like sentiment, self-disclosure, and responsiveness) to address these dynamics. In the prediction phase, a tweet posted by a user is deemed a query and the predicted repliers/retweeters are retrieved using the learned ranker. We have collected a large dataset containing 73.3 million dyadic relationships with their interactions (replies and retweets). Extensive experimental results based on this dataset show that by incorporating the dynamics of friendship relations, our approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models in terms of multiple evaluation metrics, such as MAP, NDCG and Topmost Accuracy. In particular, the advantage of our model is even more promising in predicting the exact sequence of repliers/retweeters considering their orders. Furthermore, the proposed approach provides emerging implications for many high-value applications in online social networks.

References

[1]
R. Athanasiou and G. A. Yoshioka. The spatial character of friendship formation. Environment and Behavior, 1973.
[2]
J. Y. Bak, S. Kim, and A. Oh. Self-disclosure and relationship strength in twitter conversations. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers-Volume 2, pages 60--64. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2012.
[3]
A. Barak and O. Gluck-Ofri. Degree and reciprocity of self-disclosure in online forums. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10 (3): 407--417, 2007.
[4]
R. I. Dunbar. Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22 (6): 469--493, 1992.
[5]
N. Eagle, A. S. Pentland, and D. Lazer. Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile phone data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (36): 15274--15278, 2009.
[6]
J. H. Fowler, J. E. Settle, and N. A. Christakis. Correlated genotypes in friendship networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (5): 1993--1997, 2011.
[7]
E. Gilbert. Predicting tie strength in a new medium. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pages 1047--1056. ACM, 2012.
[8]
E. Gilbert and K. Karahalios. Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 211--220. ACM, 2009.
[9]
A. Go, R. Bhayani, and L. Huang. Twitter sentiment classification using distant supervision. CS224N Project Report, Stanford, 2009.
[10]
lves et al.(2011)Gonçalves, Perra, and Vespignani}dunbar_twitterB. Gonçalves, N. Perra, and A. Vespignani. Modeling users' activity on twitter networks: Validation of dunbar's number. PloS one, 6 (8): e22656, 2011.
[11]
M. S. Granovetter. The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, pages 1360--1380, 1973.
[12]
M. Gupte and T. Eliassi-Rad. Measuring tie strength in implicit social networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Web Science Conference, pages 109--118. ACM, 2012.
[13]
M. Gupte and T. Eliassi-Rad. Measuring tie strength in implicit social networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Web Science Conference, pages 109--118. ACM, 2012.
[14]
D. J. Houghton and A. N. Joinson. Linguistic markers of secrets and sensitive self-disclosure in twitter. In Proceedings of the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pages 3480--3489. IEEE Computer Society, 2012.
[15]
L. Jiang, M. Yu, M. Zhou, X. Liu, and T. Zhao. Target-dependent twitter sentiment classification. In Proc. ACL, pages 151--160, 2011.
[16]
T. Joachims. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In Proc. SIGKDD, pages 133--142. ACM, 2002.
[17]
J. J. Jones, J. E. Settle, R. M. Bond, C. J. Fariss, C. Marlow, and J. H. Fowler. Inferring tie strength from online directed behavior. PloS one, 8 (1): e52168, 2013.
[18]
P. F. Lazarsfeld, R. K. Merton, et al. Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. Freedom and control in modern society, 18 (1): 18--66, 1954.
[19]
T.-Y. Liu. Learning to rank for information retrieval. springer, 2011.
[20]
X. Liu, S. Zhang, F. Wei, and M. Zhou. Recognizing named entities in tweets. In Proc. ACL, pages 359--367, 2011.
[21]
S. A. Macskassy and M. Michelson. Why do people retweet? anti-homophily wins the day! In Proc. ICWSM, 2011.
[22]
P. V. Marsden and K. E. Campbell. Measuring tie strength. Social forces, 63 (2): 482--501, 1984.
[23]
M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, pages 415--444, 2001.
[24]
D. G. Myers. Social psychology. McGraw-Hill New York, 2010.
[25]
P. M. Olk and D. E. Gibbons. Dynamics of friendship reciprocity among professional adults. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40 (5): 1146--1171, 2010.
[26]
J.-P. Onnela, J. Saramäki, J. Hyvönen, G. Szabó, D. Lazer, K. Kaski, J. Kertész, and A.-L. Barabási. Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (18): 7332--7336, 2007.
[27]
P. Preciado, T. A. Snijders, W. J. Burk, H. Stattin, and M. Kerr. Does proximity matter? distance dependence of adolescent friendships. Social networks, 34 (1): 18--31, 2012.
[28]
M. Roth, A. Ben-David, D. Deutscher, G. Flysher, I. Horn, A. Leichtberg, N. Leiser, Y. Matias, and R. Merom. Suggesting friends using the implicit social graph. In Proc. SIGKDD, pages 233--242. ACM, 2010.
[29]
J. Schantl, C. Wagner, R. Kaiser, and M. Strohmaier. The utility of social and topical factors in anticipating repliers in twitter conversations. In Proceedings of ACM Web Science, 2013.
[30]
A. Sutcliffe, R. Dunbar, J. Binder, and H. Arrow. Relationships and the social brain: Integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives. British journal of psychology, 103 (2): 149--168, 2012.
[31]
A. L. Vangelisti and D. Perlman. The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[32]
C. Wang and B. A. Huberman. How random are online social interactions? Scientific reports, 2, 2012.
[33]
J. Wiese, P. G. Kelley, L. F. Cranor, L. Dabbish, J. I. Hong, and J. Zimmerman. Are you close with me? are you nearby?: investigating social groups, closeness, and willingness to share. In UbiComp, pages 197--206, 2011.
[34]
Q. Wu, C. J. Burges, K. M. Svore, and J. Gao. Adapting boosting for information retrieval measures. Information Retrieval, 13 (3): 254--270, 2010.
[35]
R. Xiang, J. Neville, and M. Rogati. Modeling relationship strength in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pages 981--990. ACM, 2010.
[36]
N. J. Yuan, F. Zhang, D. Lian, K. Zheng, S. Yu, and X. Xie. We know how you live: exploring the spectrum of urban lifestyles. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Online social networks, pages 3--14. ACM, 2013.
[37]
W. X. Zhao, J. Jiang, J. He, Y. Song, P. Achananuparp, E.-P. Lim, and X. Li. Topical keyphrase extraction from twitter. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1, pages 379--388. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011.
[38]
W. X. Zhao, J. Jiang, J. Weng, J. He, E.-P. Lim, H. Yan, and X. Li. Comparing twitter and traditional media using topic models. In Advances in Information Retrieval, pages 338--349. Springer, 2011.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A Deep Prediction Framework for Multi-Source Information via Heterogeneous GNNProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3671966(3460-3471)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
  • (2023)Characterizing and Predicting Social Correction on TwitterProceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 202310.1145/3578503.3583610(86-95)Online publication date: 30-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Rich Information Driven Popularity Prediction on Weibo2023 Eleventh International Conference on Advanced Cloud and Big Data (CBD)10.1109/CBD63341.2023.00043(200-205)Online publication date: 18-Dec-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Who Will Reply to/Retweet This Tweet?: The Dynamics of Intimacy from Online Social Interactions

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WSDM '16: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
      February 2016
      746 pages
      ISBN:9781450337168
      DOI:10.1145/2835776
      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]

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 08 February 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. dynamic tie strength
      2. friendship relation
      3. online social interaction

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      WSDM 2016
      WSDM 2016: Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
      February 22 - 25, 2016
      California, San Francisco, USA

      Acceptance Rates

      WSDM '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 67 of 368 submissions, 18%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 498 of 2,863 submissions, 17%

      Upcoming Conference

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)37
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
      Reflects downloads up to 09 Nov 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)A Deep Prediction Framework for Multi-Source Information via Heterogeneous GNNProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3671966(3460-3471)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
      • (2023)Characterizing and Predicting Social Correction on TwitterProceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 202310.1145/3578503.3583610(86-95)Online publication date: 30-Apr-2023
      • (2023)Rich Information Driven Popularity Prediction on Weibo2023 Eleventh International Conference on Advanced Cloud and Big Data (CBD)10.1109/CBD63341.2023.00043(200-205)Online publication date: 18-Dec-2023
      • (2023)Predicting Information Diffusion Using the Inter- and Intra-Path of Influence TransitivityInformation Sciences10.1016/j.ins.2023.119705(119705)Online publication date: Sep-2023
      • (2023)Tracking social provenance in chains of retweetsKnowledge and Information Systems10.1007/s10115-023-01878-765:10(3967-3994)Online publication date: 9-May-2023
      • (2022)Twitter Big Data as a Resource for Exoskeleton Research: A Large-Scale Dataset of about 140,000 Tweets from 2017–2022 and 100 Research QuestionsAnalytics10.3390/analytics10200071:2(72-97)Online publication date: 23-Sep-2022
      • (2022)DeepBlue: Bi-Layered LSTM for Tweet popUlarity EstimationIEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering10.1109/TKDE.2021.304952934:10(4737-4752)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2022
      • (2022)FEBDNN: fusion embedding-based deep neural network for user retweeting behavior prediction on social networksNeural Computing and Applications10.1007/s00521-022-07174-934:16(13219-13235)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2022
      • (2021)Public Opinion Early Warning Agent Model: A Deep Learning Cascade Virality Prediction Model Based on Multi-Feature FusionFrontiers in Neurorobotics10.3389/fnbot.2021.67432215Online publication date: 28-May-2021
      • (2021)UserRBPM: User Retweet Behavior Prediction with Graph Representation LearningWireless Communications and Mobile Computing10.1155/2021/44314162021(1-17)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2021
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media