Difference between revisions of "Castillo 2011"

From Cohen Courses
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 15: Line 15:
 
   ee        = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1963405.1963500},
 
   ee        = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1963405.1963500},
 
}
 
}
 +
 +
 +
 +
''Castillo
 +
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/320000/312190/p33-guralnik.pdf?ip=128.237.122.250&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&CFID=119212228&CFTOKEN=52277574&__acm__=1348531826_377333b00daa1db4fd36cb60f6bb28fb
 +
 +
  
  
 
== Abstract from the paper ==
 
== Abstract from the paper ==
−
In the past few years there has been increased interest in using data-mining techniques to extract interesting patterns
 
−
from time series data generated by sensors monitoring
 
−
temporally varying phenomenon. Most work has assumed
 
−
that raw data is somehow processed to generate a sequence
 
−
of events, which is then mined for interesting episodes. In
 
−
some cases the rule for determining when a sensor reading
 
−
should generate an event is well known. However, if the
 
−
phenomenon is ill-understood, stating such a rule is difficult.
 
−
Detection of events in such an environment is the focus
 
−
of this paper. Consider a dynamic phenomenon whose
 
−
behavior changes enough over time to be considered a
 
−
qualitatively significant change. The problem we investigate
 
−
is of identifying the time points at which the behavior
 
−
change occurs. In the statistics literature this has been
 
−
called the change-point detection problem. The standard
 
−
approach has been to (a) apriori determine the number
 
−
of change-points that are to be discovered, and (b) decide
 
−
the function that will be used for curve fitting in the
 
−
interval between successive change-points. In this paper
 
−
we generalize along both these dimensions. We propose an
 
−
iterative algorithm that fits a model to a time segment, and
 
−
uses a likelihood criterion to determine if the segment should
 
−
be partitioned further, i.e. if it contains a new change point.
 
−
In this paper we present algorithms for both the batch
 
−
and incremental versions of the problem, and evaluate their
 
−
behavior with synthetic and real data. Finally, we present
 
−
initial results comparing the change-points detected by the
 
−
batch algorithm with those detected by people using visual inspection
 
  
 
== Online version ==
 
== Online version ==
  
−
[http://www.ra.ethz.ch/cdstore/www2011/proceedings/p675.pdf pdf link to the paper]
 
  
 
== Summary ==
 
== Summary ==
−
=== Task Definition===  
+
=== Data Collection===  
−
*Develop a general approach to change-point detection that generalize across wide range of application
 
  
−
=== Method ===
+
=== Automatic Credibility Analysis ===
−
==== Batch Algorithm ====
+
Four types of features depending on their scope: message-based features,
−
*Algorithm overview
+
user-based features, topic-based features, and propagation-
 +
based features.
 +
*'''Message-based features''' consider characteristics of messages,
 +
these features can be Twitter-independent or Twitterdependent.
 +
Twitter-independent features include: the length
 +
of a message, whether or not the text contains exclamation
 +
or question marks and the number of positive/negative sentiment
 +
words in a message. Twitter-dependent features include
 +
features such as: if the tweet contains a hashtag, and
 +
if the message is a re-tweet.
 +
*'''User-based features''' consider characteristics of the users
 +
which post messages, such as: registration age, number of
 +
followers, number of followees (“friends” in Twitter), and the
 +
number of tweets the user has authored in the past.
 +
*'''Topic-based features''' are aggregates computed from the
 +
previous two feature sets; for example, the fraction of tweets
 +
that contain URLs, the fraction of tweets with hashtags and
 +
the fraction of sentiment positive and negative in a set.
 +
*'''Propagation-based features''' consider characteristics related
 +
to the propagation tree that can be built from the retweets
 +
of a message. These includes features such as the
 +
depth of the re-tweet tree, or the number of initial tweets of
 +
a topic.
 +
=== Automatic Assessing Credibility ===
 +
Standard machine learning techniques, the best they report is using J48 decision tree.
  
−
The algorithm takes the set of approximating basis functions MSet
+
Results:
−
and the time series T
 
  
−
# new-change-point = find-candidate(T, MSet)
+
Results for the credibility classification.
−
# Change-Points = <math>\phi</math>
 
−
# Candidates = <math>\phi</math>
 
−
# Tl, Tz = get-new-time-ranges(T, Change-Points, new-change-point)
 
−
# '''while'''(stopping criteria is not met) do begin
 
−
## cl = find-candidate(T1, MSet)
 
−
## c2 = find-andidate(T2, MSet)
 
−
## Candidates = Candidates <math>\cup c_1</math>
 
−
##Candidates = Candidates <math>\cup c_2</math>
 
−
##new-change-point = c <math>\in</math> Candidates |Q(Change-Points,c) = min
 
−
##Candidates = Candidates \ new-change-point
 
−
##Tl,T2 = get-new-time-ranges(T, Change-Points, new-change-point)
 
−
##Change-Points = Change-Points <math>\cup</math> new-change-points
 
−
#'''end'''
 
  
−
*Stopping Criteria
+
Class      TP_Rate  FP_Rate  Prec.  Recall  F1
  
−
If in iterations k and k+1 the respective likelihood criteria, the algorithm should stop if the difference of the likelihood proportioned to the last step likelihood is below a small constant.
+
A (“true”)  0.825    0.108    0.874  0.825  0.849
  
−
*Experiment with Traffic Data
+
B (“false”) 0.892    0.175    0.849  0.892  0.87
−
The data used in our experiments was taken from
 
−
highway traffic sensors, called loop detectors, in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. A loop detector is a
 
−
sensor, embedded in the road, with an electro-magnetic
 
−
field around it, which is broken when a vehicle goes
 
−
over it. Each such breaking, and the subsequent reestablishment,
 
−
of the field is recorded as a count. Traffic
 
−
volume is defined as the vehicle count per unit time. We need to find the change point detection
 
−
algorithm performed compared to a person doing
 
−
the same task through visual inspection.
 
−
* The results seems a little week. It has no ground truth. Statistically speaking it does performs better than 4 human subject.
 
  
−
==== Incremental Algorithm ====
+
W. Avg.     0.860    0.143    0.861  0.860  0.86
−
Because the next data point collected by the sensor reflects significant change in  phenomenon, then its likelihood criteria of being a change point is going to b smaller than likelihood criteria that it is not. However, if the difference in likelihood is small, it can just be noise. So the incremental algorithm change the stopping criteria to
 
  
−
* The no_change period and change period likelihood difference is below a small constant times of the no_change period likelihood.
 
  
−
=====Performance Evaluation=====
+
=== Feature Level Analysis ===
−
Not as good as the batch model, because it is local optimum since the future coming data is not observed
+
Top feature that contribute more on deciding credibility:
 +
*Tweets having an URL is the root of the tree.
 +
*Sentiment-based feature like fraction of negative sentiment
 +
*Low credibility news are mostly propagated by users who have not written many message in the past
  
−
== Interesting points ==
+
== Interesting Aspect ==
−
It is a non-Bayesian model, hence prior model doesn't require. It is very easy to implement and it considers the time span which is very important, but since it is a quite old paper, the experiments are obsolete.
+
I like the coding scheme of this paper. It is reasonable and comprehensive. Some of the conclusion that drew from the paper is interesting to look at. For example
  
−
== Related work ==
+
* Among several other features, newsworthy topics tend to include URLs and to have deep propagation trees
 +
* Among several other features, credible news are propagated through authors that have previously written a large number of messages, originate
 +
at a single or a few users in the network, and have many re-posts.
  
−
* [[RelatedPaper::Yang et al, SIGIR 98|A study on retrospective and online event detection. Yang et al, SIGIR 98]] This paper addresses the problems of detecting events in news stories. They used clustering with a vector space model to group temporally close events together.
+
== Related Papers ==
 +
*T. Sakaki, M. Okazaki, and Y. Matsuo. Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors.
 +
In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, WWW ’10, pages 851–860, New York, NY, USA, April 2010. ACM
  
−
* [[RelatedPaper::Zhao et al, AAAI 07|Temporal and information flow based event detection from social text streams. Zhao et al, AAAI 07]] The authors proposes a method for detecting events from social text stream by exploiting more than just the textual content, but also exploring the temporal and social dimensions of their data.
+
*J. Sankaranarayanan, H. Samet, B. E. Teitler, M. D.Lieberman, and J. Sperling. TwitterStand: news in tweets. In GIS ’09: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pages 42–51, New York, NY, USA, November 2009. ACM Press.
  
−
* [[RelatedPaper::Automatic_Detection_and_Classification_of_Social_Events|Automatic Detection and Classification of Social Events. Agarwal and Rambow, ACL 10]] This is one of the few works we found relating to controversial events in social media. The authors aims at detecting and classifying social events using Tree kernels.
+
* [[RelatedPaper::Lin_et_al_KDD_2011|A Statistical Model for Popular Events Tracking in Social Communities. Lin et al, KDD 2011]] This paper address a method to observe and track the popular events or topics that evolve over time in the communities.
 +
* [[RelatedPaper::Yang et al, SIGIR 98|A study on retrospective and online event detection. Yang et al, SIGIR 98]] This paper addresses the problems of detecting events in news stories.
 +
* [[RelatedPaper::Zhao et al, AAAI 07|Temporal and information flow based event detection from social text streams. Zhao et al, AAAI 07]] This paper addresses the problems of detecting events in news stories.
 +
* [[RelatedPaper::Automatic_Detection_and_Classification_of_Social_Events|Automatic Detection and Classification of Social Events. Agarwal and Rambow, ACL 10]] This paper aims at detecting and classifying social events using Tree kernels.
 +
* [[RelatedPaper::Popescu and Pennacchiotti, CIKM 10|Detecting controversial events from Twitter. Popescu and Pennacchiotti, CIKM 10]] This paper addresses the task of identifying controversial events using Twitter as a starting point.
 +
* [[RelatedPaper::Castillo_2011|Information credibility on twitter. Castillo et al, WWW 11]] The authors develop a general approach to change-point detection that generalize across wide range of application.

Revision as of 23:05, 1 October 2012

Castillo http://www.ra.ethz.ch/cdstore/www2011/proceedings/p675.pdf


Citation

@inproceedings{conf/www/CastilloMP11, 

 author    = {Carlos Castillo and
              Marcelo Mendoza and
              Barbara Poblete},
 title     = {Information credibility on twitter},
 booktitle = {WWW},
 year      = {2011},
 pages     = {675-684},
 ee        = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1963405.1963500},

}


Castillo http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/320000/312190/p33-guralnik.pdf?ip=128.237.122.250&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&CFID=119212228&CFTOKEN=52277574&__acm__=1348531826_377333b00daa1db4fd36cb60f6bb28fb



Abstract from the paper

Online version

Summary

Data Collection

Automatic Credibility Analysis

Four types of features depending on their scope: message-based features, user-based features, topic-based features, and propagation- based features.

  • Message-based features consider characteristics of messages,

these features can be Twitter-independent or Twitterdependent. Twitter-independent features include: the length of a message, whether or not the text contains exclamation or question marks and the number of positive/negative sentiment words in a message. Twitter-dependent features include features such as: if the tweet contains a hashtag, and if the message is a re-tweet.

  • User-based features consider characteristics of the users

which post messages, such as: registration age, number of followers, number of followees (“friends” in Twitter), and the number of tweets the user has authored in the past.

  • Topic-based features are aggregates computed from the

previous two feature sets; for example, the fraction of tweets that contain URLs, the fraction of tweets with hashtags and the fraction of sentiment positive and negative in a set.

  • Propagation-based features consider characteristics related

to the propagation tree that can be built from the retweets of a message. These includes features such as the depth of the re-tweet tree, or the number of initial tweets of a topic.

Automatic Assessing Credibility

Standard machine learning techniques, the best they report is using J48 decision tree.

Results:

Results for the credibility classification.

Class TP_Rate FP_Rate Prec. Recall F1

A (“true”) 0.825 0.108 0.874 0.825 0.849

B (“false”) 0.892 0.175 0.849 0.892 0.87

W. Avg. 0.860 0.143 0.861 0.860 0.86


Feature Level Analysis

Top feature that contribute more on deciding credibility:

  • Tweets having an URL is the root of the tree.
  • Sentiment-based feature like fraction of negative sentiment
  • Low credibility news are mostly propagated by users who have not written many message in the past

Interesting Aspect

I like the coding scheme of this paper. It is reasonable and comprehensive. Some of the conclusion that drew from the paper is interesting to look at. For example

  • Among several other features, newsworthy topics tend to include URLs and to have deep propagation trees
  • Among several other features, credible news are propagated through authors that have previously written a large number of messages, originate

at a single or a few users in the network, and have many re-posts.

Related Papers

  • T. Sakaki, M. Okazaki, and Y. Matsuo. Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors.

In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, WWW ’10, pages 851–860, New York, NY, USA, April 2010. ACM

  • J. Sankaranarayanan, H. Samet, B. E. Teitler, M. D.Lieberman, and J. Sperling. TwitterStand: news in tweets. In GIS ’09: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pages 42–51, New York, NY, USA, November 2009. ACM Press.
Retrieved from "http://curtis.ml.cmu.edu/w/courses/index.php?title=Castillo_2011&oldid=13088"