The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 114 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Survey of Techniques for Event Detection in Twitter
Abstract
Twitter is among the fastest‐growing microblogging and online social networking services. Messages posted on Twitter (tweets) have been reporting everything from daily life stories to the latest local and global news and events. Monitoring and analyzing this rich and continuous user‐generated content can yield unprecedentedly valuable information, enabling users and organizations to acquire actionable knowledge. This article provides a survey of techniques for event detection from Twitter streams. These techniques aim at finding real‐world occurrences that unfold over space and time. In contrast to conventional media, event detection from Twitter streams poses new challenges. Twitter streams contain large amounts of meaningless messages and polluted content, which negatively affect the detection performance. In addition, traditional text mining techniques are not suitable, because of the short length of tweets, the large number of spelling and grammatical errors, and the frequent use of informal and mixed language. Event detection techniques presented in literature address these issues by adapting techniques from various fields to the uniqueness of Twitter. This article classifies these techniques according to the event type, detection task, and detection method and discusses commonly used features. Finally, it highlights the need for public benchmarks to evaluate the performance of different detection approaches and various features.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2003) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/944919.944937 · Cited by 32,337
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
Pan, S. J., & Yang, Q. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2009.191 · Cited by 23,387
Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship
boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x · Cited by 16,251
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19
(2007) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.52202/085713 · Cited by 15,539
Foundations of statistical natural language processing
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999) · Cited by 9,816
(2012) · Cited by 9,062
Algorithms for Clustering Data
Sarle, W. S. (1990) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1990.10484648 · Cited by 7,865
What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652
Cited by
Gatt, A., & Krahmer, E. (2018) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.5477 · Cited by 776
Location based services: ongoing evolution and research agenda
Huang, H., Gartner, G., Krisp, J. M., Raubal, M., & Van de Weghe, N. (2018) · Journal of Location Based Services · doi:10.1080/17489725.2018.1508763 · Cited by 316
Query expansion techniques for information retrieval: a survey
Azad, H. K., & Deepak, A. (2019) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2019.05.009 · Cited by 313
Academic Plagiarism Detection: A Systematic Literature Review
Foltýnek, T., Meuschke, N., & Gipp, B. (2020) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3345317 · Cited by 238
(2016) · Thammasat University Digital Collections · Cited by 153
Metadata
- Authors
- Atefeh, F., & Khreich, W.
- Venue
- Computational Intelligence
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-09-04
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 132-164
- ISSN
- 0824-7935 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8640
- OpenAlex
- W1890727290
- Cited by
- 717
- References
- 114
- FWCI
- 36.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Survey of Techniques for Event Detection in Twitter. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/coin.12017
- The paper
- Atefeh, F., & Khreich, W. (2015). A Survey of Techniques for Event Detection in Twitter. Computational Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1111/coin.12017
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.