skip to main content
10.1145/1772690.1772777acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors

Published:26 April 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Twitter, a popular microblogging service, has received much attention recently. An important characteristic of Twitter is its real-time nature. For example, when an earthquake occurs, people make many Twitter posts (tweets) related to the earthquake, which enables detection of earthquake occurrence promptly, simply by observing the tweets. As described in this paper, we investigate the real-time interaction of events such as earthquakes in Twitter and propose an algorithm to monitor tweets and to detect a target event. To detect a target event, we devise a classifier of tweets based on features such as the keywords in a tweet, the number of words, and their context. Subsequently, we produce a probabilistic spatiotemporal model for the target event that can find the center and the trajectory of the event location. We consider each Twitter user as a sensor and apply Kalman filtering and particle filtering, which are widely used for location estimation in ubiquitous/pervasive computing. The particle filter works better than other comparable methods for estimating the centers of earthquakes and the trajectories of typhoons. As an application, we construct an earthquake reporting system in Japan. Because of the numerous earthquakes and the large number of Twitter users throughout the country, we can detect an earthquake with high probability (96% of earthquakes of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) seismic intensity scale 3 or more are detected) merely by monitoring tweets. Our system detects earthquakes promptly and sends e-mails to registered users. Notification is delivered much faster than the announcements that are broadcast by the JMA.

References

  1. S. Arulampalam, S. Maskell, N. Gordon, and T. Clapp. A tutorial on particle filters for on-line non-linear/non-gaussian bayesian tracking. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. L. Backstrom, J. Kleinberg, R. Kumar, and J. Novak. Spatial variation in search engine queries. In Proc. WWW2008, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. T. Bleier and F. Freund. Earthquake warning system. Spectrum, IEEE, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. K. Borau, C. Ullrich, J. Feng, and R. Shen. Microblogging for language learning: Using twitter to train communicative and cultural competence. In Proc. ICWL 2009, pages 78--87, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. d. boyd, S. Golder, and G. Lotan. Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter. In Proc. HICSS-43, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Ebner and M. Schiefner. In microblogging.more than fun? In Proc. IADIS Mobile Learning Conference, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Fox, J. Hightower, L. Liao, D. Schulz, and G. Borriello. Bayesian filters for location estimation. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. G. Grosseck and C. Holotescu. Analysis indicators for communities on microblogging platforms. In Proc. eLSE Conference, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Hightower and G. Borriello. Location systems for ubiquitous computing. IEEE Computer, 34(8):57--66, August 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. Hightower and G. Borriello. Particle filters for location estimation in ubiquitous computing: A case study. In Proc. UbiComp04, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. B. Huberman and D. R. F. Wu. Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. B. Jansen, M. Zhang, K. Sobel, and A. Chowdury. Twitter power:tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Java, X. Song, T. Finin, and B. Tseng. Why we twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proc. Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop 2007, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. T. Joachims. Text categorization with support vector machines. In Proc. ECML'98, pages 137--142, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Leskovec, L. Adamic, and B. Huberman. The dynamics of viral marketing. In Proc. ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Y. Matsuo and H. Yamamoto. Community gravity: measuring bidirectional effects by trust and rating on online social networks. In Proc. WWW2009, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Q. Mei, C. Liu, H. Su, and C. Zhai. A probabilistic approach to spatiotemporal theme pattern mining on weblogs. In Proc. WWW'06, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. Milstein, A. Chowdhury, G. Hochmuth, B. Lorica, and R. Magoulas. Twitter and the micro-messaging revolution: Communication,connections, and immediacy.140 characters at a time. O'Reilly Media, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. Naaman, J. Boase, and C. Lai. Is it really about me? Message content in social awareness streams. In Proc. CSCW'09, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. Passant, T. Hastrup, U. Bojars, and J. Breslin. Microblogging: A semantic and distributed approach. In Proc. SFSW2008, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Y. Raimond and S. Abdallah. The event ontology, 2007. http://motools.sf.net/event/event.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. T. Rattenbury, N. Good, and M. Naaman. Towards automatic extraction of event and place semantics from flickr tags. In Proc. SIGIR 2007, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. E. Scordilis, C. Papazachos, G. Karakaisis, and V. Karakostas. Accelerating sesmic crustal deformation before strong mainshocks in adriatic and its importance for earthquake prediction. Journal of Seismology, 8, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. P. Serdyukov, V. Murdock, and R. van Zwol. Placing flickr photos on a map. In Proc. SIGIR 2009, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Weiser. The computer for the twenty-first century. Scientific American, 268(3):94--104, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          WWW '10: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web
          April 2010
          1407 pages
          ISBN:9781605587998
          DOI:10.1145/1772690

          Copyright © 2010 International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2)

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 26 April 2010

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        ePub

        View this article in ePub.

        View ePub