Posted Content•
Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparing Data from Twitter's Streaming API with Twitter's Firehose
TL;DR: Data collected using Twitter's sampled API service is compared with data collected using the full, albeit costly, Firehose stream that includes every single published tweet to help researchers and practitioners understand the implications of using the Streaming API.
Abstract: Twitter is a social media giant famous for the exchange of short, 140-character messages called "tweets". In the scientific community, the microblogging site is known for openness in sharing its data. It provides a glance into its millions of users and billions of tweets through a "Streaming API" which provides a sample of all tweets matching some parameters preset by the API user. The API service has been used by many researchers, companies, and governmental institutions that want to extract knowledge in accordance with a diverse array of questions pertaining to social media. The essential drawback of the Twitter API is the lack of documentation concerning what and how much data users get. This leads researchers to question whether the sampled data is a valid representation of the overall activity on Twitter. In this work we embark on answering this question by comparing data collected using Twitter's sampled API service with data collected using the full, albeit costly, Firehose stream that includes every single published tweet. We compare both datasets using common statistical metrics as well as metrics that allow us to compare topics, networks, and locations of tweets. The results of our work will help researchers and practitioners understand the implications of using the Streaming API.
Citations
More filters
Posted Content•
TL;DR: This survey investigated different real-world applications that have shown biases in various ways, and created a taxonomy for fairness definitions that machine learning researchers have defined to avoid the existing bias in AI systems.
Abstract: With the widespread use of AI systems and applications in our everyday lives, it is important to take fairness issues into consideration while designing and engineering these types of systems. Such systems can be used in many sensitive environments to make important and life-changing decisions; thus, it is crucial to ensure that the decisions do not reflect discriminatory behavior toward certain groups or populations. We have recently seen work in machine learning, natural language processing, and deep learning that addresses such challenges in different subdomains. With the commercialization of these systems, researchers are becoming aware of the biases that these applications can contain and have attempted to address them. In this survey we investigated different real-world applications that have shown biases in various ways, and we listed different sources of biases that can affect AI applications. We then created a taxonomy for fairness definitions that machine learning researchers have defined in order to avoid the existing bias in AI systems. In addition to that, we examined different domains and subdomains in AI showing what researchers have observed with regard to unfair outcomes in the state-of-the-art methods and how they have tried to address them. There are still many future directions and solutions that can be taken to mitigate the problem of bias in AI systems. We are hoping that this survey will motivate researchers to tackle these issues in the near future by observing existing work in their respective fields.
1,571 citations
Cites background from "Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparin..."
...The differences and biases in the networks can be a result of many factors, such as network sampling, as shown in [51, 91], which can change the network measures and cause different types of problems....
[...]
TL;DR: The findings suggest that the presence of social media bots can indeed negatively affect democratic political discussion rather than improving it, which in turn can potentially alter public opinion and endanger the integrity of the Presidential election.
Abstract: Social media have been extensively praised for increasing democratic discussion on social issues related to policy and politics. However, what happens when this powerful communication tools are exploited to manipulate online discussion, to change the public perception of political entities, or even to try affecting the outcome of political elections? In this study we investigated how the presence of social media bots, algorithmically driven entities that on the surface appear as legitimate users, affect political discussion around the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. By leveraging state-of-the-art social bot detection algorithms, we uncovered a large fraction of user population that may not be human, accounting for a significant portion of generated content (about one-fifth of the entire conversation). We inferred political partisanships from hashtag adoption, for both humans and bots, and studied spatio-temporal communication, political support dynamics, and influence mechanisms by discovering the level of network embeddedness of the bots. Our findings suggest that the presence of social media bots can indeed negatively affect democratic political discussion rather than improving it, which in turn can potentially alter public opinion and endanger the integrity of the Presidential election.
767 citations
TL;DR: This article analyses geo-located Twitter messages in order to uncover global patterns of human mobility and reveals spatially cohesive regions that follow the regional division of the world.
Abstract: Pervasive presence of location-sharing services made it possible for researchers to gain an unprecedented access to the direct records of human activity in space and time. This article analyses geo...
634 citations
Cites background or methods from "Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparin..."
...The stream was gathered through the Twitter Streaming API.2 Although the service sets a limit on how much data can be accessed to less than 1% of the total Twitter stream, the total geo-located content was found not to exceed this restriction (Morstatter et al. 2013)....
[...]
...These geo-located tweets account for around 1% of the total feed (Morstatter et al. 2013)....
[...]
...Although the service sets a limit on how much data can be accessed to less than 1% of the total Twitter stream, the total geo-located content was found not to exceed this restriction (Morstatter et al. 2013)....
[...]
28 Apr 2014
TL;DR: Social Media Mining introduces the unique problems arising from social media data and presents fundamental concepts, emerging issues, and effective algorithms for network analysis and data mining.
Abstract: The growth of social media over the last decade has revolutionized the way individuals interact and industries conduct business. Individuals produce data at an unprecedented rate by interacting, sharing, and consuming content through social media. Understanding and processing this new type of data to glean actionable patterns presents challenges and opportunities for interdisciplinary research, novel algorithms, and tool development. Social Media Mining integrates social media, social network analysis, and data mining to provide a convenient and coherent platform for students, practitioners, researchers, and project managers to understand the basics and potentials of social media mining. It introduces the unique problems arising from social media data and presents fundamental concepts, emerging issues, and effective algorithms for network analysis and data mining. Suitable for use in advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate courses as well as professional short courses, the text contains exercises of different degrees of difficulty that improve understanding and help apply concepts, principles, and methods in various scenarios of social media mining.
550 citations
Cites background from "Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparin..."
...[203] studied whether Twitter’s heavily sampled Streaming API, a free service for social media data, accurately portrays the true activity on Twitter....
[...]
TL;DR: A systematic literature review of 127 studies addressing the use of Twitter in election campaigns is presented in this paper, where the authors discuss the available research with regard to findings on the use by parties, candidates, and publics during election campaigns and during mediated campaign events.
Abstract: Twitter has become a pervasive tool in election campaigns. Candidates, parties, journalists, and a steadily increasing share of the public are using Twitter to comment on, interact around, and research public reactions to politics. These uses have met with growing scholarly attention. As of now, this research is fragmented, lacks a common body of evidence, and shared approaches to data collection and selection. This article presents the results of a systematic literature review of 127 studies addressing the use of Twitter in election campaigns. In this systematic review, I will discuss the available research with regard to findings on the use of Twitter by parties, candidates, and publics during election campaigns and during mediated campaign events. Also, I will address prominent research designs and approaches to data collection and selection.
495 citations
Cites result from "Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparin..."
...Although all of these approaches might lead to comparable and stable results, there are only a few studies systematically testing whether these approaches indeed produce identical data sets (e.g., Morstatter et al., 2013)....
[...]
References
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1991TL;DR: The author examines the role of entropy, inequality, and randomness in the design of codes and the construction of codes in the rapidly changing environment.
Abstract: Preface to the Second Edition. Preface to the First Edition. Acknowledgments for the Second Edition. Acknowledgments for the First Edition. 1. Introduction and Preview. 1.1 Preview of the Book. 2. Entropy, Relative Entropy, and Mutual Information. 2.1 Entropy. 2.2 Joint Entropy and Conditional Entropy. 2.3 Relative Entropy and Mutual Information. 2.4 Relationship Between Entropy and Mutual Information. 2.5 Chain Rules for Entropy, Relative Entropy, and Mutual Information. 2.6 Jensen's Inequality and Its Consequences. 2.7 Log Sum Inequality and Its Applications. 2.8 Data-Processing Inequality. 2.9 Sufficient Statistics. 2.10 Fano's Inequality. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 3. Asymptotic Equipartition Property. 3.1 Asymptotic Equipartition Property Theorem. 3.2 Consequences of the AEP: Data Compression. 3.3 High-Probability Sets and the Typical Set. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 4. Entropy Rates of a Stochastic Process. 4.1 Markov Chains. 4.2 Entropy Rate. 4.3 Example: Entropy Rate of a Random Walk on a Weighted Graph. 4.4 Second Law of Thermodynamics. 4.5 Functions of Markov Chains. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 5. Data Compression. 5.1 Examples of Codes. 5.2 Kraft Inequality. 5.3 Optimal Codes. 5.4 Bounds on the Optimal Code Length. 5.5 Kraft Inequality for Uniquely Decodable Codes. 5.6 Huffman Codes. 5.7 Some Comments on Huffman Codes. 5.8 Optimality of Huffman Codes. 5.9 Shannon-Fano-Elias Coding. 5.10 Competitive Optimality of the Shannon Code. 5.11 Generation of Discrete Distributions from Fair Coins. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 6. Gambling and Data Compression. 6.1 The Horse Race. 6.2 Gambling and Side Information. 6.3 Dependent Horse Races and Entropy Rate. 6.4 The Entropy of English. 6.5 Data Compression and Gambling. 6.6 Gambling Estimate of the Entropy of English. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 7. Channel Capacity. 7.1 Examples of Channel Capacity. 7.2 Symmetric Channels. 7.3 Properties of Channel Capacity. 7.4 Preview of the Channel Coding Theorem. 7.5 Definitions. 7.6 Jointly Typical Sequences. 7.7 Channel Coding Theorem. 7.8 Zero-Error Codes. 7.9 Fano's Inequality and the Converse to the Coding Theorem. 7.10 Equality in the Converse to the Channel Coding Theorem. 7.11 Hamming Codes. 7.12 Feedback Capacity. 7.13 Source-Channel Separation Theorem. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 8. Differential Entropy. 8.1 Definitions. 8.2 AEP for Continuous Random Variables. 8.3 Relation of Differential Entropy to Discrete Entropy. 8.4 Joint and Conditional Differential Entropy. 8.5 Relative Entropy and Mutual Information. 8.6 Properties of Differential Entropy, Relative Entropy, and Mutual Information. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 9. Gaussian Channel. 9.1 Gaussian Channel: Definitions. 9.2 Converse to the Coding Theorem for Gaussian Channels. 9.3 Bandlimited Channels. 9.4 Parallel Gaussian Channels. 9.5 Channels with Colored Gaussian Noise. 9.6 Gaussian Channels with Feedback. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 10. Rate Distortion Theory. 10.1 Quantization. 10.2 Definitions. 10.3 Calculation of the Rate Distortion Function. 10.4 Converse to the Rate Distortion Theorem. 10.5 Achievability of the Rate Distortion Function. 10.6 Strongly Typical Sequences and Rate Distortion. 10.7 Characterization of the Rate Distortion Function. 10.8 Computation of Channel Capacity and the Rate Distortion Function. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 11. Information Theory and Statistics. 11.1 Method of Types. 11.2 Law of Large Numbers. 11.3 Universal Source Coding. 11.4 Large Deviation Theory. 11.5 Examples of Sanov's Theorem. 11.6 Conditional Limit Theorem. 11.7 Hypothesis Testing. 11.8 Chernoff-Stein Lemma. 11.9 Chernoff Information. 11.10 Fisher Information and the Cram-er-Rao Inequality. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 12. Maximum Entropy. 12.1 Maximum Entropy Distributions. 12.2 Examples. 12.3 Anomalous Maximum Entropy Problem. 12.4 Spectrum Estimation. 12.5 Entropy Rates of a Gaussian Process. 12.6 Burg's Maximum Entropy Theorem. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 13. Universal Source Coding. 13.1 Universal Codes and Channel Capacity. 13.2 Universal Coding for Binary Sequences. 13.3 Arithmetic Coding. 13.4 Lempel-Ziv Coding. 13.5 Optimality of Lempel-Ziv Algorithms. Compression. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 14. Kolmogorov Complexity. 14.1 Models of Computation. 14.2 Kolmogorov Complexity: Definitions and Examples. 14.3 Kolmogorov Complexity and Entropy. 14.4 Kolmogorov Complexity of Integers. 14.5 Algorithmically Random and Incompressible Sequences. 14.6 Universal Probability. 14.7 Kolmogorov complexity. 14.9 Universal Gambling. 14.10 Occam's Razor. 14.11 Kolmogorov Complexity and Universal Probability. 14.12 Kolmogorov Sufficient Statistic. 14.13 Minimum Description Length Principle. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 15. Network Information Theory. 15.1 Gaussian Multiple-User Channels. 15.2 Jointly Typical Sequences. 15.3 Multiple-Access Channel. 15.4 Encoding of Correlated Sources. 15.5 Duality Between Slepian-Wolf Encoding and Multiple-Access Channels. 15.6 Broadcast Channel. 15.7 Relay Channel. 15.8 Source Coding with Side Information. 15.9 Rate Distortion with Side Information. 15.10 General Multiterminal Networks. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 16. Information Theory and Portfolio Theory. 16.1 The Stock Market: Some Definitions. 16.2 Kuhn-Tucker Characterization of the Log-Optimal Portfolio. 16.3 Asymptotic Optimality of the Log-Optimal Portfolio. 16.4 Side Information and the Growth Rate. 16.5 Investment in Stationary Markets. 16.6 Competitive Optimality of the Log-Optimal Portfolio. 16.7 Universal Portfolios. 16.8 Shannon-McMillan-Breiman Theorem (General AEP). Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. 17. Inequalities in Information Theory. 17.1 Basic Inequalities of Information Theory. 17.2 Differential Entropy. 17.3 Bounds on Entropy and Relative Entropy. 17.4 Inequalities for Types. 17.5 Combinatorial Bounds on Entropy. 17.6 Entropy Rates of Subsets. 17.7 Entropy and Fisher Information. 17.8 Entropy Power Inequality and Brunn-Minkowski Inequality. 17.9 Inequalities for Determinants. 17.10 Inequalities for Ratios of Determinants. Summary. Problems. Historical Notes. Bibliography. List of Symbols. Index.
45,034 citations
"Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparin..." refers background or methods in this paper
...Treating each topic as a probability distribution, we compute this as follows: JS(TSi ||TFj ) = 1 2 [KL(TSi ||M) +KL(TFj ||M)], (3) where M = 12 (T S i + T F j ) and KL is the Kullback-Liebler divergence (Cover and Thomas 2006)....
[...]
...where M = 12 (T S i + T F j ) and KL is the Kullback-Liebler divergence (Cover and Thomas 2006)....
[...]
TL;DR: Simple models of networks that can be tuned through this middle ground: regular networks ‘rewired’ to introduce increasing amounts of disorder are explored, finding that these systems can be highly clustered, like regular lattices, yet have small characteristic path lengths, like random graphs.
Abstract: Networks of coupled dynamical systems have been used to model biological oscillators, Josephson junction arrays, excitable media, neural networks, spatial games, genetic control networks and many other self-organizing systems. Ordinarily, the connection topology is assumed to be either completely regular or completely random. But many biological, technological and social networks lie somewhere between these two extremes. Here we explore simple models of networks that can be tuned through this middle ground: regular networks 'rewired' to introduce increasing amounts of disorder. We find that these systems can be highly clustered, like regular lattices, yet have small characteristic path lengths, like random graphs. We call them 'small-world' networks, by analogy with the small-world phenomenon (popularly known as six degrees of separation. The neural network of the worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the power grid of the western United States, and the collaboration graph of film actors are shown to be small-world networks. Models of dynamical systems with small-world coupling display enhanced signal-propagation speed, computational power, and synchronizability. In particular, infectious diseases spread more easily in small-world networks than in regular lattices.
39,297 citations
"Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparin..." refers methods in this paper
...To describe the structure of the retweet networks we calculate the clustering coefficient, a measure for local density (Watts and Strogatz 1998)....
[...]
TL;DR: This work proposes a generative model for text and other collections of discrete data that generalizes or improves on several previous models including naive Bayes/unigram, mixture of unigrams, and Hofmann's aspect model.
Abstract: We describe latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), a generative probabilistic model for collections of discrete data such as text corpora. LDA is a three-level hierarchical Bayesian model, in which each item of a collection is modeled as a finite mixture over an underlying set of topics. Each topic is, in turn, modeled as an infinite mixture over an underlying set of topic probabilities. In the context of text modeling, the topic probabilities provide an explicit representation of a document. We present efficient approximate inference techniques based on variational methods and an EM algorithm for empirical Bayes parameter estimation. We report results in document modeling, text classification, and collaborative filtering, comparing to a mixture of unigrams model and the probabilistic LSI model.
30,570 citations
"Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparin..." refers methods in this paper
...Since LDA’s topics have no implicit orderings we first must match them based upon the similarity of the words in the distribution....
[...]
...In the case of LDA we find a significant increase in the accuracy of LDA with the randomly sampled data over the data from the Streaming API....
[...]
...We compare the topics drawn from the Streaming data with those drawn from the Firehose data using a widely-used topic modeling algorithm, latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) (Blei, Ng, and Jordan 2003)....
[...]
...To get a sense of how the topics found in the Streaming data compare with those found with random samples, we compare with topics found by running LDA on random subsamples of the Firehose data....
[...]
...We also employed LDA to extract topics from the text....
[...]
Proceedings Article•
03 Jan 2001TL;DR: This paper proposed a generative model for text and other collections of discrete data that generalizes or improves on several previous models including naive Bayes/unigram, mixture of unigrams, and Hof-mann's aspect model, also known as probabilistic latent semantic indexing (pLSI).
Abstract: We propose a generative model for text and other collections of discrete data that generalizes or improves on several previous models including naive Bayes/unigram, mixture of unigrams [6], and Hof-mann's aspect model, also known as probabilistic latent semantic indexing (pLSI) [3]. In the context of text modeling, our model posits that each document is generated as a mixture of topics, where the continuous-valued mixture proportions are distributed as a latent Dirichlet random variable. Inference and learning are carried out efficiently via variational algorithms. We present empirical results on applications of this model to problems in text modeling, collaborative filtering, and text classification.
25,546 citations
Book•
25 Nov 1994TL;DR: This paper presents mathematical representation of social networks in the social and behavioral sciences through the lens of Dyadic and Triadic Interaction Models, which describes the relationships between actor and group measures and the structure of networks.
Abstract: Part I. Introduction: Networks, Relations, and Structure: 1. Relations and networks in the social and behavioral sciences 2. Social network data: collection and application Part II. Mathematical Representations of Social Networks: 3. Notation 4. Graphs and matrixes Part III. Structural and Locational Properties: 5. Centrality, prestige, and related actor and group measures 6. Structural balance, clusterability, and transitivity 7. Cohesive subgroups 8. Affiliations, co-memberships, and overlapping subgroups Part IV. Roles and Positions: 9. Structural equivalence 10. Blockmodels 11. Relational algebras 12. Network positions and roles Part V. Dyadic and Triadic Methods: 13. Dyads 14. Triads Part VI. Statistical Dyadic Interaction Models: 15. Statistical analysis of single relational networks 16. Stochastic blockmodels and goodness-of-fit indices Part VII. Epilogue: 17. Future directions.
17,104 citations