<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Patrick Siehndel</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Ricardo Kawase</string-name>
          <email>kawaseg@L3S.de</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>L3S Research Center, Leibniz University Hannover</institution>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>The use of social media has been rapidly increasing in the last years. Social media, such as Twitter, has become an important source of information for a variety of people. The public availability of data describing some of these social networks has led to a great deal of research in this area. Link prediction, user classification and community detection are some of the main research areas related to social networks. In this paper, we present a user modeling framework that uses Wikipedia to model user interests inside a social network. Our model of user interests reflects the areas a user is interested in, as well as the level of expertise a user has in a certain field.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>
        We provide TwikiMe! as a framework to generate semantically enhanced profiles for
Twitter users. To accomplish it, we use the well established Wikipedia corpus as a
semantic knowledge base. Wikipedia is arguably the most accessed reference Web site
and each of the over 3.5 million existing articles are manually classified by human
curators to one or more categories. Additionally, categories are organized in a graph
where sub-categories reference top level categories. The English Wikipedia has in total
23 top level categories (Main topic classifications), which we use to represent a user
profile (See Figure 2 for the list of top-level categories). Abel et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] presented similar
strategies to enhance Twitter user profiles, however their topic-based profile is built
upon topics related to di erent types of news events. In our work, we consider the topics
(categories) of each detected Wikipedia entity, thus the categories describe a wider area
of fields.
      </p>
      <p>
        The creation of semantically enhanced user models consists of three stages (see
Figure 1). The first stage, Extraction, entities are extracted from the user’s tweets. Given
Twitter users streams, we annotate all tweets to detect any mention of entities that can
be linked to Wikipedia articles. In this step, we chose to use the WikipediaMiner [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]
service to annotate the users’ tweets.
      </p>
      <p>The second stage, Categorization, we extract the categories of each entity that has
been mentioned in the users Tweets. For each category, we follow the path of all parent
categories, up to the root category. In some cases, this procedure results in the
assignment of several top level categories to an entity. A weight is calculated for each
category by first setting a value of 1 for the detected entity. Following the parent categories
(which are closer the root category) we divide the weight of each node by the number of
siblings categories, resulting in each entity receiving 23 categories’ scores. In the final
stage, Aggregation, we perform a linear aggregation over all of the scores for a tweet in
order to generate the final user profile.</p>
      <p>
        Our approach of reducing the user profile to 23 topics di ers significantly from the
work of Michelson and Macskassy [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. In their work, they propose a similar approach
to annotate tweets with Wikipedia articles; but instead, of considering all parent
categories, they traverse the category graph only “5 levels deep”. In doing so, they assume
that a five stage traversal is su cient to reach categories that are general enough for a
user’s profile. The limitation of their assumption is that a user’s classification may have
an unlimited number of categories, thereby preventing profiles from having a
normalized length and comparison among all users.
      </p>
      <p>
        We applied our user profiling method on the Twitter dataset created by Yang and
Leskovec [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] containing 476 million tweets from 20 million users. The tweets where
collected between 1st of June 2009 and 31st of December 2009. We combined with the
social Graph created by Kwak et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] with 41.7 million user profiles and 1.47 billion
social relations. We randomly selected 20,000 users with their followers and friends for
a total of 630,000 users and 28 million tweets and analyzed how similar the users are to
their followers and friends
      </p>
      <p>Additionally, we calculated how much the user profile changes over time by splitting
the user’s tweets into two bins and calculating the inter-user similarity. To perform such
evaluation we divided the users’ stream in half (by number of tweets), comparing the
profile of the earlier tweets against the latest ones. Table 1 shows the results of the
similarity measures. As metric we used the cosine similarity.</p>
      <p>Our result show that while the categories related to the tweets of one user stay the
same over the time (leading to a very high similarity of 0.85), we see that the average
similarity between the user and her friends and followers is rather low with 0.26 and
0.27. Comparing the profiles of the followers and friends we obtained a similarity of
0.24. Based on the high similarity when comparing only tweets from one user, we
assume that the topics one user tweets about stays rather constant, and are not necessarily
the same as the topics discussed by friends and followers.
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>TwikiMe! Online</title>
      <p>To ilustrate our approach, we deployed an online version1 of the TwikiMe! framework.
The interface guides the user through the twikifying process. First, one must provide
a valid Twitter user name and the amount of past tweets to be annotated (due to the
outsourcing of WikipediaMiner service, this step is the most time consuming). Once
the process is finished, the user is asked to trigger the Categorization step. Finally, the
user is presented with the TwikiMe! chart of the given Twitter user.</p>
      <p>To address qualitative comparisons, we also provide a comparative graphical
interface as depicted in Figure 2. In the comparative chart, it is possible to visualize the
percentage results for two distinct users, side-by-side. Additionally, the interface
provides a date picker to restrict the comparisons to a given time interval. In Figure 2, one
can see the comparison between the Twitter accounts of the Dalai Lama (@DalaiLama)
and president Barack Obama (@BarackObama), during the period of April through
December 2011. The resulting user profile depicted in the chart shows a clear dominance
of Barack Obama in the topics of “people”, “politics” and “business”, while Dalai Lama
leads on “life”, “culture” and “geography” topics.</p>
      <p>A closer look into di erent “known” users (politicians, researchers and
technology news), shows that the resulting TwikiMe! profiles provide expected topic identities.
While technology news providers lead on the topics of “business”, “society” and
“technology”, researchers lead on the topics of “education” and “applied sciences”. We invite
1 http://twikime.l3s.uni-hannover.de
the readers to try it by themselves our TwikiMe! prototype at http://twikime.l3s.
uni-hannover.de. The prototype makes available all previously twikified users for
comparisons.
4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>In this paper, we introduced the TwikiMe! A prototype for generating comprehensible
user profiles that are represented compactly as a 23-length vector. The profiles
quantifies the users’ implicit interest in each of these di erent categories. We believe that, by
exploiting the TwikiMe! profiles, we are able to improve content and user
recommendation on Twitter.</p>
      <p>As future work, we plan to empirically demonstrate the proof of concept of the
generated user profiles as well as improving the strategy of the Categorization step. Finally,
we believe that there may be a significant di erence between what a user “produces”
and what a user “consumes”. We also plan to evaluate this di erence by generating
TwikiMe! user profiles based on tweets that a user follows, rather than just the tweets
that a user writes.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1. Wikipediaminer toolkit. website,
          <year>2012</year>
          . http://wikipedia-miner.
          <source>cms.waikato.ac.nz/ (accessed july 30</source>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          ).,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Abel</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Q.</given-names>
            <surname>Gao</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.-J.</given-names>
            <surname>Houben</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Tao</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Analyzing User Modeling on Twitter for Personalized News Recommendations</article-title>
          . In International Conference on User Modeling,
          <article-title>Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP), Girona</article-title>
          , Spain. Springer,
          <year>July 2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Kwak</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Lee</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Park</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Moon</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>What is twitter, a social network or a news media</article-title>
          ?
          <source>In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, WWW '10</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>591</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>600</lpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2010</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Michelson</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S. A.</given-names>
            <surname>Macskassy</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Discovering users' topics of interest on twitter: a first look</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the fourth workshop on Analytics for noisy unstructured text data, AND '10</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>73</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>80</lpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2010</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Yang</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Leskovec</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Patterns of temporal variation in online media</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining</source>
          ,
          <source>WSDM '11</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>177</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>186</lpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2011</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>