The widespread use of big social data has influenced the research community in several significant ways. In particular, the notion of social trust has attracted a great deal of attention from information processors and computer scientists as well as information consumers and formal organisations. This attention is embodied in the various shapes social trust has taken, such as its use in recommendation systems, viral marketing and expertise retrieval. Hence, it is essential to implement frameworks that are able to temporally measure a user’s credibility in all categories of big social data. To this end, this article suggests the CredSaT (Credibility incorporating Semantic analysis and Temporal factor), which is a fine-grained credibility analysis framework for use in big social data. A novel metric that includes both new and current features, as well as the temporal factor, is harnessed to establish the credibility ranking of users. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate the efficacy and applicability of our model in determining highly domain-based trustworthy users. Furthermore, CredSaT may also be used to identify spammers and other anomalous users.
Colombo-MendozaLOValencia-GarcíaRRodríguez-GonzálezAet al. Towards a knowledge-based probabilistic and context-aware social recommender system. J Inf Sci. Epub ahead of print 17 March 2017. DOI: 10.1177/0165551517698787.
2.
ChenHChiangRHStoreyVC.Business intelligence and analytics: from big data to big impact. MIS Quart2012; 36(4): 1165–1168.
3.
EmaniCKCullotNNicolleC.Understandable big data: a survey. Comput Sci Rev2015; 17: 70–81.
4.
HitzlerPJanowiczK.Linked data, big data, and the 4th paradigm. Semant Web2013; 4(3): 233–235.
5.
PoriaSCambriaEGelbukhA.Aspect extraction for opinion mining with a deep convolutional neural network. Knowl Based Syst2016; 108: 42–49.
6.
SatapathyRCambriaEHussainA.Sentiment analysis in the bio-medical domain: techniques, tools, and applications. Berlin: Springer, 2018.
7.
CambriaEPoriaSBajpaiRet al. SenticNet 4: a semantic resource for sentiment analysis based on conceptual primitives. In: Proceedings of the COLING, the 26th international conference on computational linguistics: technical papers, Osaka, Japan, 11–17 December 2016. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
8.
DemchenkoYGrossoPDe LaatCet al. Addressing big data issues in scientific data infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the international conference on collaboration technologies and systems (CTS), San Diego, CA, 20–24 May 2013. New York: IEEE.
9.
Abu-SalihBWongthongthamPZhuDet al. A preliminary approach to domain-based evaluation of users’ trustworthiness in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the international congress on big data, New York, 27 June–2 July 2015. New York: IEEE.
10.
NabipourshiriRAbu-SalihBWongthongthamP.Tree-based classification to users’ trustworthiness in OSNs. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on computer and automation engineering, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 24–26 February 2018, pp. 190–194. New York: ACM.
11.
LaiC-HLiuD-RLiuM-L.Recommendations based on personalized tendency for different aspects of influences in social media. J Inf Sci2015; 41(6): 814–829.
12.
LucassenTSchraagenJM.Propensity to trust and the influence of source and medium cues in credibility evaluation. J Inf Sci2012; 38(6): 566–577.
13.
PassantAKärgerPHausenblasMet al. Enabling trust and privacy on the social web. In: Proceedings of the W3C workshop on the future of social networking, Barcelona, 15–16 January 2009. Cambridge, MA: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
14.
MajumderNPoriaSGelbukhAet al. Deep learning-based document modeling for personality detection from text. IEEE Intell Syst App2017; 32(2): 74–79.
15.
WengJLimE-PJiangJet al. TwitterRank: finding topic-sensitive influential twitterers. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on web search and data mining, New York, 4–6 February 2010. New York: ACM.
16.
SilvaAGuimarãesSMeiraW Jret al. ProfileRank: finding relevant content and influential users based on information diffusion. In: Proceedings of the 7th workshop on social network mining and analysis, Chicago, IL, 11–14 August 2013. New York: ACM.
17.
YeniterziRCallanJ. Constructing effective and efficient topic-specific authority networks for expert finding in social media. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on social media retrieval and analysis, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, 11 July 2014. New York: ACM.
18.
KwakHLeeCParkHet al. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, NC, 26–30 April 2010. New York: ACM.
19.
TsolmonBLeeK-S.A graph-based reliable user classification. In: HerawanTDerisMAbawajyJ (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international conference on advanced data and information engineering (DaEng-2013): Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering (vol. 285). Berlin: Springer, 2014, pp. 61–68.
20.
AgarwalMZhouB. Detecting malicious activities using backward propagation of trustworthiness over heterogeneous social graph. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international joint conferences on web intelligence (WI) and intelligent agent technologies (IAT), Atlanta, GA, 17–20 November 2013. New York: IEEE.
21.
PodobnikVStrigaDJandrasAet al. How to calculate trust between social network users? In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on software, telecommunications and computer networks (SoftCOM), Split, 11–13 September 2012. New York: IEEE.
22.
SikdarSByungkyuKO’DonovanJet al. Understanding information credibility on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the international conference on social computing, Alexandria, VA, 8–14 September 2013. New York: IEEE.
23.
WuHArenasAGómezS.Influence of trust in the spreading of information. Phys Rev E2017; 95(1): 012301.
24.
NepalSParisCBouguettayaA.Trusting the social web: issues and challenges. World Wide Web2013; 18: 1–7.
25.
SherchanWNepalSParisC.A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Comput Surv2013; 45(4): 47.
26.
AghdamMHAnalouiMKabiriP.Modelling trust networks using resistive circuits for trust-aware recommender systems. J Inf Sci2017; 43(1): 135–144.
27.
Al-QurishiMRahmanSMMAlamriAet al. SybilTrap: a graph-based semi-supervised Sybil defense scheme for online social networks. Concurr Comp: Pract E2018; 30(5): e4276.
28.
OnanAKorukoğluS.A feature selection model based on genetic rank aggregation for text sentiment classification. J Inf Sci2017; 43(1): 25–38.
29.
LiXRaoYXieHet al. Bootstrapping social emotion classification with semantically rich hybrid neural networks. IEEE T Affect Comput2017; 8(4): 428–442.
30.
PoriaSPengHHussainAet al. Ensemble application of convolutional neural networks and multiple kernel learning for multimodal sentiment analysis. Neurocomputing2017; 261: 217–230.
31.
PoriaSCambriaEGelbukhAet al. Deep convolutional neural network textual features and multiple kernel learning for utterance-level multimodal sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Lisbon, 17–21 September 2015. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
32.
XiaRJiangJHeH.Distantly supervised lifelong learning for large-scale social media sentiment analysis. IEEE T Affect Comput2017; 8(4): 480–491.
33.
LiMLuQLongYet al. Inferring affective meanings of words from word embedding. IEEE T Affect Comput2017; 8(4): 443–456.
34.
KrawczykMRzepkaRArakiK.Extracting location and creator-related information from Wikipedia-based information-rich taxonomy for ConceptNet expansion. Knowl Based Syst2016; 108: 125–131.
35.
DragoniMPoriaSCambriaE.OntoSenticNet: a commonsense ontology for sentiment analysis. IEEE Intell Syst App2018; 33(2).
36.
CambriaEDasDBandyopadhyaySet al. A practical guide to sentiment analysis. Berlin: Springer, 2017.
37.
CambriaEPoriaSGelbukhAet al. Sentiment analysis is a big suitcase. IEEE Intell Syst App2017; 32(6): 74–80.
38.
BorattoLCartaSFenuGet al. Using neural word embeddings to model user behavior and detect user segments. Know Based Syst2016; 108: 5–14.
AlahmadiDHZengX-J.ISTS: implicit social trust and sentiment based approach to recommender systems. Expert Syst Appl2015; 42(22): 8840–8849.
41.
AlRubaianMAl-QurishiMAl-RakhamiMet al. A multistage credibility analysis model for microblogs. In: Proceedings of the international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, Paris, 25–28 August 2015. New York: ACM.
42.
ZhangBSongQDingJet al. A trust-based sentiment delivering calculation method in microblog. Int J Serv Tech Manag2015; 21(4–6): 185–198.
43.
BaeYLeeH.Sentiment analysis of twitter audiences: measuring the positive or negative influence of popular twitterers. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2012; 63(12): 2521–2535.
44.
KawabeTNamihiraYSuzukiKet al. Tweet credibility analysis evaluation by improving sentiment dictionary. In: Proceedings of the congress on evolutionary computation, Sendai, Japan, 25–28 May 2015. New York: IEEE.
45.
MomeniECardieCDiakopoulosN.A survey on assessment and ranking methodologies for user-generated content on the web. ACM Comput Surv2016; 48(3): 41.
46.
AmalanathanAAnounciaSM.A review on user influence ranking factors in social networks. Int J Web Based Commun2016; 12(1): 74–83.
47.
RuanYDurresiA.A survey of trust management systems for online social communities: trust modeling, trust inference and attacks. Knowl Based Syst2016; 106: 150–163.
WongthonthamPAbu-SalihB.Ontology-based approach for semantic data extraction from social big data: state-of-the-art and research directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:180101624. 2018, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1801/1801.01624.pdf
50.
WongthongthamPChanKYPotdarVet al. State-of-the-art ontology annotation for personalised teaching and learning and prospects for smart learning recommender based on multiple intelligence and fuzzy ontology. Int J Fuzzy Syst2018; 20(4): 1357–1372.
51.
ChandrasekaranBJosephsonJRBenjaminsVR.What are ontologies, and why do we need them?IEEE Intell Syst App1999; 14(1): 20–26.
52.
EmbarVRBhattacharyaIPanditVet al. Online topic-based social influence analysis for the Wimbledon championships. In: Proceedings of the 21st SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Sydney, NSW, 10–13 August 2015. New York: ACM.
53.
ZhuZSuJKongL.Measuring influence in online social network based on the user-content bipartite graph. Comput Hum Behav2015; 52: 184–189.
54.
ZhaoLHuaTLuC-Tet al. A topic-focused trust model for Twitter. Comput Comm2016; 76: 1–11.
55.
LyuSLiuJTangMet al. Efficiently predicting trustworthiness of mobile services based on trust propagation in social networks. Mobile Netw Appl2015; 20(6): 840–852.
56.
SongSLiQZhengX. Detecting popular topics in micro-blogging based on a user interest-based model. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 10–12 June 2012. New York: IEEE.
57.
AbbasiM-ALiuH.Measuring user credibility in social media. In: GreenbergAKennedyWBosN (eds) Social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction. Lecture notes in computer science (vol. 7812). Berlin: Springer, 2013, pp. 441–448.
58.
ZhaiYLiXChenJet al. A novel topical authority-based microblog ranking. In: ChenLJiaYSellisT (eds) Web technologies and applications. Berlin: Springer, 2014, pp. 105–116.
59.
LiuDWangLZhengJet al. Influence analysis based expert finding model and its applications in enterprise social network. In: Proceedings of the international conference on services computing, Santa Clara, CA, 28 June–3 July 2013. New York: IEEE.
60.
KuangLTangXYuMet al. A comprehensive ranking model for tweets big data in online social network. EURASIP J Wirel Comm2016; 2016(1): 46.
BrownPFengJ. Measuring user influence on twitter using modified k-shell decomposition. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on weblogs and social media, Barcelona, 21 July 2011. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.
63.
ZhangYZhouJChengJ.Preference-based mining of top-K influential nodes in social networks. Future Gener Comp Sy2014; 31: 40–47.
64.
PalAHerdagdelenAChatterjiSet al. Discovery of topical authorities in Instagram. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on World Wide Web, Montreal, QC, Canada, 11–15 April 2016. New York: ACM.
65.
MichelsonMMacskassySA. Discovering users’ topics of interest on Twitter: a first look. In: Proceedings of the 4th workshop on analytics for noisy unstructured text data, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 October 2010. New York: ACM.
66.
DragoniMPetrucciG.A neural word embeddings approach for multi-domain sentiment analysis. IEEE T Affect Comput2017; 8(4): 457–470.
67.
YangDHuangCWangM.A social recommender system by combining social network and sentiment similarity: a case study of healthcare. J Inf Sci2017; 43(5): 635–648.
68.
BohlouliMDalterJDornhöferMet al. Knowledge discovery from social media using big data-provided sentiment analysis (SoMABiT). J Inf Sci2015; 41(6): 779–798.
YinHCuiBChenLet al. Dynamic user modeling in social media systems. ACM T Inform Syst2015; 33(3): 10.
71.
YardiSRomeroDSchoenebeckGet al. Detecting spam in a Twitter network. Bridgman, MI: First Monday, 2009.
72.
MoorthyJLahiriRBiswasNet al. Big data: prospects and challenges. Vikalpa: J Decis Mak2015; 40(1): 74–96.
73.
KaggalVCElayavilliRKMehrabiSet al. Toward a learning health-care system: knowledge delivery at the point of care empowered by big data and NLP. Biomed Inform Insights2016; 8(Suppl. 1): 13–22.
74.
LeeC-HChienT-F.Leveraging microblogging big data with a modified density-based clustering approach for event awareness and topic ranking. J Inf Sci2013; 39(4): 523–543.
75.
HuHWenYChuaT-Set al. Toward scalable systems for big data analytics: a technology tutorial. IEEE Access2014; 2: 652–687.
GentnerDStevensAL.Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.
78.
WangAH.Don’t follow me: spam detection in Twitter. In: Proceedings of the international conference on security and cryptography (SECRYPT), Athens, 26–28 July 2010. New York: IEEE.
79.
ChangEDillonTHussainFK.Trust and reputation for service-oriented environments: technologies for building business intelligence and consumer confidence. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
80.
MakiceK.Twitter API: up and running: learn how to build applications with the Twitter API. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2009.
81.
AkcoraCGCarminatiBFerrariEet al. Detecting anomalies in social network data consumption. Social Network Analysis and Mining2014; 4(1): 231.
82.
SaravanakumarMSuganthaLakshmiT.Social media marketing. Life Sci J2012; 9(4): 4444–4451.
