Modular networks of word correlations on Twitter

Complex networks are important tools for analyzing the information flow in many aspects of nature and human society. Using data from the microblogging service Twitter, we study networks of correlations in the occurrence of words from three different categories, international brands, nouns and US major cities. We create networks where the strength of links is determined by a similarity measure based on the rate of co-occurrences of words. In comparison with the null model, where words are assumed to be uncorrelated, the heavy-tailed distribution of pair correlations is shown to be a consequence of groups of words representing similar entities.

[1]  G. King,et al.  Ensuring the Data-Rich Future of the Social Sciences , 2011, Science.

[2]  Kim Sneppen,et al.  Organizational structure and communication networks in a university environment. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Complex networks: The fragility of interdependency , 2010, Nature.

[4]  Joachim Mathiesen,et al.  Scaling properties of European research units , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks , 2009, Nature.

[6]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  The Large-Scale Structure of Semantic Networks: Statistical Analyses and a Model of Semantic Growth , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Characterizing and modeling the dynamics of online popularity , 2010, Physical review letters.

[8]  Halil Karaveli.  Trial By Twitter , 2014 .

[9]  Damon Centola,et al.  The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment , 2010, Science.

[10]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[11]  J. Reichardt,et al.  Statistical mechanics of community detection. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[12]  Vittorio Loreto,et al.  Collective dynamics of social annotation , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  A. Mandavilli.  Peer review: Trial by Twitter , 2011, Nature.

[14]  Paul M. B. Vitányi,et al.  The Google Similarity Distance , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[15]  R. Mantegna,et al.  Scaling behaviour in the dynamics of an economic index , 1995, Nature.

[16]  E Altshuler,et al.  Avalanche prediction in a self-organized pile of beads. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[17]  Luis Enrique Correa da Rocha,et al.  Size dependent word frequencies and translational invariance of books , 2009, ArXiv.

[18]  Lev Muchnik,et al.  Identifying influential spreaders in complex networks , 2010, 1001.5285.

[19]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[20]  V. Latora,et al.  Complex networks: Structure and dynamics , 2006 .

[21]  George Kingsley Zipf,et al.  Human behavior and the principle of least effort , 1949 .

[22]  Hosung Park,et al.  What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? , 2010, WWW '10.

[23]  Marc Timme,et al.  Self-organized adaptation of a simple neural circuit enables complex robot behaviour , 2010, ArXiv.

[24]  Fang Wu,et al.  Crowdsourcing, attention and productivity , 2008, J. Inf. Sci..

[25]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Network Analysis in the Social Sciences , 2009, Science.

[26]  Martin Rosvall,et al.  Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Tang,et al.  Self-Organized Criticality: An Explanation of 1/f Noise , 2011 .

[28]  Martin T. Dove.  Structure and Dynamics , 2003 .