Clustering Social Networks Using Interaction Semantics and Sentics

  • Praphul Chandra
  • Erik Cambria
  • Amir Hussain
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7367)

Abstract

The passage from a static read-only Web to a dynamic read-write Web gave birth to a huge amount of online social networks with the ultimate goal of making communication easier between people with common interests. Unlike real world social networks, however, online social groups tend to form for extremely varied and multi-faceted reasons. This makes very difficult to group members of the same social network in subsets in a way that certain types of contents are shared with just certain types of friends. Moreover, such a task is usually too tedious to be performed manually and too complex to be performed automatically. In this work, we propose a new approach for automatically clustering social networks, which exploits interaction semantics and sentics, that is, the conceptual and affective information associated with the interactive behavior of online social network members.

Keywords

Social Network Analysis Sentic Computing NLP 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    LinkedIn (2011), http://linkedIn.com
  2. 2.
    Facebook (2011), http://facebook.com
  3. 3.
    Kuhn, M., Wirz, M.: Mobile social networking for enhanced group communication. In: International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roth, M., Ben-David, A., Deutscher, D., Flysher, G., Horn, I., Leichtberg, A., Leiser, N., Matias, Y., Merom, R.: Suggesting friends using the implicit social graph. In: KDD, Washington (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gregory, S.: An Algorithm to Find Overlapping Community Structure in Networks. In: Kok, J.N., Koronacki, J., Lopez de Mantaras, R., Matwin, S., Mladenič, D., Skowron, A. (eds.) PKDD 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4702, pp. 91–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golub, G., Van-Loan, C.: Matrix Computations, pp. 16–21. Johns Hopkins University Press (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bar-Yossef, O., Guy, I., Lempel, R., Maarek, Y., Soroka, V.: Cluster ranking with an application to mining mailbox networks. Knowledge and Information Systems 14(1), 101–139 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Choudhury, M., Mason, W., Hofman, J., Watts, D.: Inferring relevant social networks from interpersonal communication. In: WWW, Raleigh (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Granovetter, M.: The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory 1, 201–233 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cambria, E., Benson, T., Eckl, C., Hussain, A.: Sentic PROMs: Application of Sentic Computing to the Development of a Novel Unified Framework for Measuring Health-Care Quality. Expert Systems with Applications 39(12), 10533–10543 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cambria, E., Hussain, A.: Sentic Computing: Techniques, Tools, and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Havasi, C., Speer, R., Alonso, J.: ConceptNet 3: a Flexible, Multilingual Semantic Network for Common Sense Knowledge. In: RANLP, Borovets (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cambria, E., Olsher, D., Kwok, K.: Sentic Activation: A Two-Level Affective Common Sense Reasoning Framework. In: AAAI, Toronto (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Praphul Chandra
    • 1
  • Erik Cambria
    • 2
  • Amir Hussain
    • 3
  1. 1.Hewlett Packard Labs IndiaIndia
  2. 2.National University of SingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.University of StirlingUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations