Who Will Reply to/Retweet This Tweet?: The Dynamics of Intimacy from Online Social Interactions

Friendships are dynamic. Previous studies have converged to suggest that social interactions, in both online and offline social networks, are diagnostic reflections of friendship relations (also called social ties). However, most existing approaches consider a social tie as either a binary relation, or a fixed value (named tie strength). In this paper, we investigate the dynamics of dyadic friend relationships through online social interactions, in terms of a variety of aspects, such as reciprocity, temporality, and contextuality. In turn, we propose a model to predict repliers and retweeters given a particular tweet posted at a certain time in a microblog-based social network. More specifically, we have devised a learning-to-rank approach to train a ranker that considers elaborate user-level and tweet-level features (like sentiment, self-disclosure, and responsiveness) to address these dynamics. In the prediction phase, a tweet posted by a user is deemed a query and the predicted repliers/retweeters are retrieved using the learned ranker. We have collected a large dataset containing 73.3 million dyadic relationships with their interactions (replies and retweets). Extensive experimental results based on this dataset show that by incorporating the dynamics of friendship relations, our approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models in terms of multiple evaluation metrics, such as MAP, NDCG and Topmost Accuracy. In particular, the advantage of our model is even more promising in predicting the exact sequence of repliers/retweeters considering their orders. Furthermore, the proposed approach provides emerging implications for many high-value applications in online social networks.

[1]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[2]  Tie-Yan Liu,et al.  Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval , 2011 .

[3]  Jennifer Neville,et al.  Modeling relationship strength in online social networks , 2010, WWW '10.

[4]  Jens F. Binder,et al.  Relationships and the social brain: integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives. , 2012, British journal of psychology.

[5]  Tiejun Zhao,et al.  Target-dependent Twitter Sentiment Classification , 2011, ACL.

[6]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Are you close with me? are you nearby?: investigating social groups, closeness, and willingness to share , 2011, UbiComp '11.

[7]  Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.  Does proximity matter? Distance dependence of adolescent friendships , 2011, Soc. Networks.

[8]  Matthew Michelson,et al.  Tweet Disambiguate Entities Retrieve Folksonomy SubTree Step 1 : Discover Categories Generate Topic Profile from SubTrees Step 2 : Discover Profile Topic Profile : “ English Football ” “ World Cup ” , 2011 .

[9]  Christopher J. Fariss,et al.  Inferring Tie Strength from Online Directed Behavior , 2013, PloS one.

[10]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Measuring Tie Strength , 1984 .

[11]  Tina Eliassi-Rad,et al.  Measuring tie strength in implicit social networks , 2011, WebSci '12.

[12]  Azy Barak,et al.  Degree and Reciprocity of Self-Disclosure in Online Forums , 2007, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[13]  ATHANAS IOU,et al.  The Spatial Character of Friendship Formation , 1973 .

[14]  A-L Barabási,et al.  Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  How Random are Online Social Interactions? , 2012, Scientific reports.

[16]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data , 2002, KDD.

[17]  Eric Gilbert,et al.  Predicting tie strength in a new medium , 2012, CSCW.

[18]  Tie-Yan Liu,et al.  Learning to rank for information retrieval , 2009, SIGIR.

[19]  Adam N. Joinson,et al.  Linguistic Markers of Secrets and Sensitive Self-Disclosure in Twitter , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[20]  Alice H. Oh,et al.  Self-Disclosure and Relationship Strength in Twitter Conversations , 2012, ACL.

[21]  Markus Strohmaier,et al.  The utility of social and topical factors in anticipating repliers in Twitter conversations , 2013, WebSci.

[22]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[23]  James H Fowler,et al.  Correlated genotypes in friendship networks , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[25]  Hongfei Yan,et al.  Comparing Twitter and Traditional Media Using Topic Models , 2011, ECIR.

[26]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Modeling Users' Activity on Twitter Networks: Validation of Dunbar's Number , 2011, PloS one.

[27]  Yang Song,et al.  Topical Keyphrase Extraction from Twitter , 2011, ACL.

[28]  Qiang Wu,et al.  Adapting boosting for information retrieval measures , 2010, Information Retrieval.

[29]  Yossi Matias,et al.  Suggesting friends using the implicit social graph , 2010, KDD.

[30]  Eric Gilbert,et al.  Predicting tie strength with social media , 2009, CHI.

[31]  B. Buunk,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships , 2006 .

[32]  Robin I. M. Dunbar Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates , 1992 .

[33]  Nicholas Jing Yuan,et al.  We know how you live: exploring the spectrum of urban lifestyles , 2013, COSN '13.

[34]  David Lazer,et al.  Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile phone data , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Deborah E. Gibbons,et al.  Dynamics of Friendship Reciprocity Among Professional Adults , 2010 .

[36]  Ming Zhou,et al.  Recognizing Named Entities in Tweets , 2011, ACL.