Exploring Big Data in Social Networks virgilio@dcc.ufmg.br (meira@dcc.ufmg.br) INWEB – National Science and Technology Institute for Web Federal University of Minas Gerais - UFMG May 2013
Some thoughts about computing, future and innovation…
What happens in 60 seconds on the Internet?
Explosion of Web Data 4
• BIG DATA: • data collection, • storage, • management, • automated large-scale analysis 5
• algorithms around Research interests social networks • VERY large graphs • data mining • analytics Algorithms and BIG DATA MACHINE LEARNING • Systems • Infrastructure • cloud • characterization • characterization • models • incentives SOCIAL • privacy and ECONOMICS • network effects • crowdsourcing • anti-social behavior • spam and malware s
The fundamental challenge of Big Data is not collecting data -- it's making sense of it. 1) What is the starting point? 2) What are the computation paths to discovery? 3) What are the appropriate algorithms? 3) How to visualize the findings?
Experimental Methodology Measure Analyze Model Synthesize What if questions: Models Distributions of Random Variables Analysis Algorithms Logs and Synthetic Traces Workloads Observations Artifacts Validation
Challenges in Online Social Networking Research • Explosive growth in size, complexity, and unstructured data; • Enabled by various experimental methods: observational studies, simulations,..., huge amount of data; • It is “ big data ,” the vast sets of information gathered by researchers at companies like Facebook, Google and Microsoft from patterns of cellphone calls, text messages and Internet clicks by millions of users around the world. Companies often refuse to make such information public, sometimes for competitive reasons and sometimes to protect customers’ privacy. ( New York Times, May 21 )
Enablers of Big Data Hardware capability Applications & Algorithms Storage capacity Online social networking Network bandwidth Algorithmic breakthroughs: machine learning and data mining Exponentially increasing capability Cloud: Cost reductions and at constant cost scalability improvements in computation Processing capacity Sensors everywhere
Price ce of 1 gigabyte abyte of st storage age over r time Year Cost $300,000 1981 $50,000 1987 $10,000 1990 1994 $1000 1997 $100 2000 $10 2004 $1 2012 $0.10 11
OSN Research Focus 1.Understand: characteristics of social graphs of real data; 2.Discover: properties of social graphs; 3.Engineer: social graph built.
OSN research approach • Computational sociology: A natural sciences approach – Gather and analyze OSN data to study problems in sociology • Social computing: An engineering approach – Build systems that support / leverage human social interactions – Understand human behavior (as opposed of considering it annoying noise) • Inspired by sociological theories
The Atlantic 15
16
Understanding Factors that Affect Response Rates in Twitter(*) Active users can receive ∼ 1000 tweets per • day; • Approximately 36% of all tweets worth reading, 39% are neutral and 25% are “junk”; • Interesting Questions – Do Twitter users receive more information than they are able to consume? – Is it possible to identify factors that affect interactions (replies and retweets)? (*) ACM Hypertext 2012, joint work with Giovanni Comarela, Mark Crovella, F. Benevenuto
Datasets: big data • Collected in August/September 2009, it contains the following information: • Users: 54,981,152 Tweets: 1,755,925,520 (almost a complete history) Social Graph: 1,963,263,821 social links • It contains information related to Replies and Retweets (interactions)
Characterization • Waiting Times (overload evidence) – How long does a tweet wait in the timeline to be replied (retweeted)? • Factors that affect interactions – Message Age – Previous Interactions – Sending Rate
Waiting Times
Message Age
Previous interaction • Are previously replied (retweeted) users more likely to be replied (retweeted) again? • We computed for each user i the conditional probability that a message m will be replied (retweeted) by i given that i has replied (retweeted) the sender of m before;
Sending rate • Are users with a higher sending rate more likely to be replied (retweeted)? For each user i, for each j ∈ Outi we • compared the sending rate of j with the fraction of her tweets replied (retweeted) by i.
Reorganizing the Twitter Timeline • Use the knowledge presented in order to create a new way to show tweets for the users • More interesting tweets (more likely to be replied or retweeted) in the top of the timeline. • Two schemes – Naive Bayes (NB) – Support Vector Machine (SVM) – Three attributes • Age(m): Age of m • SR(m): Sending rate of the sender of m • I(m): Binary indicator for previous interactions with the sender of m
Results
Google+ New Kid on the Block: Exploring the Google+ Social Graph, ACM Internet Measurement Conference, Sigcomm, 2012, Boston Joint work with: G. Magno, G. Comarela, D. Saez and Meeyong Cha. 26
Online Social Networks • OSNs now reach 82% of the world’s Internet-using population (1.2 billion) • Social Networking accounts for 19% of all time spent online Social Networking is the most popular online activity worldwide Source: comScore, December 21, 2011 27
Google+ Growth # users Days Google+ is the fastest growing OSN 28
Goal: characterization • Analyze how much and what kind of personal information people share in Google+ • Measure statistics of the Google+ social graph and compare with other OSNs • Evaluate the impact of geography on user behavior in Google+ 29
Dataset: big data • Nov. 11th Dec. 27th (2011) • 27,556,390 profiles • 35,114,957 nodes • 575,141,097 edges 30
What kind of information do people share more?
Privacy Concerns • Users revealing more information on their profiles have greater risk in privacy • In Facebook (young users, to friends)¹: – 64.1% share e-mail – 10.7% share telephone – 10.7% share home address 32
What kind of information do people share more? • In Google+ (public): – 0.22% share Work contact – 0.21% share Home contact – 0.26% share telephone numbers (72,736 users) • Users that shared telephone: tel-users 33
Number of fields shared in profile Tel-users share more information 34
Information shared by users Women are less likely to share phone number The majority of tel-users are single; a smaller fraction of them are in a relationship. Fraction of Indian users in the tel-users group is twice as big as in other countries 35
How are people connected on Google+?
Structural Characteristics of Social Graphs Higher reciprocity “Hidden” edges = Higher avg. path length More social New network Diameter similar Lower number to Twitter, lower of friends than Facebook 37
Structural Characteristics – Clust. Coef. Higher Clustering Coefficient than Twitter 38
What is the impact of geography on the social relationships?
Geo-location Information • Question: is the geographical location of users an important factor in the formation of social links? • Extract GPS coordinates from map image • Retrieve country information • 6,621,644 users with valid country inf. 40
Patterns Across Geo-locations – Average Path Miles 58% of friends were separated by less than a thousand miles Physical distance has influence on the intensity of the relationship 41
Social Links Across Geography are users in the same country more likely to be friends than users in different countries US is dominant on the Populous countries influx of edges have more self-loops 42
G+ Observations • Google+ is more social than Twitter – Higher reciprocity – Higher clustering coefficient – Reflects offline relationship • Users exhibit different notions and expectations in Google+, based on geography – Privacy – Content – Connections 43
Concluding Remarks • Big data has created new opportunities for scientific discoveries in the realm of social computing: – user preference understanding – data mining – summarization and aggregation – explorative analysis of large data sets – privacy – scalable services
Recommend
More recommend
