Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Do We Trust What They Say or What They Do? A Multimodal User Embedding Provides Personalized Explanations

Published 4 Sep 2024 in cs.SI, cs.IR, and cs.LG | (2409.02965v1)

Abstract: With the rapid development of social media, the importance of analyzing social network user data has also been put on the agenda. User representation learning in social media is a critical area of research, based on which we can conduct personalized content delivery, or detect malicious actors. Being more complicated than many other types of data, social network user data has inherent multimodal nature. Various multimodal approaches have been proposed to harness both text (i.e. post content) and relation (i.e. inter-user interaction) information to learn user embeddings of higher quality. The advent of Graph Neural Network models enables more end-to-end integration of user text embeddings and user interaction graphs in social networks. However, most of those approaches do not adequately elucidate which aspects of the data - text or graph structure information - are more helpful for predicting each specific user under a particular task, putting some burden on personalized downstream analysis and untrustworthy information filtering. We propose a simple yet effective framework called Contribution-Aware Multimodal User Embedding (CAMUE) for social networks. We have demonstrated with empirical evidence, that our approach can provide personalized explainable predictions, automatically mitigating the impact of unreliable information. We also conducted case studies to show how reasonable our results are. We observe that for most users, graph structure information is more trustworthy than text information, but there are some reasonable cases where text helps more. Our work paves the way for more explainable, reliable, and effective social media user embedding which allows for better personalized content delivery.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (55)
  1. Connecting social media to e-commerce: Cold-start product recommendation using microblogging information, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 28 (2016) 1147–1159. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2015.2508816.
  2. Graph neural networks for social recommendation, in: The World Wide Web Conference, WWW ’19, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019, pp. 417–426. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313488. doi:10.1145/3308558.3313488.
  3. Beyond binary labels: Political ideology prediction of Twitter users, in: Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada, 2017, pp. 729–740. URL: https://aclanthology.org/P17-1068. doi:10.18653/v1/P17-1068.
  4. T. Islam, D. Goldwasser, Twitter user representation using weakly supervised graph embedding, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 16 (2022) 358–369. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/19298. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19298.
  5. Retweet-bert: Political leaning detection using language features and information diffusion on social networks, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 17 (2023) 459–469. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/22160. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22160.
  6. Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 11 (2017) 280–289. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14871. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14871.
  7. S. Kudugunta, E. Ferrara, Deep neural networks for bot detection, Information Sciences 467 (2018) 312–322. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025518306248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.08.019.
  8. L. H. X. Ng, K. M. Carley, Botbuster: Multi-platform bot detection using a mixture of experts, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 17 (2023) 686–697. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/22179. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22179.
  9. Heterogeneous graph network embedding for sentiment analysis on social media, Cognitive Computation 13 (2021) 81–95.
  10. Social bots detection via fusing bert and graph convolutional networks, Symmetry 14 (2021) 30.
  11. Socialgcn: An efficient graph convolutional network based model for social recommendation, CoRR abs/1811.02815 (2018). URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02815. arXiv:1811.02815.
  12. Network embedding by fusing multimodal contents and links, Knowledge-Based Systems 171 (2019) 44–55.
  13. T. N. Kipf, M. Welling, Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=SJU4ayYgl.
  14. Inductive representation learning on large graphs, Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).
  15. Graph attention networks, stat 1050 (2017) 10–48550.
  16. Glove: Global vectors for word representation, in: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), 2014, pp. 1532–1543.
  17. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, in: J. Burstein, C. Doran, T. Solorio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2019, pp. 4171–4186. URL: https://aclanthology.org/N19-1423. doi:10.18653/v1/N19-1423.
  18. Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications, AI open 1 (2020) 57–81.
  19. Vocal minority versus silent majority: Discovering the opionions of the long tail, in: 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing, 2011, pp. 103–110. doi:10.1109/PASSAT/SocialCom.2011.188.
  20. G. Blank, The digital divide among twitter users and its implications for social research, Social Science Computer Review 35 (2017) 679–697.
  21. Timme: Twitter ideology-detection via multi-task multi-relational embedding, in: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD ’20, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2020, pp. 2258–2268. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3394486.3403275. doi:10.1145/3394486.3403275.
  22. Twibot-20: A comprehensive twitter bot detection benchmark, Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (2021).
  23. Characterizing and detecting hateful users on twitter, in: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 12, 2018.
  24. Anrl: attributed network representation learning via deep neural networks., in: Ijcai, volume 18, 2018, pp. 3155–3161.
  25. Attributed social network embedding, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 30 (2018) 2257–2270. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2018.2819980.
  26. User-guided hierarchical attention network for multi-modal social image popularity prediction, in: Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference, 2018, pp. 1277–1286.
  27. A two-stage embedding model for recommendation with multimodal auxiliary information, Information Sciences 582 (2022) 22–37.
  28. S. Pan, T. Ding, Social media-based user embedding: A literature review, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19, International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2019, pp. 6318–6324. URL: https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2019/881. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2019/881.
  29. Twitter user geolocation using deep multiview learning, CoRR abs/1805.04612 (2018). URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04612. arXiv:1805.04612.
  30. Volunteerism tendency prediction via harvesting multiple social networks, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 34 (2016). URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2832907. doi:10.1145/2832907.
  31. Learning multiview embeddings of twitter users, in: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), 2016, pp. 14–19.
  32. Graph convolutional networks for text classification, in: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, 2019, pp. 7370–7377.
  33. User preference-aware fake news detection, CoRR abs/2104.12259 (2021). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12259. arXiv:2104.12259.
  34. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks, in: The semantic web: 15th international conference, ESWC 2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3–7, 2018, proceedings 15, Springer, 2018, pp. 593–607.
  35. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality, in: C. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, K. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 26, Curran Associates, Inc., 2013. URL: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2013/file/9aa42b31882ec039965f3c4923ce901b-Paper.pdf.
  36. Deep contextualized word representations, in: M. Walker, H. Ji, A. Stent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), Association for Computational Linguistics, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2018, pp. 2227–2237. URL: https://aclanthology.org/N18-1202. doi:10.18653/v1/N18-1202.
  37. Attention is all you need, Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).
  38. Language models are few-shot learners, in: H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, H. Lin (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, Curran Associates, Inc., 2020, pp. 1877–1901. URL: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf.
  39. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback, in: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’22, Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 2024.
  40. A review on explainability in multimodal deep neural nets, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 59800–59821. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3070212.
  41. Point and ask: Incorporating pointing into visual question answering, CoRR abs/2011.13681 (2020). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.13681. arXiv:2011.13681.
  42. Interpreting visual question answering models, CoRR abs/1608.08974 (2016). URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08974. arXiv:1608.08974.
  43. Generation of multimodal justification using visual word constraint model for explainable computer-aided diagnosis, in: K. Suzuki, M. Reyes, T. Syeda-Mahmood, E. Konukoglu, B. Glocker, R. Wiest, Y. Gur, H. Greenspan, A. Madabhushi (Eds.), Interpretability of Machine Intelligence in Medical Image Computing and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019, pp. 21–29.
  44. Algorithmic recourse: from counterfactual explanations to interventions, in: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’21, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2021, p. 353–362. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445899. doi:10.1145/3442188.3445899.
  45. Generating counterfactual explanations with natural language, CoRR abs/1806.09809 (2018). URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.09809. arXiv:1806.09809.
  46. The impact of explanations on ai competency prediction in vqa, in: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Humanized Computing and Communication with Artificial Intelligence (HCCAI), IEEE, 2020, pp. 25–32.
  47. Semantics of the black-box: Can knowledge graphs help make deep learning systems more interpretable and explainable?, IEEE Internet Computing 25 (2021) 51–59. doi:10.1109/MIC.2020.3031769.
  48. Time and space complexity of graph convolutional networks, Accessed on: Dec 31 (2021).
  49. Tensor2tensor for neural machine translation, in: Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (Volume 1: Research Track), 2018, pp. 193–199.
  50. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, 2018. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805.
  51. The flan collection: Designing data and methods for effective instruction tuning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13688 (2023).
  52. Detecting social bots on twitter: a literature review, in: 2018 International conference on innovations in information technology (IIT), IEEE, 2018, pp. 175–180.
  53. Rtbust: Exploiting temporal patterns for botnet detection on twitter, in: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science, WebSci ’19, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019, p. 183–192. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3292522.3326015. doi:10.1145/3292522.3326015.
  54. Detecting political biases of named entities and hashtags on twitter, EPJ Data Science 12 (2023) 20.
  55. K. Brown, A. Mondon, Populism, the media, and the mainstreaming of the far right: The guardian coverage of populism as a case study, Politics 41 (2021) 279–295. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395720955036. doi:10.1177/0263395720955036. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395720955036.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.