Local/Global Term Analysis for Discovering Community Differences in Social Networks
Post on 21-Jan-2016
19 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Local/Global Term Analysis for Discovering Community
Differences in Social Networks
David Fuhry, Yiye Ruan, and Srinivasan Parthasarathy
Data Mining Research LaboratoryDept. of Computer Science and Engineering
The Ohio State University
Communities in Social Networks
Observations:•Social networks consist of many interacting communities of users.•Each community can be characterized by the content which its members generate.
Motivating questions:•Given a community, how can we determine what its members are talking about, relative to the entire social network?•Given two communities, how can we determine the difference between them?
Methodology• A community’s users mention relevant terms
frequently.
• Many works look at #hashtags or most frequent terms.
• But not all frequent terms are relevant.
• Desiderata:– Consider all content terms
– Interpretable
– scalable to million-user social networks
Four-step Process• Four-step process for determining community
differences:– Community Discovery
– Term Extraction & Aggregation
– Visualization
– Handling Time Varying Data
Network
Content
1. Community Discovery (I)
• Keyword search based identification of candidate users
• Extract underlying network of users
• Local community identification• Graph clustering (e.g. METIS
[KARYPIS’99], Graclus [DHILLON’07], MLR-MCL [SATULURI’09], Localized Clustering (L-Spar) [SATULURI’11])
• Modularity [NEWMAN’04]
• Content-Sensitive Viewpoint Neighborhoods [Asur’09]
1. Community Discovery (II)
• Start with the network of all users
• Extract candidate communities• Using any community discovery
algorithm
• Filter candidate communities by keyword strength
2. Term Extraction & Aggregation
• Extract terms from each message and weight them
• Term Frequency• TF/IDF• Domain-dependent
semantic importance
• Merge terms• Combine synonyms• Handling hypernyms
• Aggregate them by user
3. Visualization
• Plot terms by frequency across two axes.
• Global (all users) on Y-axis• Local (community users) on
X-axis.• Terms on the regression line
are equifrequent in both groups
• Terms off the regression line are relatively more frequent in one group
• Support for multiple scales of local community identification
4. Handling Time Varying Data
• Time range divided into batches• Perform steps 1 to 3 for each batch• Visualize results
Experimental Results
Between Nikon and Olympus communities, Olympus community talks more about blogs.
Using a dataset of 1M tweets we look at groups discussing Canon, Nikon, and Olympus cameras:
Experimental Results
Between camera and global communities, camera community talks less about health, teeth, and success.
Experimental ResultsUsing a dataset of 2M tweets about the “Occupy” movement, we compare “Occupy Oakland” to the entire “Occupy” movement:
Occupy Oakland movement talks less about NYPD, p2 (group of progressives using social media), and tcot (“Top Conservatives On Twitter”).
Filter and Zoom
Conclusions• Four-part visual analytic framework for
discovering differences between communities in social networks.– Simple– Scalable
• Qualitative and quantitative results.
• Future– Temporal– More quantitative measures– Automatically determine best scale
Thank You!
top related