Advertisement

Interpreting Reputation Through Frequent Named Entities in Twitter

  • Nacéra Bennacer
  • Francesca BugiottiEmail author
  • Moditha Hewasinghage
  • Suela Isaj
  • Gianluca Quercini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10569)

Abstract

Twitter is a social network that provides a powerful source of data. The analysis of those data offers many challenges among those stands out the opportunity to find the reputation of a product, of a person, or of any other entity of interest. Several tools for sentiment analysis have been built in order to calculate the general opinion of an entity using a static analysis of the sentiments expressed in tweets. However, entities are not static; they collaborate with other entities and get involved in events. A simple aggregation of sentiments is then not sufficient to represent this dynamism. In this paper, we present a new approach that identifies the reputation of an entity on the basis of the set of events it is involved into by providing a transparent and self explanatory way for interpreting reputation. In order to perform this analysis we define a new sampling method based on a tweet weighting to retrieve relevant information. In our experiments we show that the 90% of the reputation of the entity originates from the events it is involved into, especially in the case of entities that represent public figures.

Keywords

Reputation Frequent itemsets Sampling Opinion mining 

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal, A., Xie, B., Vovsha, I., Rambow, O., Passonneau, R.: Sentiment analysis of Twitter data . In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages in Social Media, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 30–38 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agrawal, R., Imieliński, T., Swami, A.: Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. Acm Sigmod Rec. 22, 207–216 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bizhanova, A., Uchida, O.: Product reputation trend extraction from Twitter. Soc. Netw., Scientific Research Publishing (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bollen, J., Mao, H., Pepe, A.: Modeling public mood and emotion: Twitter sentiment and socio-economic phenomena. ICWSM Conf. 11, 450–453 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding, X., Liu, B., Zhang, L.: Entity discovery and assignment for opinion mining applications. In: KDD Conference, pp. 1125–1134 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gabielkov, M., Rao, A., Legout, A.: Sampling online social networks: an experimental study of Twitter. In: ACM SIGCOMM Conference, pp. 127–128 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghosh, S., Zafar, M.B., Bhattacharya, P., Sharma, N., Ganguly, N., Gummadi, K.: On sampling the wisdom of crowds: random vs. expert sampling of the Twitter stream. In: CKIM Conference, pp. 1739–1744 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gjoka, M., Kurant, M., Butts, C.T., Markopoulou, A.: Walking in facebook: a case study of unbiased sampling of OSNs. In: Infocom, pp. 1–9 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gouriten, G., Maniu, S., Senellart, P.: Scalable, generic, and adaptive systems for focused crawling. In: HT ACM Conference, pp. 35–45 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hangya, V., Berend, G., Farkas, R.: SZTE-NLP: sentiment detection on Twitter messages. SEM Conf. 2, 549–553 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hogenboom, A., Bal, D., Frasincar, F., Bal, M., de Jong, F., Kaymak, U.: Exploiting emoticons in sentiment analysis. In: ACM Symposium on Applied, Computing, pp. 703–710 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meng, X., Wei, F., Liu, X., Zhou, M., Li, S., Wang, H.: Entity-centric topic-oriented opinion summarization in Twitter. In: KDD Conference, pp. 379–387 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saif, H., He, Y., Alani, H.: Semantic sentiment analysis of Twitter. In: Cudré-Mauroux, P., Heflin, J., Sirin, E., Tudorache, T., Euzenat, J., Hauswirth, M., Parreira, J.X., Hendler, J., Schreiber, G., Bernstein, A., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7649, pp. 508–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35176-1_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., Paltoglou, G.: Sentiment in Twitter events. ISI J. 62(2), 406–418 (2011). WileyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Canneyt, S., Claeys, N., Dhoedt, B.: Topic-dependent sentiment classification on Twitter. In: Hanbury, A., Kazai, G., Rauber, A., Fuhr, N. (eds.) ECIR 2015. LNCS, vol. 9022, pp. 441–446. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16354-3_48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, X., Wei, F., Liu, X., Zhou, M., Zhang, M.: Topic sentiment analysis in Twitter: a graph-based hashtag sentiment classification approach. In: CKIM Conference, pp. 1031–1040 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xiang, B., Zhou, L., Reuters, T.: Improving Twitter sentiment analysis with topic-based mixture modeling and semi-supervised training. In: ACL Conference, pp. 434–439 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhou, Z., Zhang, X., Sanderson, M.: Sentiment analysis on Twitter through topic-based lexicon expansion. In: Wang, H., Sharaf, M.A. (eds.) ADC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8506, pp. 98–109. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-08608-8_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nacéra Bennacer
    • 1
  • Francesca Bugiotti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Moditha Hewasinghage
    • 1
  • Suela Isaj
    • 1
  • Gianluca Quercini
    • 1
  1. 1.LRI, CentraleSupélecParis-Saclay UniversityGif-sur-YvetteFrance

Personalised recommendations