journal article·2022-09-09Open access

Credibility Analysis on Twitter Considering Topic Detection

Maria Hernandez-Mendoza, Ana Aguilera, Irvin Dongo, Jose Cornejo-Lupa, Yudith Cardinale

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 18

Abstract

Twitter is one of the most popular sources of information available on the internet. Thus, many studies have proposed tools and models to analyze the credibility of the information shared. The credibility analysis on Twitter is generally supported by measures that consider the text, the user, and the social impact of text and user. More recently, identifying the topic of tweets is becoming an interesting aspect for many applications that analyze Twitter as a source of information, for example, to detect trends, to filter or classify tweets, to identify fake news, or even to measure a tweet’s credibility. In most of these cases, the hashtags represent important elements to consider to identify the topics. In a previous work, we presented a credibility model based on text, user, and social credibility measures, and a framework called T-CREo, implemented as an extension of Google Chrome. In this paper, we propose an extension of our previous credibility model by integrating the detection of the topic in the tweet and calculating the topic credibility measure by considering hashtags. To do so, we evaluate and compare different topic detection algorithms, to finally integrate in our framework T-CREo, the one with better results. To evaluate the performance improvement of our extended credibility model and show the impact of hashtags, we performed experiments in the context of fake news detection using the PHEME dataset. Results demonstrate an improvement in our extended credibility model with respect to the original one, with up to 3.04% F1 score when applying our approach to the whole PHEME dataset and up to 9.60% F1 score when only considering tweets that contain hashtags from PHEME dataset, demonstrating the impact of hashtags in the topic detection process.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Misinformation and Its Impacts · Spam and Phishing Detection · Complex Network Analysis Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Departamento de Computación y Tecnología de la Información, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas 1080, Venezuela

Escuela de Ingeniería Informática, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2340000, Chile

Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, Universidad Católica San Pablo, Arequipa 04001, Peru

ESTIA Institute of Technology, University of Bordeaux, 64210 Bidart, France

Computer Science Department, Universidad Católica San Pablo, Arequipa 04001, Peru

Escuela Superior de Ingeniería, Ciencia y Tecnología, Universidad Internacional de Valencia, 46002 Valencia, Spain

Funding

FONDO NACIONAL DE DESARROLLO CIENTÍFICO, TECNOLÓGICO Y DE INNOVACIÓN TECNOLÓGICA—FONDECYT

References (69)

Show source-provided references
1. A Qualitative Study on the Reasons for Social Media Addiction10.12973/eu-jer.7.4.861 ↗
2. To Tweet or Not to Tweet, That Is the Question10.1016/j.semnephrol.2020.04.003 ↗
3. Yang, J., Yu, M., Qin, H., Lu, M., and Yang, C. (2019). A Twitter Data Credibility Framework—Hurricane Harvey as a Use Case. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf., 8.10.3390/ijgi8030111 ↗
4. Cooper, G.P., Yeager, V., Burkle, F.M., and Subbarao, I. (2022). Twitter as a Potential Disaster Risk Reduction Tool. Part III: Evaluating Variables that Promoted Regional Twitter Use for At-risk Populations During the 2013 Hattiesburg F4 Tornado. PLoS Curr., 7.
5. Use of Twitter across educational settings: A review of the literature10.1186/s41239-019-0166-x ↗
6. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., and Tseng, B. (2007, January 12–15). Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities. Proceedings of the WebKDD/SNA-KDD ’07: Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 Workshop on Web Mining and Social Network Analysis, WebKDD/SNA-KDD ’07, San Jose, CA, USA.10.1145/1348549.1348556 ↗
7. A survey of Twitter research: Data model, graph structure, sentiment analysis and attacks10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114006 ↗
8. Samuel, J., Garvey, M., and Kashyap, R. (2020). That Message Went Viral?! Exploratory Analytics and Sentiment Analysis into the Propagation of Tweets. arXiv.
9. Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age
10. Dongo, I., Cadinale, Y., Aguilera, A., Martínez, F., Quintero, Y., and Barrios, S. (December, January 30). Web Scraping versus Twitter API: A Comparison for a Credibility Analysis. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Information Integration and Web-Based Applications & Services, iiWAS ’20, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
11. A qualitative and quantitative comparison between Web scraping and API methods for Twitter credibility analysis10.1108/IJWIS-03-2021-0037 ↗
12. Hashemi, M. (2022, July 15). The Infrastructure Behind Twitter: Scale. Available online: https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/.
13. Markatos, E., Balzarotti, D., Almgren, M., Athanasopoulos, E., Bos, H., Cavallaro, L., Ioannidis, S., Lindorfer, M., Maggi, F., and Minchev, Z. (2013). The Red Book, Chalmers Research.
14. Mahir, E.M., Akhter, S., and Huq, M.R. (2019, January 28–30). Detecting Fake News using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Algorithms. Proceedings of the 2019 7th International Conference on Smart Computing & Communications (ICSCC), Sarawak, Malaysia.
15. Hassan, E.A., and Meziane, F. (2019, January 21–23). A Survey on Automatic Fake News Identification Techniques for Online and Socially Produced Data. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Computer, Control, Electrical, and Electronics Engineering (ICCCEEE), Khartoum, Sudan.10.1109/ICCCEEE46830.2019.9070857 ↗
16. Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective10.1145/3137597.3137600 ↗
17. Ma, J., Gao, W., and Wong, K.F. (2019, January 13–17). Detect Rumors on Twitter by Promoting Information Campaigns with Generative Adversarial Learning. Proceedings of the WWW ’19: The World Wide Web Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/3308558.3313741 ↗
18. Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G.L., Flammini, A., and Menczer, F. (2016, January 11–15). Hoaxy: A Platform for Tracking Online Misinformation. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web; International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee: Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, WWW ’16 Companion, Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1145/2872518.2890098 ↗
19. Read All About It: The Politicization of “Fake News” on Twitter
20. Murayama, T., Wakamiya, S., Aramaki, E., and Kobayashi, R. (2021). Modeling the spread of fake news on Twitter. PLoS ONE, 16.10.1371/journal.pone.0250419 ↗
21. Mehrotra, R., Sanner, S., Buntine, W., and Xie, L. (August, January 28). Improving LDA Topic Models for Microblogs via Tweet Pooling and Automatic Labeling. Proceedings of the 36th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Dublin, Ireland.
22. Dongo, I., Cardinale, Y., and Aguilera, A. (2019, January 20–22). Credibility Analysis for Available Information Sources on the Web: A Review and a Contribution. Proceedings of the 2019 4th International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS), Rome, Italy.10.1109/ICSRS48664.2019.8987623 ↗
23. An experimental system for measuring the credibility of news content in Twitter10.1108/17440081111141772 ↗
24. Gupta, A., Kumaraguru, P., Castillo, C., and Meier, P. (2014, January 11–13). Tweetcred: Real-time credibility assessment of content on twitter. Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Informatics, Barcelona, Spain.10.1007/978-3-319-13734-6_16 ↗
25. Liu, X., Nourbakhsh, A., Li, Q., Fang, R., and Shah, S. (2015, January 18–23). Real-time rumor debunking on twitter. Proceedings of the International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Melbourne, Australia.10.1145/2806416.2806651 ↗
26. AlRubaian, M., Al-Qurishi, M., Al-Rakhami, M., Hassan, M.M., and Alamri, A. (2016, January 18–21). CredFinder: A real-time tweets credibility assessing system. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1109/ASONAM.2016.7752431 ↗
27. Namihira, Y., Segawa, N., Ikegami, Y., Kawai, K., Kawabe, T., and Tsuruta, S. (2013, January 2–5). High Precision Credibility Analysis of Information on Twitter. Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems, Kyoto, Japan.10.1109/SITIS.2013.148 ↗
28. Hamdi, T., Slimi, H., Bounhas, I., and Slimani, Y. (2020, January 9–12). A Hybrid Approach for Fake News Detection in Twitter Based on User Features and Graph Embedding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing and Internet Technology, Bhubaneswar, India.10.1007/978-3-030-36987-3_17 ↗
29. Tan, S. (2017). Spot the Lie: Detecting Untruthful Online Opinion on Twitter. [Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College London].
30. Topic detection and sentiment analysis in Twitter content related to COVID-19 from Brazil and the USA10.1016/j.asoc.2020.107057 ↗
31. Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., and Poblete, B. (April, January 28). Information credibility on twitter. Proceedings of the International Conference on WWW, Hyderabad, India.
32. Automated Credibility Assessment on Twitter10.7494/csci.2015.16.2.157 ↗
33. Tools and approaches for topic detection from Twitter streams: Survey10.1007/s10115-017-1081-x ↗
34. A review of approaches for topic detection in Twitter10.1080/0952813X.2020.1785019 ↗
35. Improve topic modeling algorithms based on Twitter hashtags10.1088/1742-6596/1660/1/012100 ↗
36. Huang, J., Thornton, K., and Efthimiadis, E. (2020, January 13–16). Conversational Tagging in Twitter. Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (HT), Toronto, ON, Canada.
37. Godin, F., Slavkovikj, V., De Neve, W., Schrauwen, B., and Van de Walle, R. (2013, January 13–17). Using topic models for Twitter hashtag recommendation. Proceedings of the WWW ’13 Companion: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.10.1145/2487788.2488002 ↗
38. Hashtag Recommendation Based on Multi-Features of Microblogs10.1007/s11390-018-1851-2 ↗
39. Identifying topic relevant hashtags in Twitter streams10.1016/j.ins.2019.07.062 ↗
40. Ma, Z., Dou, W., Wang, X., and Akella, S. (2020, January 14–17). Tag-Latent Dirichlet Allocation: Understanding Hashtags and Their Relationships. Proceedings of the WI-IAT ’13: 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT)—Volume 01, Melbourne, Australia.10.1109/WI-IAT.2013.38 ↗
41. T-CREo: A Twitter Credibility Analysis Framework10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3060623 ↗
42. Verasakulvong, E., Vateekul, P., Piyatumrong, A., and Sangkeettrakarn, C. (2018, January 11–13). Online Emerging Topic Detection on Twitter Using Random Forest with Stock Indicator Features. Proceedings of the 2018 15th International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (JCSSE), Nakhonpathom, Thailand.10.1109/JCSSE.2018.8457349 ↗
43. Lee, K., Palsetia, D., Narayanan, R., Patwary, M.d.M.A., Agrawal, A., and Choudhary, A. (2011, January 11). Twitter Trending Topic Classification. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1109/ICDMW.2011.171 ↗
44. A Novel Hot Topic Detection Framework With Integration of Image and Short Text Information From Twitter10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2886366 ↗
45. Emerging topic detection in twitter stream based on high utility pattern mining10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.051 ↗
46. A Credibility Analysis System for Assessing Information on Twitter
47. Jain, A.K., and Dubes, R.C. (1988). Algorithms for Clustering Data, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
48. Modified sequential k-means clustering by utilizing response: A case study for fashion products10.1111/exsy.12226 ↗
49. An introduction to latent semantic analysis10.1080/01638539809545028 ↗
51. Hofmann, T. (1999, January 15–19). Probabilistic latent semantic indexing. Proceedings of the SIGIR ’99: 22nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Berkeley, CA, USA.10.1145/312624.312649 ↗
52. Singular value decomposition and least squares solutions10.1007/BF02163027 ↗
53. Nonnegative Matrix Factorization: A Comprehensive Review10.1109/TKDE.2012.51 ↗
54. Intelligent Intrusion Detection in Computer Networks using Swarm Intelligence
55. Latent dirichlet allocation
56. Gimpel, K. (2006). Modeling Topics, Technical Report; Carnegie Melon University.
57. Kalyanam, J., Quezada, M., Poblete, B., and Lanckriet, G. (2016). Prediction and Characterization of High-Activity Events in Social Media Triggered by Real-World News. PLoS ONE, 11.10.1371/journal.pone.0166694 ↗
58. Godbole, S., and Sarawagi, S. (2004). Discriminative Methods for Multi-labeled Classification. Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-24775-3_5 ↗
59. Xin, E.Z., Murthy, D., Lakuduva, N.S., and Stephens, K.K. (2019, January 19–21). Assessing the Stability of Tweet Corpora for Hurricane Events Over Time: A Mixed Methods Approach. Proceedings of the SMSociety ’19: 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society, Toronto, ON, Canada.10.1145/3328529.3328545 ↗
60. Class distribution estimation based on the Hellinger distance10.1016/j.ins.2012.05.028 ↗
61. Maiya, A.S., and Rolfe, R.M. (2014). Topic Similarity Networks: Visual Analytics for Large Document Sets. arXiv.10.1109/BigData.2014.7004253 ↗
62. Dingemans, S. (2020). Application of Short Text Topic Modelling Techniques to Greta Thunberg Discussion on Twitter. [Master’s Thesis, National College of Ireland].
63. Hawking, S. (1988). Hellinger Distance—Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS.
64. Brandmaier, A. (2011). Permutation Distribution Clustering and Structural Equation Model Trees, University of Saarland. Technical Report, Science and TechnologyFaculties.
65. Lupa, J.C. (2021). Análisis de Credibilidad en la Red Social Twitter a través de su Actividad Social. [Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Católica San Pablo].
66. Mandical, R.R., Mamatha, N., Shivakumar, N., Monica, R., and Krishna, A.N. (2020, January 2–4). Identification of Fake News Using Machine Learning. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication Technologies (CONECCT), Bangalore, India.10.1109/CONECCT50063.2020.9198610 ↗
67. Aphiwongsophon, S., and Chongstitvatana, P. (2018, January 18–21). Detecting Fake News with Machine Learning Method. Proceedings of the 2018 15th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON), Chiang Rai, Thailand.10.1109/ECTICon.2018.8620051 ↗
68. Ahmed, A.A.A., Aljabouh, A., Donepudi, P.K., and Choi, M.S. (2021). Detecting Fake News Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. arXiv.
69. Zubiaga, A., Zubiaga, A., Hoi, G.W.S., Liakata, M., and Procter, R. (2016). PHEME dataset of rumours and non-rumours. Figshare.