How does the data sampling strategy impact the discovery of information diffusion in social media?
Open accessAbstract
Platforms such as Twitter have provided researchers with ample opportunities to analytically study social phenomena. There are however, significant computational challenges due to the enormous rate of production of new information: researchers are therefore, often forced to analyze a judiciously selected “sample” of the data. Like other social media phenomena, information diffusion is a social process–it is affected by user context, and topic, in addition to the graph topology. This paper studies the impact of different attribute and topology based sampling strategies on the discovery of an important social media phenomena–information diffusion.We examine several widely-adopted sampling methods that select nodes based on attribute (random, location, and activity) and topology (forest fire) as well as study the impact of attribute based seed selection on topology based sampling. Then we develop a series of metrics for evaluating the quality of the sample, based on user activity (e.g. volume, number of seeds), topological (e.g. reach, spread) and temporal characteristics (e.g. rate). We additionally correlate the diffusion volume metric with two external variables–search and news trends. Our experiments reveal that for small sample sizes (30%), a sample that incorporates both topology and user context (e.g. location, activity) can improve on naive methods by a significant margin of ~15-20%.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In social datasets, linking biases can be exacerbated by how data is collected and sampled, and by how links are defined, impacting observed properties of network-based user attributes such as centrality.
“In social datasets, linking biases can be further exacerbated by how data is collected and sampled, and by how links are defined, impacting the observed properties of a variety of network-based user attributes, such as their centrality within a social network”
From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Choudhury et al., 2010
Cites
Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations
Leskovec, J., Kleinberg, J., & Faloutsos, C. (2005) · Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining · doi:10.1145/1081870.1081893 · Cited by 2,281 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cui, P., Wang, X., Pei, J., & Zhu, W. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2018.2849727 · Cited by 1,274 · see citing works
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kıcıman, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 · Cited by 763 · see citing works
“In social datasets, linking biases can be further exacerbated by how data is collected and sampled, and by how links are defined, impacting the observed properties of a variety of networkbased user attributes, such as their centrality within a social network (Choudhury et al., 2010; González-Bailón et al., 2014b) (see…”
BackgroundEvolution of cooperation with asymmetric social interactions
Su, Q., Allen, B., & Plotkin, J. B. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2113468118 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
When is it biased?: assessing the representativeness of twitter's streaming API
Morstatter, F., Pfeffer, J., & Liu, H. (2014) · Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2567948.2576952 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kiciman, E. (2016) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2886526 · Cited by 763 · see citing works
Liang, H., & Fu, K.-W. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134270 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Preferential Attachment in Online Networks: Measurement and Explanations
Kunegis, J., Blattner, M., & Moser, C. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1303.6271 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- De Choudhury, M., Lin, Y.-R., Sundaram, H., Candan, K. S., Xie, L., & Kelliher, A.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- IBM (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
- Published
- 2010-05-16
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 34-41
- ISSN
- 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
- 2334-0770
- OpenAlex
- W49973572
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 11.09
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (publishedVersion)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
- Keywords
- information dissemination, social media, Twitter, sampling strategy, node sampling, user activity, user location, search trends, news trends, graph topology
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