skip to main content
10.1145/2645710.2645734acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesrecsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Exploiting sentiment homophily for link prediction

Published:06 October 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Link prediction on social media is an important problem for recommendation systems. Understanding the interplay of users' sentiments and social relationships can be potentially valuable. Specifically, we study how to exploit sentiment homophily for link prediction. We evaluate our approach on a dataset gathered fro Twitter that consists of tweets sent in one month during U.S. 2012 political campaign along with the "follows" relationship between users. Our first contribution is defining a set of sentiment-based features that help predict the likelihood of two users becoming "friends" (i.e., mutually mentioning or following each other) based on their sentiments toward topics of mutual interest. Our evaluation in a supervised learning framework demonstrates the benefits of sentiment-based features in link prediction. We find that Adamic-Adar and Euclidean distance measures are the best predictors. Our second contribution is proposing a factor graph model that incorporates a sentiment-based variant of cognitive balance theory. Our evaluation shows that, when tie strength is not too weak, our model is more effective in link prediction than traditional machine learning techniques.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p17-sidebyside.mp4

mp4

43 MB

References

  1. L. A. Adamic and E. Adar. Friends and neighbors on the web. Social Networks, 25:211--230, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. Agarwal, B. Xie, I. Vovsha, O. Rambow, and R. Passonneau. Sentiment analysis of Twitter data. In Proc. LSM, pages 30--38. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. S. Baccianella, A. Esuli, and F. Sebastiani. SentiWordNet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proc. LREC. May 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. L. Backstrom and J. Leskovec. Supervised random walks: Predicting and recommending links in social networks. In Proc. WSDM, pages 635--644. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Bakliwal, J. Foster, J. van der Puil, R. O'Brien, L. Tounsi, and M. Hughes. Sentiment analysis of political tweets: Towards an accurate classifier. In Proc. LASM, pages 49--58. June 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. Bollen, H. Mao, and A. Pepe. Modeling public mood and emotion: Twitter sentiment and socio-economic phenomena. In Proc. ICWSM, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Daskalaki, I. Kopanas, and N. Avouris. Evaluation of classifiers for an uneven class distribution problem. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 20:381--417, Sept. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. M.-C. de Marneffe, B. MacCartney, and C. D. Manning. Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In Proc. LREC, pages 449--454, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. N. A. Diakopoulos and D. A. Shamma. Characterizing debate performance via aggregated Twitter sentiment. In Proc. CHI, pages 1195--1198. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Y. Dong, J. Tang, S. Wu, J. Tian, N. V. Chawla, J. Rao, and H. Cao. Link prediction and recommendation across heterogeneous social networks. In Proc. ICDM, pages 181--190. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. S. Granovetter. The strength of weak ties. American J. Sociology, 78(6):1360--1380, May 1973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. M. Gupte and T. Eliassi-Rad. Measuring tie strength in implicit social networks. In Proc. WebSci, pages 109--118. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. F. Gurini, F. Gasparetti, A. Micarelli, and G. Sansonetti. A sentiment-based approach to Twitter user recommendation. In Proc. RsWeb. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. M. Hammersley and P. E. Clifford. Markov random fields on finite graphs and lattices. Unpublished manuscript, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. V. Hatzivassiloglou and J. M. Wiebe. Effects of adjective orientation and gradability on sentence subjectivity. In Proc. COLING, pages 299--305. 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. F. Heider. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley, 1958.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. Hopcroft, T. Lou, and J. Tang. Who will follow you back?: Reciprocal relationship prediction. In Proc. CIKM, pages 1137--1146. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. H. Kwak, C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proc. WWW, pages 591--600. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. D. Lafferty, A. McCallum, and F. C. N. Pereira. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proc. ICML, pages 282--289. 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Leskovec, L. Backstrom, R. Kumar, and A. Tomkins. Microscopic evolution of social networks. In Proc. KDD, pages 462--470. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. D. Liben-Nowell and J. Kleinberg. The link prediction problem for social networks. In Proc. CIKM, pages 556--559. 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. N. Lichtenwalter, J. T. Lussier, and N. V. Chawla. New perspectives and methods in link prediction. In Proc. KDD, pages 243--252. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. B. Markines, C. Cattuto, F. Menczer, D. Benz, A. Hotho, and G. Stumme. Evaluating similarity measures for emergent semantics of social tagging. In Proc. WWW, pages 641--650. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. C. Marlow, M. Naaman, D. Boyd, and M. Davis. HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read. In Proc. HYPERTEXT, pages 31--40. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1):415--444, Aug. 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. K. P. Murphy, Y. Weiss, and M. I. Jordan. Loopy belief propagation for approximate inference: An empirical study. In Proc. UAI, pages 467--475. 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. F. Porter. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program: electronic library and information systems, 14(3):130--137, July 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. D. M. Romero, C. Tan, and J. Ugander. On the interplay between social and topical structure. In Proc. ICWSM, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. S. Scellato, A. Noulas, and C. Mascolo. Exploiting place features in link prediction on location-based social networks. In Proc. KDD, pages 1046--1054. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. P. Singla and M. Richardson. Yes, there is a correlation: From social networks to personal behavior on the Web. In Proc. WWW, pages 655--664. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. C. Tan, L. Lee, J. Tang, L. Jiang, M. Zhou, and P. Li. User-level sentiment analysis incorporating social networks. In Proc. KDD, pages 1397--1405. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. W. Tang, H. Zhuang, and J. Tang. Learning to infer social ties in large networks. In Proc. ECML PKDD, pages 381--397. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. M. Thelwall. Emotion homophily in social network site messages. First Monday, 15(4), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. M. Thelwall, K. Buckley, and G. Paltoglou. Sentiment in Twitter events. J. Amer. Soc. Info. Sci. Tech., 62(2):406--418, Feb. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. O. Tsur and A. Rappoport. What's in a hashtag?: Content based prediction of the spread of ideas in microblogging communities. In Proc. WSDM, pages 643--652. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. A. Tumasjan, T. O. Sprenger, P. G. Sandner, and I. M. Welpe. Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In Proc. ICWSM, pages 178--185, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. D. Yang, D. Zhang, Z. Yu, and Z. Wang. A sentiment-enhanced personalized location recommendation system. In Proc. HYPERTEXT, pages 119--128. 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. E. Zheleva, H. Sharara, and L. Getoor. Co-evolution of social and affiliation networks. In Proc. KDD, pages 1007--1016. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Exploiting sentiment homophily for link prediction

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        RecSys '14: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender systems
        October 2014
        458 pages
        ISBN:9781450326681
        DOI:10.1145/2645710

        Copyright © 2014 ACM

        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 the author(s) 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].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 October 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        RecSys '14 Paper Acceptance Rate35of234submissions,15%Overall Acceptance Rate254of1,295submissions,20%

        Upcoming Conference

        RecSys '24
        18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems
        October 14 - 18, 2024
        Bari , Italy

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader