Evaluating event credibility on twitter

Proceedings of the 12th SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, SDM 2012

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 153-164

  Gupta, Manish ^a   Zhao, Peixiang ^a   Han, Jiawei ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION TREES; GRAPHIC METHODS; ITERATIVE METHODS; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE); SPACE DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS;

ANALYSIS APPROACH; DECISION TREE CLASSIFIERS; EVENT GRAPHS; NEWS SOURCES; REAL TIME;

DATA MINING;

EID: 84876796382     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1137/1.9781611972825.14     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. R. Abdulla, B. Garrison, M. Salwen, and P. Driscoll. The Cred- ibility of Newspapers, Television News, and Online News. Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Jan 2002.
2. R. Balakrishnan. Source Rank: Relevance and Trust Assess- ment for Deep Web Sources based on Inter-Source Agreement. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 227-236. ACM, 2011.
3. L. Berti-Equille, A. D. Sarma, X. Dong, A. Marian, and D. Srivastava. Sailing the Information Ocean with Awareness of Currents: Discovery and Application of Source Dependence. In Proc. of the Conf. on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR). www.crdrdb.org 2009.
4. C. Castillo, M. Mendoza, and B. Poblete. Information Credi- bility on Twitter. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 675-684. ACM, 2011.
5. T. Chesney. An Empirical Examination of Wikipedia's Credi- bility. First Monday, 11(11), 2006.
6. I. Dagan and O. Glickman. Probabilistic Textual Entailment: Generic Applied Modeling of Language Variability. In Proc. of the Learning Methods for Text Understanding and Mining, Jan 2004.
7. I. Dagan, O. Glickman, and B. Magnini. The PASCAL Recog- nising Textual Entailment Challenge. In Machine Learning Challenges, volume 3944, pages 177-190. Springer, 2006.
8. M. Gupta, Y. Sun, and J. Han. Trust Analysis with Clustering. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 53-54, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM.
9. O. Lezoray, A. Elmoataz, and S. Bougleux. Graph Regulariza- Tion for Color Image Processing. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 107(1-2):38-55, 2007.
10. M. Mathioudakis and N. Koudas. TwitterMonitor : Trend Detection over the Twitter Stream. Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Management of data (SIGMOD), pages 1155-1157, 2010.
11. MATLAB. Version 7.9.0.529 (R2009b). The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, 2009.
12. L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd. The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 161-172. ACM, 1998.
13. B. Pang, L. Lee, and S. Vaithyanathan. Thumbs up?: Sen- Timent Classification using Machine Learning Techniques. In Proc. of the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 79-86. ACL, 2002.
14. J. Pasternack and D. Roth. Knowing What to Believe (When You Already Know Something). In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Computational Linguistics (COLING). Tsinghua University Press, 2010.
15. A. M. Popescu and M. Pennacchiotti. Detecting Controversial Events From Twitter. In Proc. of the ACM Intl. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pages 1873-1876. ACM, 2010.
16. J. Ratkiewicz, M. Conover, M. Meiss, B. G. calves, S. Patil, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer. Detecting and Tracking the Spread of Astroturf Memes in Microblog Streams. arXiv, Nov 2010.
17. T. Sakaki, M. Okazaki, and Y. Matsuo. Earthquake Shakes Twitter users: Real-Time Event Detection by Social Sensors. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 851-860. ACM, 2010.
18. M. Schmierbach and A. Oeldorf-Hirsch. A Little Bird Told Me, so I didn't Believe It: Twitter, credibility, and Issue Perceptions. In Proc. of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. AEJMC, Aug 2010.
19. A. Schrock. Are You What You Tweet? Warranting Trustwor- Thiness on Twitter. In Proc. of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. AEJMC, Aug 2010.
20. S. Soderland. Learning Information Extraction Rules for Semi- Structured and Free Text. Machine Learning, 34:233-272, 1999.
21. A. Tumasjan, T. O. Sprenger, P. G. Sandner, and I. M. Welpe. Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment. In Proc. of the Intl. AAAI Conf. on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM). The AAAI Press, 2010.
22. P. Viola and M. Narasimhan. Learning to Extract Information from Semi-Structured Text using a Discriminative Context Free Grammar. In Proc. of the Intl. ACM Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR), pages 330- 337. ACM, 2005.
23. V. V. Vydiswaran, C. Zhai, and D. Roth. Content-Driven Trust Propagation Framework. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (SIGKDD), pages 974-982. ACM, 2011.
24. C. R. WebWatch. Leap of Faith: Using the Internet Despite the Dangers, Oct 2005.
25. K. Q.Weinberger, F. Sha, Q. Zhu, and L. K. Saul. Graph Lapla- cian Regularization for Large-Scale Semidefinite Programming. In Proc. of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2007.
26. X. Yin andW. Tan. Semi-Supervised Truth Discovery. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 217- 226. ACM, 2011.
27. X. Yin, P. S. Yu, and J. Han. Truth Discovery with Mul- Tiple Conflicting Information Providers on the Web. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (TKDE), 20(6):796-808, 2008.
28. T. Zhang, A. Popescul, and B. Dom. Linear Prediction Models with Graph Regularization for Web-page Categorization. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (SIGKDD), pages 821-826. ACM, 2006.