skip to main content
10.1145/3178876.3186121acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Demarcating Endogenous and Exogenous Opinion Diffusion Process on Social Networks

Published:23 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The networked opinion diffusion in online social networks (OSN) is governed by the two genres of opinions-endogenous opinions that are driven by the influence of social contacts between users, and exogenous opinions which are formed by external effects like news, feeds etc. Such duplex opinion dynamics is led by users belonging to two categories- organic users who generally post endogenous opinions and extrinsic users who are susceptible to externalities, and mostly post the exogenous messages. Precise demarcation of endogenous and exogenous messages offers an important cue to opinion modeling, thereby enhancing its predictive performance. On the other hand, accurate user selection aids to detect extrinsic users, which in turn helps in opinion shaping. In this paper, we design CherryPick, a novel learning machinery that classifies the opinions and users by solving a joint inference task in message and user set, from a temporal stream of sentiment messages. Furthermore, we validate the efficacy of our proposal from both modeling and shaping perspectives. Moreover, for the latter, we formulate the opinion shaping problem in a novel framework of stochastic optimal control, in which the selected extrinsic users optimally post exogenous messages so as to guide the opinions of others in a desired way. On five datasets crawled from Twitter, CherryPick offers a significant accuracy boost in terms of opinion forecasting, against several competitors. Furthermore, it can precisely determine the quality of a set of control users, which together with the proposed online shaping strategy, consistently steers the opinion dynamics more effectively than several state-of-the-art baselines.

References

  1. P. Clifford and A. Sudbury. A model for spatial conflict. Biometrika, 60(3):581--588, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. H. DeGroot. Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345):118--121, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. M. E. Yildiz, R. Pagliari, A. Ozdaglar, and A. Scaglione. Voting models in random networks. In Information Theory and Applications Workshop, pages 1--7, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. A. Das, S. Gollapudi, and K. Munagala. Modeling opinion dynamics in social networks. In WSDM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. De, S. Bhattacharya, P. Bhattacharya, N. Ganguly, and S. Chakrabarti. Learning a linear influence model from transient opinion dynamics. In CIKM, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Abir De, Isabel Valera, Niloy Ganguly, Sourangshu Bhattacharya, and Manuel Gomez Rodriguez. Learning and forecasting opinion dynamics in social networks. In NIPS. 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jan Christian Dittmer. Consensus formation under bounded confidence. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 47(7):4615--4621, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Igor Douven and Alexander Riegler. Extending the hegselmann--krause model i. Logic Journal of IGPL, 18(2):323--335, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Claudio Altafini and Gabriele Lini. Predictable dynamics of opinion forming for networks with antagonistic interactions. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 60(2):342--357, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Irinel-Constantin Mor, Antoine Girard, et al. Opinion dynamics with decaying confidence: Application to community detection in graphs. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 56(8):1862--1873, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Seyed Rasoul Etesami and Tamer Bacsar. Game-theoretic analysis of the hegselmann-krause model for opinion dynamics in finite dimensions. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 60(7):1886--1897, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Vincent D Blondel, Julien M Hendrickx, and John N Tsitsiklis. On krause's multi-agent consensus model with state-dependent connectivity. IEEE transactions on Automatic Control, 54(11):2586--2597, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Noah E Friedkin. The problem of social control and coordination of complex systems in sociology: A look at the community cleavage problem. IEEE Control Systems, 35(3):40--51, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Irinel-Constantin Moruarescu, Samuel Martin, Antoine Girard, and Aurélie Muller-Gueudin. Coordination in networks of linear impulsive agents. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 61(9):2402--2415, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. P. Holme and M. E. Newman. Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions. Physical Review E, 74(5):056108, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Przemyslaw A Grabowicz, Niloy Ganguly, and Krishna P Gummadi. Distinguishing between topical and non-topical information diffusion mechanisms in social media. In ICWSM, pages 151--160, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Seth A Myers, Chenguang Zhu, and Jure Leskovec. Information diffusion and external influence in networks. In KDD, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Aris Anagnostopoulos, Ravi Kumar, and Mohammad Mahdian. Influence and correlation in social networks. In KDD, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Trisha Greenhalgh, Glenn Robert, Fraser Macfarlane, Paul Bate, and Olivia Kyriakidou. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4):581--629, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Thomas W Valente. Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social networks, 18(1):69--89, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Yichen Wang, Grady Williams, Evangelos Theodorou, and Le Song. Variational policy for guiding point processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.08585, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. Zarezade, U. Upadhyay, H. Rabiee, and M. Gomez-Rodriguez. Redqueen: An online algorithm for smart broadcasting in social networks. In WSDM '17, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Ali Zarezade, Abir De, Hamid Rabiee, and Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez. Cheshire: An online algorithm for activity maximization in social networks. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.02059, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. E. Yildiz, A. Ozdaglar, D. Acemoglu, A. Saberi, and A. Scaglione. Binary opinion dynamics with stubborn agents. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 1(4):19, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Frank Schweitzer and Laxmidhar Behera. Nonlinear voter models: the transition from invasion to coexistence. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 67(3):301--318, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Federico Vazquez, Paul L Krapivsky, and Sidney Redner. Constrained opinion dynamics: Freezing and slow evolution. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 36(3):L61, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Xavier Castelló, V'ıctor M Egu'ıluz, and Maxi San Miguel. Ordering dynamics with two non-excluding options: bilingualism in language competition. New Journal of Physics, 8(12):308, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Nazareno GF Medeiros, Ana TC Silva, and FG Brady Moreira. Domain motion in the voter model with noise. Physical Review E, 73(4):046120, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Rick Durrett and Simon Levin. Spatial models for species-area curves. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 179(2):119--127, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. R. Hegselmann and U. Krause. Opinion dynamics & bounded confidence models, analysis, & simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies & Social Simulation, '02, 5(3).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Ulrich Krause. A discrete nonlinear and non-autonomous model of consensus formation. Communications in difference equations, pages 227--236, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Bing Liu. Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synthesis lectures on human language technologies, 5(1):1--167, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. B. Pang and L. Lee. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and trends in information retrieval, 2(1--2):1--135, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. James W Pennebaker, Martha E Francis, and Roger J Booth. Linguistic inquiry and word count: Liwc 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 71(2001):2001, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Aniko Hannak, Eric Anderson, Lisa Feldman Barrett, Sune Lehmann, Alan Mislove, and Mirek Riedewald. Tweetin'in the rain: Exploring societal-scale effects of weather on mood. In ICWSM, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Huayi Li, Zhiyuan Chen, Arjun Mukherjee, Bing Liu, and Jidong Shao. Analyzing and detecting opinion spam on a large-scale dataset via temporal and spatial patterns. In ICWSM, pages 634--637, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Santosh KC and Arjun Mukherjee. On the temporal dynamics of opinion spamming: Case studies on yelp. In WWW, pages 369--379, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Huayi Li, Geli Fei, Shuai Wang, Bing Liu, Weixiang Shao, Arjun Mukherjee, and Jidong Shao. Bimodal distribution and co-bursting in review spam detection. In WWW, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Bidisha Samanta, Abir De, Abhijnan Chakraborty, and Niloy Ganguly. Lmpp: a large margin point process combining reinforcement and competition for modeling hashtag popularity. In IJCAI, pages 2679--2685, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Bhushan Kulkarni, Sumit Agarwal, Abir De, Sourangshu Bhattacharya, and Niloy Ganguly. SLANT+: A nonlinear model for opinion dynamics in social networks. In ICDM, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Bidisha Samanta, Abir De, and Niloy Ganguly. Strm: A sister tweet reinforcement process for modeling hashtag popularity. In INFOCOM 2017, pages 1--9. IEEE, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Krunal Parmar, Samuel Bushi, Sourangshu Bhattacharya, and Surender Kumar. Forecasting ad-impressions on online retail websites using non-homogeneous hawkes processes. In CIKM, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Abir De, Sourangshu Bhattacharya, Sourav Sarkar, Niloy Ganguly, and Soumen Chakrabarti. Discriminative link prediction using local, community, and global signals. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 28(8):2057--2070, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Abir De, Niloy Ganguly, and Soumen Chakrabarti. Discriminative link prediction using local links, node features and community structure. In ICDM, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Abir De, Maunendra Sankar Desarkar, Niloy Ganguly, and Pabitra Mitra. Local learning of item dissimilarity using content and link structure. In ACM RecSys, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Supplementary material. hrefhttp://www.cnergres.iitkgp.ac.in/supp.pdfhttp://www.cnergres.iitkgp.ac.in/supp.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso. Biostatistics, 9(3):432--441, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Ajit Singh, Andrew Guillory, and Jeff Bilmes. On bisubmodular maximization. In AISTATS, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Anna Huber and Vladimir Kolmogorov. Towards minimizing k-submodular functions. ISCO, 7422:451--462, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Kazutoshi Ando, Satoru Fujishige, and Takeshi Naitoh. A characterization of bisubmodular functions. Discrete Mathematics, 148(1--3):299--303, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Anna Huber, Andrei Krokhin, and Robert Powell. Skew bisubmodularity and valued csps. SIAM Journal on Computing, 43(3):1064--1084, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Satoru Fujishige, Shin-ichi Tanigawa, and Yuichi Yoshida. Generalized skew bisubmodularity: A characterization and a min--max theorem. Discrete Optimization, 12:1--9, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Justin Ward and Stanislav Zivnỳ. Maximizing k-submodular functions and beyond. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 12(4):47, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Tyler H Summers, Fabrizio L Cortesi, and John Lygeros. On submodularity and controllability in complex dynamical networks. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 3(1):91--101, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. George L Nemhauser, Laurence A Wolsey, and Marshall L Fisher. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions--i. Mathematical Programming, 14(1):265--294, 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Andreas Krause and Daniel Golovin. Submodular function maximization., 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. D. P. Bertsekas. Dynamic programming and optimal control, volume 1. Athena Scientific Belmont, MA, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. F. B. Hanson. Applied stochastic processes and control for Jump-diffusions: modeling, analysis, and computation, volume 13. Siam, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. C. K. Garrett. Numerical integration of matrix Riccati differential equations with solution singularities. PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Arlington, May 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. M. Farajtabar, Y. Wang, M. Gomez-Rodriguez, S. Li, H. Zha, and L. Song. Coevolve: A joint point process model for information diffusion and network co-evolution. In NIPS, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference
    April 2018
    2000 pages
    ISBN:9781450356398

    Copyright © 2018 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

    Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

    Publication History

    • Published: 23 April 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    WWW '18 Paper Acceptance Rate170of1,155submissions,15%Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format