Dynamical classes of collective attention in twitter

ABSTRACT

Micro-blogging systems such as Twitter expose digital traces of social discourse with an unprecedented degree of resolution of individual behaviors. They offer an opportunity to investigate how a large-scale social system responds to exogenous or endogenous stimuli, and to disentangle the temporal, spatial and topical aspects of users' activity. Here we focus on spikes of collective attention in Twitter, and specifically on peaks in the popularity of hashtags. Users employ hashtags as a form of social annotation, to define a shared context for a specific event, topic, or meme. We analyze a large-scale record of Twitter activity and find that the evolution of hashtag popularity over time defines discrete classes of hashtags. We link these dynamical classes to the events the hashtags represent and use text mining techniques to provide a semantic characterization of the hashtag classes. Moreover, we track the propagation of hashtags in the Twitter social network and find that epidemic spreading plays a minor role in hashtag popularity, which is mostly driven by exogenous factors.

References

1. M. Vlachos, C. Meek, Z. Vagena, and D. Gunopulos. Identifying similarities, periodicities and bursts for online search queries. In Proc. 2004 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 131--142, 2004.
2. F Wu and B A Huberman. Novelty and collective attention. PNAS, 104:17599, 2007.
3. E. Adar, D.S. Weld, Bershad, B.N., and S.D. Gribble. Why we search: visualizing and predicting user behavior. In Proc. WWW2007, pages 161--170, 2007.
4. J.-P. Onnela and F. Reed-Tsochas. Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci., 107:18375--18380, 2009.
5. S. Goel, J. M Hofman, S. Lahaie, D. M Pennock, and D.J. Watts. Predicting consumer behavior with web search. PNAS, 107(41):17486--17490, 2010.
6. J. Ratkiewicz, F. Menczer, S. Fortunato, A. Flammini, and A. Vespignani. Traffic in social media ii: Modeling bursty popularity. In SocialCom 2010: SIN, 2010.
7. R Crane and D Sornette. Robust dynamic classes revealed by measuring the response function of a social system. PNAS, 105:15649, 2008.
8. F. Figueiredo, F. Benevenuto, and J. Almeida. The tube over time: Characterizing popularity growth of youtube videos. In Proc. ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM), pages 745--754, 2011.
9. M. Naaman, H. Becker, and L. Gravano. Hip and trendy: Characterizing emerging trends on twitter. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 62:902--918, 2011.
10. H. Kwak, C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon. What is twitter, a social network or a news media? Proc. WWW2010, page 591, Feb 2010.
11. S. Asur, B. A. Huberman, G. Szabo, and Wang C. Trends in social media : Persistence and decay. In Proc. 5th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), page 434, 2011.
12. J. Yang and J. Leskovec. Patterns of temporal variation in online media. In Proc. of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pages 177--186, 2011.
13. J. Leskovec, L. Backstrom, and J. Kleinberg. Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, page 497, 2009.
14. J. Ratkiewicz, S. Fortunato, A. Flammini, F. Menczer, and A. Vespignani. Characterizing and modeling the dynamics of online popularity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 105(15):158701, Oct 2010.
15. J. Huang, K. M. Thornton, and E. N. Efthimiadis. Conversational tagging in twitter. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pages 173--178, 2010.
16. Shaomei Wu, Jake M Hofman, Winter A Mason, and Duncan J Watts. Who says what to whom on twitter. Proc. WWW2011, pages 1--10, Feb 2011.
17. http://dev.twitter.com.
18. A. Java, X. Song, T. Finin, and B. Tseng. Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD, pages 56--65, 2007.
19. B Krishnamurthy, P Gill, and M Arlitt. A few chirps about twitter. In Proceedings of the first workshop on Online social networks, pages 19--24, 2008.
20. B.A. Huberman, D.M. Romero, and F. Wu. Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14:1, 2008.
21. C. Honeycutt and S. C. Herring. Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via twitter. In Proc. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2009.
22. M. Cha, H. Haddadi, F. Benevenuto, and K.P. Gummadi. Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy. Proc. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pages 1--8, Mar 2010.
23. W. Galuba, D. Chakraborty, K. Aberer, Z. Despotovic, and W. Kellerer. Outtweeting the Twitterers - Predicting Information Cascades in Microblogs. In 3rd Workshop on Online Social Networks (WOSN 2010), 2010.
24. K. Lerman and R. Ghosh. Information contagion: an empirical study of the spread of news on digg and twitter social networks. In Proc. of 4th Int. Conf. on Weblogs and Social Media ICWSM, volume abs/1003.2, pages 90--97. AAAI, 2010.
25. S. González-Bailón, J. Borge-Holthoefer, A. Rivero, and Y. Moreno. The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Nature Scientific Reports, 1, 2011.
26. M. Mendoza, B. Poblete, and C. Castillo. Twitter under crisis: Can we trust what we rt? In Proc. 1st Workshop on Social Media Analytics (SOMA'10), pages 71--79, 2010.
27. C. Castillo, M. Mendoza, and B. Poblete. Information credibility on twitter. Proc. WWW2011, pages 1--10, Jan 2011.
28. B. J. Jansen, M. Zhang, K. Sobel, and A. Chowdury. Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 60(11), 2009.
29. J. Ratkiewicz, M. Meiss, M. Conover, B. Goncalves, S. Patil, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. Truthy: Mapping the spread of astroturf in microblog streams. In WWW '11 Proceedings of the 20th int. conf. companion on World Wide Web, page 249, 2011.
30. J. Ratkiewicz, M. Conover, M. Meiss, B. Gonçalves, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media. In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, page 297, 2011.
31. P.S. Dodds, K.D. Harris, I.M. Kloumann, C.A. Bliss, and C.M. Danforth. Temporal patterns of happiness and information in a global social network: Hedonometrics and twitter. PLoS ONE, 6(12):e26752, 2011.
32. J. Bollen and H. Mao. Twitter mood as a stock market predictor. IEEE Computer, 44(10):91--94, 2011.
33. D. Romero, B. Meeder, and J. Kleinberg. Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics: Idioms, political hashtags, and complex contagion on twitter. In Proc. WWW2011, pages 695--704, 2011.
34. D. Laniado and P. Mika. Making sense of twitter. In Semantic Web - ISWC, volume 6469, pages 470--485, 2010.
35. B. Goncalves, N. Perra, and A. Vespignani. Modeling users' activity on twitter: validation of dunbar's number. PLoS One, 6:e22656, 2011.
36. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/.
37. http://www.let.rug.nl/vannoord/textcat/.
38. C. Fraley and A. E. Raftery. MCLUST version 3 for R: Normal mixture modeling and model-based clustering. Department of Statistics, University of Washington, 504, 2009.
39. C. Fraley and A. E. Raftery. Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis and density estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97:611--631, 2002.

Index Terms

• Information systems

  • World Wide Web

    • Web applications

    • Web services