TL;DR
This paper reviews various features used to characterize Twitter users, unifies their definitions, and demonstrates their application in predicting offline influence, revealing that common online influence indicators are less relevant for real-world influence detection.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive, unified typology of Twitter user features and applies them to offline influence prediction, outperforming existing methods.
Findings
Most online influence features are not relevant for offline influence detection.
Content-based features can effectively classify users as Influencers or not.
Proposed methods outperform state-of-the-art on CLEF RepLab 2014 dataset.
Abstract
Many works related to Twitter aim at characterizing its users in some way: role on the service (spammers, bots, organizations, etc.), nature of the user (socio-professional category, age, etc.), topics of interest , and others. However, for a given user classification problem, it is very difficult to select a set of appropriate features, because the many features described in the literature are very heterogeneous, with name overlaps and collisions, and numerous very close variants. In this article, we review a wide range of such features. In order to present a clear state-of-the-art description, we unify their names, definitions and relationships, and we propose a new, neutral, typology. We then illustrate the interest of our review by applying a selection of these features to the offline influence detection problem. This task consists in identifying users which are influential in…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
