Entropy-Based Model for Estimating Veracity of Topics from Tweets

  • Jyotsna Paryani
  • Ashwin Kumar T.K.
  • K. M. GeorgeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10449)


Micro-blogging sites like Twitter have gained tremendous growth and importance because these platforms allow users to share their experiences and opinions on various issues as they occur. Since tweets can cover a wide-range of domains many applications analyze them for knowledge extraction and prediction. As its popularity and size increase the veracity of the social media data itself becomes a concern. Applications processing social media data usually make the assumption that all information on social media are truthful and reliable. The integrity of data, data authenticity, trusted origin, trustworthiness are some of the aspects of trust-worthy data. This paper proposes an entropy-based model to estimate the veracity of topics in social media from truthful vantage point. Two existing big data veracity models namely, OTC model (Objectivity, Truthfulness, and Credibility) and DGS model (Diffusion, Geographic and Spam indices) are compared with the proposed model. The proposed model is a bag-of-words model based on keyword distribution, while OTC depends on word sentiment and DGS depends on tweet distribution and the content. For analysis, data from three domains (flu, food poisoning and politics) were used. Our experiments suggest that the approach followed for model definition impacts the resulting measures in ranking of topics, while all measures can place the topics in a veracity spectrum.


Twitter Micro-blog Veracity Information entropy 


  1. 1.
    Quan-Haase, A., Martin, K., McCay-Peet, L.: Networks of digital humanities scholars: the informational and social uses and gratifications of Twitter. Big Data Soc. 2(1), 1–12 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Felt, M.: Social media and the social sciences: how researchers employ Big Data analytics. Big Data Soc. 3(1), 2053951716645828 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gantz, J., Reinsel, D.: The digital universe in 2020: Big Data, bigger digital shadows, and biggest growth in the far east. In: IDC iView: IDC Analyze the Future 2007, pp. 1–16 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demchenko, Y., Ngo, C., de Laat, C., Membrey, P., Gordijenko, D.: Big Security for Big Data: addressing security challenges for the Big Data infrastructure. In: Jonker, W., Petković, M. (eds.) Workshop on Secure Data Management. LNCS, vol. 8425, pp. 76–94. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-06811-4_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Four V’s of Big Data, IBM Big Data and Analytics Hub. Accessed 11 June 2017
  6. 6.
    Eembi, N.B.C., Ishak, I.B., Sidi, F., Affendey, L.S., Mamat, A.: A systematic review on the profiling of digital news portal for Big Data veracity. Procedia Comput. Sci. 72, 390–397 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yin, S., Kaynak, O.: Big Data for modern industry: challenges and trends [point of view]. Proc. IEEE 103(2), 143–146 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    TextBlob. Accessed 04 May 2017
  9. 9.
    Lukoianova, T., Rubin, V.L.: Veracity roadmap: is Big Data objective, truthful and credible? Adv. Classif. Res. Online 24, 4–15 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ashwin, K.T., Kammarpally, P., George, K.M.: Veracity of information in twitter data: a case study. In: International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing BigComp, pp. 129–136. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sänger, J., Richthammer, C., Hassan, S., Pernul, G.: Trust and Big Data: a roadmap for research. In: 25th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications DEXA, pp. 278–282. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reed, C.: Latent Dirichlet allocation: towards a deeper understanding. Accessed 04 May 2017
  13. 13.
    Landauer, T.K., Foltz, P.W., Laham, D.: An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process. 25(2–3), 259–284 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chuois, S.: Probabilistic latent semantic analysis. Accessed 04 May 2017
  15. 15.
    Hofmann, T.: Probabilistic latent semantic indexing. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 50–57. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shannon, C.E.: A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput Commun. Rev. 5(1), 3–55 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tapia, A.H., Moore, K.A., Johnson, N.J.: Beyond the trustworthy tweet: a deeper understanding of microblogged data use by disaster response and humanitarian relief organizations. In: Proceedings of the 10th International ISCRAM Conference, Baden-Baden, pp. 770–779 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moser, P.K.: Philosophy After Objectivity: Making Sense in Perspective. Oxford University Press on Demand, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A-Z Index for Foodborne Illness: CDC (2016). Accessed 04 May 2017
  20. 20.
    Buller, D.B., Burgoon, J.K.: Interpersonal deception theory. Commun. Theory 6(3), 203–242 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhou, L., Burgoon, J.K., Nunamaker, J.F., Twitchell, D.: Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communications. Group Decis. Negot. 13(1), 81–106 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davies, M.: The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990–2012. Accessed 04 May 2017
  23. 23.
    OnTheIssues Home page. Accessed 04 May 2017
  24. 24.
    CDC: Influenza Flu. Accessed 04 May 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jyotsna Paryani
    • 1
  • Ashwin Kumar T.K.
    • 1
  • K. M. George
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations