Showing posts with label Social Web. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Web. Show all posts

User Modeling in Telecommunications and Internet Industry (KDD 2015)




& another video: https://ieondemand.com/presentations/user-modeling-in-social-media-and-big-data-

Points:
  • User Modeling is about:
    • who U R?
    • where R U?
    • what's next?

  • User Modeling is for machines, not for human decision maker
    • you cannot put human bias for what data to collect (as much as possible, AMAP)
    • human design how to collect AMAP
    • require a good business model (Nokia competition data does not reflect industry reality) 

  • User Modeling
    • collaborative, crowd intelligence
    • continuous incremental (life long) learning (closed loop)
    • feature engineering is important
    • privacy centric (not afterthought)

Hypertext2017 Travel Report


I participated the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT), which was located at Prague, Czech Republic from 4-7th, July. HT is a top-tier ACM conference in the areas of Hypertext and Social Media. This is the first time I'm attending HT, and interesting to know that TBL was demonstrated WWW in 1991 Hypertext conference https://home.cern/images/2014/01/tim-berners-lee-demonstrates-world-wide-web. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Sir-Tim-Berners-Lee-unnoticed-when-his-contribution-is-comparable-to-Jobs-and-Gates. This year, HT has 69 regular paper submissions with a 27% acceptance rate, and 12 short-presentations. As I was at UMAP conference twice before, and HT has been held in close proximity with UMAP with similar program committees, I was wondering what's the difference between the two conferences. After attending the conference, I guess the key difference is while UMAP is more focused on the context of e-learning, such as user modeling, RecSys in educational systems, HT is more focused on linking data & resources and Social Media. Although HT has wide range of acceptance rate, overall, it has good average citation according to ACM DL.




Day-1:

Keynote: Peter Mika SCHIBSTED (Yahoo before)

It is interesting to see the keynote on Semantic Web in HT. In this talk, we look back at the history of the Semantic Web. The speaker discussed what the original aspirations of its creators were, and what has been achieved in practice in these two decades including some achievements especially in terms of search engines. In addition, also some failures which have not been achieved based on original visions.


What happened to the Semantic Web? from Peter Mika

Most of the presentations today related to studying problems on Social Media, such as hate speech:

  • Mainack Mondal, Leandro Augusto de Araújo Silva and Fabrício Benevenuto: A Measurement Study of Hate Speech in Social Media
  • Stringhini and Athena Vakali: Hate is not binary: Studying abusive behavior of #GamerGate on Twitter
These talks were interesting as I was interested in computational social science when I first started my PhD. For example, the first one above discussed about "how to measure hate speech?", "does the anonymity plays a role in it?", and how these phenomena differ across countries. The results, based on Twitter dataset were interesting. The authors found that there are more anonymous account of hate speech compared to baseline (random), i.e, users post more hate speech.

Day-2:

Keynote: "A MEME IS NOT A VIRUS: THE ROLE OF COGNITIVE HEURISTICS IN INFORMATION DIFFUSION" by Kristina Lerman

Kristina Lerman is Research Team Lead at the University of Southern California Information Sciences Institute and holds a joint appointment as a Research Associate Professor in the USC Computer Science Department. She talked about position bias in Social Mdedia, e.g., posts will be less likely to be seen with lower position, with more newer tweets coming, former tweets then become less likely to be seen with their positions moving down… and the phenomenon is more serious for well-connected users. Also, it is interesting that well-connected hubs are less likely to retweet older posts, retweet probability decreases with connectivity - highly connected people are less susceptible to infection, due to their increased cognitive load.

The presentations on day-2 were diverse, consists of linking content, crowd sourcing, story telling... And the following paper which tackles the problem of understanding task clarity in crowdsourcing platforms, especially CrowedFlow…, and how to measure it, won the best paper award in HT2017.

  • Ujwal Gadiraju, Jie Yang and Alessandro Bozzon: Clarity is a Worthwhile Quality - On the Role of Task Clarity in Microtask Crowdsourcing


Day-3:

The presentations on day-3 were about location-based social networks, user modeling, ratings/reviews and visualizations. One of the interesting papers was the following one which I had read about the previous work about happy map done by Daniele QUercia (Bell Labs Cambridge). This paper talked about various elements which might affect perceptions (such as safety etc.) of people about places.

  • David Candeia, Flávio Figueiredo, Nazareno Andrade and Daniele Quercia: Multiple Images of the City: Unveiling Group-Specific Urban Perceptions through a Crowdsourcing Game

My presentation was about "Leveraging Followee List Memberships for Inferring User Interests for Passive Users on Twitter", which is an extended work upon previous work in ECIR2017.



Leveraging Followee List Memberships for Inferring User Interests for Passive Users on Twitter from GUANGYUAN PIAO


Overall, the conference has around 70+ participants. However, what's impressive is the audiences were actively asking questions, and participated in discussions. In addition, the organizers made the proceedings available before the conference along with conference navigator developed by Uni. Pittsburgh: http://halley.exp.sis.pitt.edu/cn3/portalindex.php

Proceedings: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3078714&picked=prox&cfid=782021270&cftoken=32813465

Next year, HT2018 will be in Baltimore, USA. It is a good conference and hope I will have chances to attend the conference in the future as well.

UMAP2016S

Analyzing Aggregated Semantics-enabled User Modeling on Google+ and Twitter for Personalized Link Recommendations


About


This post provides supplemental material and information about the paper "Analyzing Aggregated Semantics-enabled User Modeling on Google+ and Twitter for Personalized Link Recommendations". 


Abstract


In this paper, we study if reusing Google+ profiles can provide reliable recommendations on Twitter to resolve the cold start problem. Next, we investigate the impact of giving different weights for aggregating user profiles from two OSNs and present that giving a higher weight to the targeted OSN profiles for aggregation allows the best performance in the context of a personalized link recommender system. Finally, we propose a user modeling strategy which combines entity- and category-based user profiles using with a discounting strategy. Results show that our proposed strategy improves the quality of user modeling significantly compared to the baseline method.

Slides:



About.me Dataset


Users tend to have multiple social identities in different OSNs [1]. To retrieve the ground truth data (i.e., users who are using both Google+ and Twitter), we obtained OSN accounts of users from about.me. About.me is a personal web hosting service, which offers registered users a simple platform from which to link multiple online identities, relevant external sites (e.g., personal homepage), and popular OSNs such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+ etc. We started from a set of randomly returned about.me accounts retrieved from about.me API15 and then gradually extended this set in a snowball manner. After all, we crawled 247,630 public profiles pages from about.me during December 2014 that have at least two external links. Two irrelevant external links to OSN identities (i.e., relevant external sites and RSS feeds that users added) were removed.

Figure 1. OSN co-occurring network in about.me dataset
As a result, there are 29 different communities in our dataset (see Figure 1). In Figure 1, the ties between OSNs show the co-occurrence frequency of two social networks in the profile pages of users.

The portion of users having three OSNs is the highest (22%) followed by 20% and 18% for those having four and two social networks, respectively. Over half (60%) of people have 2-4 social networks and each person participates in 4.48 OSNs on average. In our dataset, the number of different OSNs (29) and the average number (4.48) that each person participates in are both higher than the numbers from the previous study [14], which are 15 and 3.92 respectively.


Dataset for our study 


As we were interested in analyzing aggregated user profiles from Twitter and Google+, we randomly selected 480 active users from about.me dataset who had been using both OSNs. We extracted their UGC from Twitter and Google+ as well as all links shared with those UGC using our user modeling framework. All DBpedia entities within UGC and those within the content of each link were retrieved using the framework. The numbers of entities extracted from Twitter and Google+ profiles of users are displayed in Figure 3. As we can see from the figure, a greater number Of entities can be extracted from Google+ activities.

Figure 2. The number of entities extracted from Twitter and Google+ profiles of users



References


[1]. J. Liu, F. Zhang, X. Song, Y.-I. Song, C.-Y. Lin, and H.-W. Hon. What's in a name?: an unsupervised approach to link users across communities. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pages 495-504. ACM, 2013.