Research: A Study of “Churn” in Tweets and Real-Time Search Queries (Extended Version)
Applicability: “A Study of “Churn” in Tweets and Real-Time Search Queries (Extended Version)” offers unique insight into the temporal dynamics of term distribution which may hold implications the design of search systems. As the growing importance of real-time search brings with it several information retrieval challenges; this paper frames one such challenge, that of rapid changes to term distributions, particularly for queries.
Abstract: The real-time nature of Twitter means that term distributions in tweets and in search queries change rapidly: the most frequent terms in one hour may look very different from those in the next. Informally, we call this phenomenon “churn”. Our interest in analyzing churn stems from the perspective of real-time search. Nearly all ranking functions, machine-learned or otherwise, depend on term statistics such as term frequency, document frequency, as well as query frequencies. In the real-time context, how do we compute these statistics, considering that the underlying distributions change rapidly? In this paper, we present an analysis of tweet and query churn on Twitter, as a first step to answering this question. Analyses reveal interesting insights on the temporal dynamics of term distributions on Twitter and hold implications for the design of search systems.
Analysis: Summarized analysis from this paper includes observations on:
Authors: Prepared by Jimmy Lin and Gilad Misne of Twitter, Inc., “A Study of “Churn” in Tweets and Real-Time Search Queries (Extended Version)” is a prepared paper submitted and accepted by the 6th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2012).
This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 5th, 2012 at 2:39 pm. It is filed under chronology, discover and tagged with research, social media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are closed.
Since its 2007 introduction, kCura’s Relativity product has become one of the world’s leading attorney review platforms. One of the elements of Relativity’s strong growth and marketplace acceptance has been kCura’s focus on and support of partnerships. Provided as a by-product of review platform research and presented in the form of a simple and sortable table is an aggregation of kCura Premium Hosting Partners and Consulting Partners.
Taken from a combination of public market sizing estimations as shared in leading electronic discovery reports, publications and posts over time, the following eDiscovery Market Size Mashup shares general worldwide market sizing considerations for both the software and service areas of the electronic discovery market for the years between 2013 and 2018.
Provided as a non-comprehensive overview of key and publicly announced eDiscovery related mergers, acquisitions and investments to date in 2014, the following listing highlights key industry activities through the lens of announcement date, acquired company, acquiring or investing company and acquisition amount (if known).
By William Webber My previous post described in some detail the conditions of finite population annotation that apply to e-discovery. To summarize, what we care about (or at least should care about) is not maximizing classifier accuracy in itself, but minimizing the total cost of achieving a target level of recall. The predominant cost in […]
Given the increasing prevalence of technology assisted review in e-discovery, it seems hard to believe that it was just 19 months ago that TAR received its first judicial endorsement. That endorsement came, of course, from U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck in his landmark ruling in Moore v. Publicis Groupe , 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), adopted sub nom. Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA , No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC)(AJP), 2012 WL 1446534 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012), in which he stated, “This judicial opinion now recognizes that computer-assisted review is an acceptable way to search for relevant ESI in appropriate cases.”
By Greg Buckles Extract: So here are my Top Ten Reasons Why NOT [To Use] PC-TAR: Perception that PC-TAR costs front load the discovery cost for matters that WILL settle before trial. High resistance to analytic upcharges. Have to justify them on every matter, so go with path of least resistance. Complexity of systems and […]
ComplexDiscovery | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International