User Profiling in Ego-network: Co-profiling Attributes and Relationships Rui Li, Chi Wang, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The Database and Info.

Download Report

Transcript User Profiling in Ego-network: Co-profiling Attributes and Relationships Rui Li, Chi Wang, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The Database and Info.

User Profiling in Ego-network:
Co-profiling
Attributes and Relationships
Rui Li, Chi Wang, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The Database and Info. Systems Lab.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
User Profiling, which infers users’ attributes,
is important for Personalized Services
User
Search Engines
Richard
Advertisers
Personalized Search
Targeted Advertisement
College: UIUC
Location: Champaign
and many others.
2
User Profiling is crucial for Social Analysis–
Ability to survey the world
Surveying people for behavior:
 How do college students like iPad vs. Galaxy?
 How do California age 50+ males like
ObamaCare?
Surveying behavior for people:
 What demographics of users like Samsung more
than Apple?
 What communities of people support ObamaCare?
3
Can we profile users’ missing attributes in
social network?
Employer: Yahoo!
College: Berkeley
Employer: Twitter
College: UIUC
Employer: Google
College: UIUC
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: ?
College:?
Employee: JP Morgan
College: UIUC
Employee: ?
College:?
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: Yahoo!
College: Stanford
Employer: Twitter
College: Berkeley
Some users provide attributes in their online profiles
Some users’ attributes are missing
4
Thus, we abstract our problem as profiling
users' attributes based on friends’ attributes
Input:
• a network G(V, E) ,
• some users’ attributes
Employer: Yahoo!
College: UIUC
Employer: Twitter
College: UIUC
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: JP Morgan
College: UIUC
Output:
• users’ attributes
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: Yahoo!
College: Berkeley
Employer: Yahoo!
College: Stanford
Employer: Twitter
College: Berkeley
5
While attributes may “propagate” across links—
Links are very noisy.
Existing methods simply assume that two connected users share
the same value for any attribute
Employer: Yahoo!
College: Berkeley
Employer: Twitter
College: UIUC
Employer: Google
College: UIUC
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: JP Morgan
College: UIUC
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: Yahoo!
College: Stanford
Employer: Twitter
College: Berkeley
However, users connect to friends with different values for an attribute
• About 11% friends share the employer and 18% friends share the college.
• Only 20% may have attributes.
6
Why noisy?
Every link is for a (different) relationship!
Users have different types of relationships in real life.
Colleagues
Bob
College
classmates
Richard and Bob share the same employer, but
may have different values for other attributes.
Richard and Cindy share the same college, but
may have different values for other attributes.
Cindy
Richard
Richard and Peter share the same interests, but
may have different values for other attributes.
Club friends
Peter
7
On the other hand, Relationship Profiling is
necessary by itself, and similarly challenged!

Link: Why does a link happen?
 Given a link, what friendship does it represent?

Circle: Who form what circles?
 Where are my circles?
 What does each circle represent?

Challenge: While links/circles depend on attributes to
detect and to explain, attributes are often unknown.
8
Proposal:
Co-profiling Attributes and Relationships



Attributes– properties of nodes
Relationships– properties of links
Together, understanding both nodes and links.
Missing
Employer: Yahoo!
Missing
colleagues
College: UIUC
classmates
Employer: Yahoo!
College: Berkeley
Employer:
Google College:
UIUC
Why together?
1. Necessity: Dependency on each other to decide.
2. Benefit: Useful to know both!
9
But how?
Observing how
attributes and relationships
relate.
10
Insight: Correlation between attributes and
connections through relationship
Discriminative Correlation Insight : Attributes and
connections are discriminatively correlated via a hidden factor
-- relationship
To concretize our insight, we explore two dependencies
based on a real-world user study.
•
Attribute-Relationship Dependency: How users’ attributes
are related to hidden relationship types?
•
Connection-Relationship Dependency: How connections
are related to hidden relationship types?
11
Observation #1: Attribute-Relationship Dependency


Friends do not share all attributes.
What attributes they share depend on relationship.
The percentages of friends sharing the same value with the ego for
different attributes overall of different relationship types.
12
Observation #2: Connection-Relationship Dependency


Friends do not connect to all friends.
What friends they connect to depend on relationship.
The average connections per user within and across three
different relationships types
13
Specifically, we focus on co-profiling upon
each user’s ego-network
Ego-network: a subnet that around an individual user.
Association Vector
w1 =<1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0>
w2 =<0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0>
Circle 2: friends likely to share college
f4 =<0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0 0.1>
x4=2
Circle1: friends likely to share employee
Employer:
Yahoo
College: UIUC
Employer: Twitter
College: UIUC
Employer: Google
College: UIUC
Employer: Yahoo!
College: Berkeley
Attribute Vector
f1 =<1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0.1>
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: ?
College:?
Employer: Yahoo!
College: Stanford
Circle Assignment
x1=1
f3 =<1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0.1>
x3=1
Employee: Twitter
College: Berkeley
Circle 3: friends likely to share other attribute
14
Solution Overview: we realize co-profiling in
an optimization framework
Observed
User Connections
Partially Observed
User Attributes
Unobserved
Friends’ circles
Cost Function: capture the dependences between the
variables based on the insight
Algorithm: finds the unknown variable that best
satisfy the dependences
15
Cost Function: we design a cost function to
model the dependencies between variables
Attribute-Relationship (circle)
Dependency
Connection-Relationship
Type (circle) Dependency
However, the function can not be optimized directly, as
there are both discrete and continuous variables
There are other formulas to model the dependencies.
16
Algorithm: we minimize the function via
updating each group of variables
Update User Attribute Vectors F
• Only propagate values from friends in the same circles
• Only propagate the attribute value associated with the circle
Update User Circle Assignments X
• Cosider both user’s attributes and connections
Update Circle Association Vectors W
• Make association vector sparse
17
Experiment: we first collect real-world egonetworks to evaluate our data set

We conduct user studies to collect users’ attributes and
relationship types (circles) from LinkedIn.
Ego Users
Users
Connections
175
19K
110K
•
•

Most users are have three attributes
8K connection are labeled
We share the data online

https://wiki.engr.illinois.edu/display/forward/Dataset-EgoNetUIUCLinkedinCrawl-Jan2014
18
Experiment: we evaluate our algorithm on
both attribute and relationship type profiling

Attribute Profiling




APw: a classic collective classification approach, which profiles a node’s
label using weighted votes from its neighbors.
APi: anther collective classification (semi-supervised learning) approach,
which iteratively profiles nodes’ labels with APw.
APc: a state-of-art method, which profiles users’ attributers based on
clustering network.
Relationship Type (circle) profiling



RPa: profiles friends’ circles based on their attributes.
RPn: profiles friends’ circles based on network structure
RPan: profiles friends’ circles based on network and attributes, but assumes
attributes known.
19
CP is not only capable of profiling AP and RP
and but also outperforms baselines for both
Accuracy for Employer
Accuracy for College
0.7
0.62
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.58
0.4
0.56
0.3
0.54
0.2
0.52
0.1
0.5
0
0.48
APw
profiling colleagues
APi
APc
CP
profiling college classmates
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
RPa
RPn
RPan
CP
RPa
RPn
RPan
CP
20
Summary: we made the following
contributions in this problem

We propose a co-profiling approach that jointly profiles
users’ attributes and relationship types (circles) in ego
networks.

We present the discriminative correlation insight to
capture the correlation between attributes and social
connections.

We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate our
algorithms on two tasks based on real-world ego
networks.
21
Thank You!
22