Modeling Response Time in Digital Human Communication

Our daily lives increasingly involve interactions with other individuals via different communication channels, such as email, text messaging, and social media. In this paper we focus on the problem of modeling and predicting how long it takes an individual to respond to an incoming communication event, such as receiving an email or a text. In particular, we explore the effect on response times of an individual’s temporal pattern of activity, such as circadian and weekly patterns which are typically present in individual data. A probabilistic time-warping approach is used, considering linear time to be a transformation of “effective time,” where the transformation is a function of an individual’s activity rate. We apply this transformation of time to two different types of temporal event models, the first for modeling response times directly, and the second for modeling event times via a Hawkes process. We apply our approach to two different sets of real-world email histories. The experimental results clearly indicate that the transformation-based approach produces systematically better models and predictions compared to simpler methods that ignore circadian and weekly patterns. Current technology allows us to collect large quantities of time-stamped individual-level event data characterizing our “digital behavior” in contexts such as texting, email activity, microblogging, social media interactions, and more — and the volume and variety of this type of data is continually increasing. The resulting time-series of events are rich in behavioral information about our daily lives. Tools for obtaining and visualizing such information are becoming increasingly popular, such as the ability to download your entire email history for mail applications such as Gmail, and various software packages for tracking personal fitness using data from devices such as Fitbit. This paper is focused on modeling the temporal aspects of how an individual (also referred to as the “ego”) responds to others, given a sequence of timestamped events (e.g. communication messages via email or text). What can we learn from the way we respond to others? Are there systematic Currently employed at Google. The research described in this paper was conducted while the author was a graduate student at UC Irvine.

[1]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Characterizing individual communication patterns , 2009, KDD.

[2]  Kazuo Yano,et al.  Self-exciting point process modeling of conversation event sequences , 2012, ArXiv.

[3]  Daryl J. Daley,et al.  An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes , 2013 .

[4]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics , 2005, Nature.

[5]  R. Dean Malmgren,et al.  Log-normal statistics in e-mail communication patterns , 2008 .

[6]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Exact and approximate EM estimation of mutually exciting hawkes processes , 2013 .

[7]  A. Hawkes Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes , 1971 .

[8]  Emily B. Fox,et al.  A Bayesian Approach for Predicting the Popularity of Tweets , 2013, ArXiv.

[9]  Adilson E. Motter,et al.  A Poissonian explanation for heavy tails in e-mail communication , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Jean-Pierre Eckmann,et al.  Entropy of dialogues creates coherent structures in e-mail traffic. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Jeffrey Nichols,et al.  When Will You Answer This? Estimating Response Time in Twitter , 2013, ICWSM.

[12]  Peter F. Halpin,et al.  Modelling Dyadic Interaction with Hawkes Processes , 2013, Psychometrika.

[13]  Yiming Yang,et al.  The Enron Corpus: A New Dataset for Email Classi(cid:12)cation Research , 2004 .

[14]  Andrea L. Bertozzi,et al.  Point-process models of social network interactions: Parameter estimation and missing data recovery , 2015, European Journal of Applied Mathematics.

[15]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Modeling Events with Cascades of Poisson Processes , 2010, UAI.

[16]  Katherine A. Heller,et al.  Modelling Reciprocating Relationships with Hawkes Processes , 2012, NIPS.

[17]  John Blitzer,et al.  Reply Expectation Prediction for Email Management , 2005, CEAS.

[18]  Andrea L. Bertozzi,et al.  Modeling E-mail Networks and Inferring Leadership Using Self-Exciting Point Processes , 2016 .

[19]  Kevin P. Murphy,et al.  Machine learning - a probabilistic perspective , 2012, Adaptive computation and machine learning series.

[20]  Alexei Pozdnoukhov,et al.  Exploratory novelty identification in human activity data streams , 2010, IWGS '10.

[21]  Nicholas Navaroli,et al.  Generative Probabilistic Models for Analysis of Communication Event Data with Applications to Email Behavior , 2014 .

[22]  P. Grambsch Survival and Event History Analysis: A Process Point of View by AALEN, O. O., BORGAN, O., and GJESSING, H. K. , 2009 .

[23]  Stephen L. Scott,et al.  Detecting Network Intrusion Using a Markov Modulated Nonhomogeneous Poisson Process , 2000 .

[24]  Kimmo Kaski,et al.  Circadian pattern and burstiness in mobile phone communication , 2011, 1101.0377.

[25]  Andrew Slater,et al.  The Learning Behind Gmail Priority Inbox , 2010 .

[26]  Josep Blat,et al.  Homogeneous Temporal Activity Patterns in a Large Online Communication Space , 2007, SAW.