Advertisement

Spectral Evolution of Twitter Mention Networks

  • Miguel RomeroEmail author
  • Camilo Rocha
  • Jorge Finke
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 881)

Abstract

This papers applies the spectral evolution model presented in [5] to networks of mentions between Twitter users who identified messages with the most popular political hashtags in Colombia (during the period which concludes the disarmament of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). The model characterizes the dynamics of each mention network (i.e., how new edges are established) in terms of the eigen decomposition of its adjacency matrix. It assumes that as new edges are established the eigenvalues change, while the eigenvectors remain constant. The goal of our work is to evaluate various link prediction methods that underlie the spectral evolution model. In particular, we consider prediction methods based on graph kernels and a learning algorithm that tries to estimate the trajectories of the spectrum. Our results show that the learning algorithm tends to outperform the kernel methods at predicting the formation of new edges.

Keywords

Spectral evolution model Twitter mention networks Eigen decomposition Graph kernels 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the OMICAS program: Optimización Multiescala In-silico de Cultivos Agrícolas Sostenibles (Infraestructura y Validación en Arroz y Caña de Azúcar), sponsored within the Colombian Scientific Ecosystem by the World Bank, Colciencias, Icetex, the Colombian Ministry of Education, and the Colombian Ministry of Industry and Turism, under GRANT ID: FP44842-217-2018.

References

  1. 1.
    Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., Lefebvre, E.: Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp. 2008(10), P10008 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., Bryson, B.: Have american’s social attitudes become more polarized? Am. J. Sociol. 102(3), 690–755 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gustafsson, N.: The subtle nature of Facebook politics: Swedish social network site users and political participation. New Media Soc. 14(7), 1111–1127 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kunegis, J., Fay, D., Bauckhage, C.: Network growth and the spectral evolution model. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Toronto, ON, Canada, p. 739. ACM Press (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kunegis, J., Fay, D., Bauckhage, C.: Spectral evolution in dynamic networks. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 37(1), 1–36 (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loader, B.D., Mercea, D.: Networking democracy?: Social media innovations and participatory politics. Inf. Commun. Soc. 14(6), 757–769 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mcclurg, S.D.: Social networks and political participation: the role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Polit. Res. Q. 56(4), 449–464 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.M.: Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 27(1), 415–444 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noveck, B.S.: Five hacks for digital democracy. Nature 544(7650), 287–289 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Persily, N.: Can democracy survive the Internet? J. Democracy 28(2), 63–76 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A., Sheikh, H., Simoncelli, E.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13(4), 600–612 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pontificia Universidad Javeriana CaliCaliColombia

Personalised recommendations