Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2505515.2505586acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Estimating the relative utility of networks for predicting user activities

Published: 27 October 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Link structure in online networks carries varying semantics. For example, Facebook links carry social semantics while LinkedIn links carry professional semantics. It has been shown that online networks are useful for predicting users' future activities. In this paper, we introduce a new related problem: given a collection of networks, how can we determine the relative importance of each network for predicting user activities? We propose a framework that allows us to quantify the relative predictive value of each network in a setting where multiple networks are available. We give an ɛ-net algorithm to solve the problem and prove that it finds a solution that is arbitrarily close to the optimal solution. Experimentally, we focus our study on the prediction of ad clicks, where it is already known that a single social network improves prediction. The networks we study are implicit affiliations networks, which are based on users' browsing history rather than declared relationships between the users. We create two networks based on covisitation to pages in the Facebook domain and Wikipedia domain. The learned relative weighting of these networks demonstrates covisitation networks are indeed useful for prediction, but that no single network is predictive of all kinds of ads. Rather, each category of ads calls for a significantly different weighting of these networks.

References

[1]
L. A. Adamic and N. Glance. The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog. In LinkKDD, pages 36--43, 2005.
[2]
T. Anastasakos, D. Hillard, S. Kshetramade, and H. Raghavan. A collaborative filtering approach to ad recommendation using the query-ad click graph. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management, CIKM '09, pages 1927--1930, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.
[3]
S. Aral, L. Muchnik, and A. Sundararajan. Distinguishing inuence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. PNAS, 106(51):21544--21549, 2009.
[4]
E. Bakshy, D. Eckles, R. Yan, and I. Rosenn. Social inuence in social advertising: Evidence from field experiments. CoRR, abs/1206.4327, 2012.
[5]
P. Bennett, K. Svore, and S. Dumais. Classification-enhanced ranking. In WWW `10, pages 111--120, 2010.
[6]
D. Crandall, D. Cosley, D. Huttenlocher, J. Kleinberg, and S. Suri. Feedback effects between similarity and social inuence in online communities. In KDD, pages 160--168, 2008.
[7]
D. J. Crandall, L. Backstrom, D. Cosley, S. Suri, D. Huttenlocher, and J. Kleinberg. Inferring social ties from geographic coincidences. PNAS, (52):22436--22441, 2010.
[8]
N. Eagle, A. Pentland, and D. Lazer. Inferring Social Network Structure using Mobile Phone Data. PNAS, 2007.
[9]
D. Goldberg, D. Nichols, B. M. Oki, and D. Terry. Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry. Commun. ACM, 35(12):61--70, Dec. 1992.
[10]
S. Hill, F. Provost, and C. Volinsky. Network-Based Marketing: Identifying Likely Adopters via Consumer Networks. Statistical Science, 21(2):256--276, May 2006.
[11]
D. B. Kandel. Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. 84(2):427--436, Sept. 1978.
[12]
G. Kossinets and D. Watts. Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. 115(2):405--50, Sept. 2009.
[13]
G. Kossinets and D. J. Watts. Empirical Analysis of an Evolving Social Network. Science, 311(5757):88--90, Jan. 2006.
[14]
S. Lattanzi and D. Sivakumar. Affiliation networks. In Proceedings of the 41st annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, STOC '09, pages 427--434, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.
[15]
P. Lazarsfeld and R. K. Merton. Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, and C. H. Page, editors, Freedom and Control in Modern Society, pages 18--66. 1954.
[16]
G. Linden, B. Smith, and J. York. Amazon.com recommendations: Item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Computing, 7(1):76--80, Jan. 2003.
[17]
K. Liu and L. Tang. Large-scale behavioral targeting with a social twist. In CIKM, pages 1815--1824, 2011.
[18]
H. Ma, I. King, and M. R. Lyu. Learning to recommend with explicit and implicit social relations.
[19]
H. Ma, D. Zhou, C. Liu, M. R. Lyu, and I. King. Recommender systems with social regularization. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining.
[20]
M. McPherson, L. S. Lovin, and J. M. Cook. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1):415--444, 2001.
[21]
J. Moody. Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in america. 107(3):679--716, Nov. 2001.
[22]
R. Panigrahy, M. Najork, and Y. Xie. How user behavior is related to social afinity. In WSDM, pages 713--722, 2012.
[23]
P. Papadimitriou, P. Krishnamurthy, R. Lewis, D. Reiley, and H. Garcia-Molina. Display advertising impact: Search lift and social inuence. In KDD, 2011.
[24]
F. Provost, B. Dalessandro, R. Hook, X. Zhang, and A. Murray. Audience selection for on-line brand advertising: privacy-friendly social network targeting. In KDD, pages 707--716, 2009.
[25]
P. Resnick and H. R. Varian. Recommender systems. Commun. ACM, 40(3):56--58, Mar. 1997.
[26]
D. M. Romero, C. Tan, and J. Ugander. On the interplay between social and topical structure. In ICWSM, 2013.
[27]
B. Sarwar, G. Karypis, J. Konstan, and J. Riedl. Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW '01, pages 285--295, New York, NY, USA, 2001. ACM.
[28]
P. Singla and M. Richardson. Yes, there is a correlation - from social networks to personal behavior on the web. In WWW, pages 655--664, 2008.

Cited By

View all
  • (2020)Federating Smart Cluster Energy Grids for Peer-to-Peer Energy Sharing and TradingIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2020.29987478(102419-102435)Online publication date: 2020
  • (2017)Social Monitoring for Public HealthSynthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services10.2200/S00791ED1V01Y201707ICR0609:5(1-183)Online publication date: 31-Aug-2017
  • (2017)Modelling and Implementing Social Community CloudsIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2015.247025810:3(410-422)Online publication date: 1-May-2017

Index Terms

  1. Estimating the relative utility of networks for predicting user activities

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CIKM '13: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management
    October 2013
    2612 pages
    ISBN:9781450322638
    DOI:10.1145/2505515
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 27 October 2013

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. advertising
    2. affiliation networks
    3. covisitation networks
    4. predictive modeling

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CIKM'13
    Sponsor:
    CIKM'13: 22nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
    October 27 - November 1, 2013
    California, San Francisco, USA

    Acceptance Rates

    CIKM '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 143 of 848 submissions, 17%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,861 of 8,427 submissions, 22%

    Upcoming Conference

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 30 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2020)Federating Smart Cluster Energy Grids for Peer-to-Peer Energy Sharing and TradingIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2020.29987478(102419-102435)Online publication date: 2020
    • (2017)Social Monitoring for Public HealthSynthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services10.2200/S00791ED1V01Y201707ICR0609:5(1-183)Online publication date: 31-Aug-2017
    • (2017)Modelling and Implementing Social Community CloudsIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2015.247025810:3(410-422)Online publication date: 1-May-2017

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media