Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 120 references

Social Influence and Radicalization: A Social Data Analytics Study

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a two-stage social data pipeline, iRadical, can rank influential users and score their tweets for radicalization risk, reporting an average radicalization rate of 8.097% on ISIS-supporting Twitter users.

desk verdict Reasonable IM variant, but the radicalization score is fitted in-sample; the headline 8.097% rate is not evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1910.01212 v1 pith:Q2DXNSVJ submitted 2019-09-04 cs.CY cs.LG

Vahid Moraveji Hashemi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.LG
keywords influencemaximizationparticleswarmoptimizationradicalizationsocialnetworkanalysisdataanalyticscontextTwittercommunitydetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that the risk of online radicalization can be explored with a social data analytics pipeline, called iRadical, rather than by manual review alone. The pipeline combines influence maximization with context analytics: it first finds a small set of influential users in a social network, then scores those users' tweets against expert-defined radicalization criteria. On a large Twitter network, the paper reports that its PSO-based influence maximization algorithm spreads influence further than a memetic baseline; on a small dolphin social network the two are comparable. Applying the context scoring to 17,000 tweets from ISIS proponents yields an average radicalization rate of 8.097%. A sympathetic reader would take the contribution to be an extensible architecture that makes both the influence dimension and the personality dimension of radicalization first-class citizens.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage iRadical pipeline. Stage one builds a Social Personality Graph, clusters it with the BGLL community-detection algorithm, prunes candidates with a resemblance-based high-degree (RHD) heuristic, and runs a particle swarm optimizer (PSO-IM) whose fitness function (Eq. 3.4) estimates 2-hop influence spread under the Independent Cascade model; a local-search step refines the seed set. Stage two, Context Analytics, reads lists of words assembled into knowledge bases for each of thirteen expert-defined radicalization criteria and computes each seed user's rate as the fraction of knowledge-base words appearing in the user's tweets; the paper's Eq. (3.12) averages seven selected criteria into one radicalization rate.

What would settle it

Have expert coders label a random sample of the 17,000 ISIS-proponent tweets as radicalizing or not, run iRadical's Context Analytics on the same users, and check whether the keyword-based radicalization score separates those users from a matched control group of ordinary Twitter users; if the scores do not separate the groups, the 8.097% average and the claimed ability to rank users by radicalization risk collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that radicalization potential on social media can be assessed by the iRadical pipeline, which treats radicalization as having two measurable dimensions: influence and personality. The influence dimension is handled by PSO-IM, a particle swarm optimization algorithm that selects k seed nodes by maximizing a 2-hop influence spread fitness function, after BGLL community detection and a resemblance-based high-degree heuristic reduce the candidate pool. The personality dimension is handled by Context Analytics, which counts how many words from thirteen expert-derived knowledge bases (introversion, discrimination, disappointment, and others) appear in a seed user's tweets and averages seven of those criteria, via Eq. (3.12), into a single radicalization rate. The paper reports that PSO-IM outperforms Memetic on a large Twitter dataset while performing comparably on the small Dolphin dataset, and that the average radicalization rate among ISIS-supporting users in the labeled Twitter dataset is 8.097%.

Load-bearing premise

The whole radicalization score rests on the assumption that counting how often words from hand-built lists appear in someone's tweets accurately measures psychological states like introversion, discrimination, or hostility to the West, and that the seven chosen criteria capture a user's radicalization risk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If PSO-IM's advantage over Memetic holds up on larger networks, the algorithm offers a practical seed-selection method for influence-maximization tasks at social-media scale.
  • If keyword-count scores for the seven radicalization criteria measure what they claim, the Context Analytics stage can turn raw tweets into per-user radicalization risk scores without human annotation.
  • The reported 8.097% average radicalization rate for ISIS-supporting users implies that most tweets from such users do not match the selected criteria words, which could inform how monitoring thresholds are set.
  • The publicly available iRadical implementation lets other researchers reproduce the pipeline's outputs on the same datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The validity of the 8.097% number depends entirely on whether word-count proxies for introversion, discrimination, and the other criteria really track the psychological constructs named by experts; a reader should not treat the number as a measured prevalence of radicalized individuals.
  • Because the composite in Eq. (3.12) is a plain average of seven criterion scores and the negative-thoughts-about-Western-society criterion (C5) contributes the largest values in Table 4.4, the composite is likely dominated by anti-Western sentiment; reweighting or dropping C5 would probably change the headline number substantially.
  • The pipeline's modularity suggests a testable extension: replace the keyword-count scorers with a supervised classifier trained on labeled radicalized and non-radicalized users, then compare the resulting rankings with iRadical's.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents iRadical, a social data analytics pipeline that combines influence maximization with context analytics to identify influential users at risk of online radicalization. The proposed system constructs a Social Personality Graph, clusters users with the BGLL algorithm, selects seed nodes with a PSO-based algorithm (PSO-IM) using a 2-hop influence fitness function, and then scores those users with a Context Analytics module that counts keyword matches against thirteen expert-defined radicalization criteria. Experiments compare PSO-IM with a Memetic algorithm on the Dolphin and Twitter networks and report context-analytics scores on a large Australian Twitter corpus and on a 17,000-tweet Kaggle corpus of ISIS proponents, including a headline average radicalization rate of 8.097%.

Significance. The publication of the GitHub repository, the comparison against Memetic, and the systematic survey of the influence-maximization literature are useful starting points. If the radicalization metric were validated, the pipeline could become a practical tool for exploratory social-media analysis. However, as submitted, the central claim is not established: the criteria used in the headline rate are selected from the same data that produce the rate, the keyword-overlap measure is never validated against ground truth, and the component that connects influence maximization to radicalization fails on a large general corpus.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.2, Eq. (3.12)] The selection of the seven criteria in Eq. (3.12) is explicitly described as 'based on our experiments' (Section 3.2.2), and those experiments use the same Kaggle ISIS corpus that later yields the 8.097% average in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 shows that exactly these seven criteria (C2, C3, C4, C5, C8, C11, C12) are the only ones with any nonzero entries across seed sizes; the other six are identically zero. Consequently, the 8.097% figure is a fitted statistic on the same data, not a validated measurement of radicalization risk. The manuscript should report a pre-specified criterion set or provide held-out and cross-validated results before the headline number is used.
  2. [Section 3.2.2, Algorithm 5] The getrate function equates each psychological construct (e.g., C2 Introversion, C5 negative thoughts about the West) with the fraction of words from a manually assembled knowledge base that appear in a user's tweets. There is no evidence that the knowledge bases are valid indicators of these constructs, no comparison with labeled radicalization ground truth, and no assessment of precision, recall, or inter-rater agreement. Because this is the sole bridge between influence maximization and radicalization in iRadical, the central claim that iRadical enables exploration of online radicalization is unsupported without construct validation.
  3. [Table 4.3] Table 4.3 reports 0.0 for every radicalization factor on the 3-month Australian Twitter dataset across all sample sizes. The paper does not diagnose this uniform zero. The likely explanations, such as extremely narrow keyword lists or degenerate string matching, would undermine the general applicability of the Context Analytics component; the paper should report dictionary sizes, matching statistics, and tests on non-ISIS corpora to rule out a degenerate implementation.
  4. [Section 3.2.1 and Table 4.2] The PSO implementation is under-specified and the reported comparison is not statistically grounded. Table 4.2 sets Soccoe to 100, which contradicts the constraint 'soccoe <= 4' stated in Algorithm 1 and Eq. (3.11); the roles of theta and lambda in Eq. (3.3) are also swapped between the text and the table. Moreover, the PSO-vs-Memetic plots (Figures 4.1-4.4) show single runs without error bars, multiple trials, or significance tests, even though PSO is a stochastic algorithm, so the conclusion that PSO 'is a decisive factor' is not supported.
  5. [Section 3.1 vs. Section 3.2.1] Section 3.1 defines the Social Personality Graph as a rich entity-relationship model with affective, cognitive, and personal-concern features, but the experimental graph in Section 3.2.1 is built only from word co-occurrence similarities between users. No personality features enter the influence-maximization experiments, so the claimed novelty of the Social Personality Graph is not actually tested or demonstrated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 4.3] The column heading '100,000,000' in Table 4.3 is inconsistent with the dataset description of 14,976,862 tweets; clarify whether this is a typo or a different sample.
  2. [Section 3.2.2, Eq. (3.13)] The notation 'n' in Eq. (3.13) is defined as 'the maximum number of seed size', but the computation of the 8.097% average uses n=5; state the value explicitly and justify it.
  3. [Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 uses an undefined variable 'xyz' for population size; this should be named consistently with 'population_size' or 'pop'.
  4. [Algorithm 5] The 'if wrd in Text' operation matches substrings rather than tokens, and no tokenization or stemming is described; this may inflate the reported rates and should be documented.
  5. [Figures 4.1-4.4] The figures lack axis labels and error bars, and the captions contain the typo 'Comparsion'; please correct the spelling and add descriptive axis titles.
  6. [References] Reference [16] appears both as [11] and [16], and several references have inconsistent formatting (e.g., mixed arXiv identifiers and missing DOIs); please unify the bibliography.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The headline 8.097% radicalization rate is computed from the same in-sample ISIS data that was used to select the seven criteria in Eq. (3.12), so the Context Analytics evaluation is a post-hoc re-description rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.2, Eq. (3.12); Section 4.2, Table 4.4]
    "Of all above criteria, our experiments have shown that some of the radicalization criteria have an important role in affecting influential users to be radicalized. Hence, we propose a formula based on our experiments to compute the average rate of radicalization for each influential user. ... Radicalization =Average{C2,C3,C4,C5,C8,C11,C12} ... C2 = (10 + 10 + 10)/5 = 6 , C3 = 14.3/5 = 2.86 , ... Radicalization =Average{6, 2.86, 10.9, 24.6, 6, 5.72, 0.6} = 8.097%"

    The seven criteria retained in Eq. (3.12) are exactly the rows of Table 4.4 that have at least one nonzero seed-size value on the Kaggle ISIS corpus (Introversion, Discrimination, Positive ideas about religion, Negative ideas about Western society, Political ideology, Personal traits, Terrorism); the six rows that are uniformly zero (Mental health, Racism, Educational level, Origin, Psychological factors) are dropped. The paper explicitly says the formula is 'based on our experiments' and then, in Section 4.2, computes the 8.097% average from that same Table 4.4. The radicalization measure is therefore not an independent, pre-specified construct: the set of criteria defining 'radicalization' was selected by inspecting the very data that later produces the headline number.

full rationale

The main circularity is in the Context Analytics scoring. Section 3.2.2 defines the radicalization formula by saying 'our experiments have shown' which criteria matter, and the selection of {C2,C3,C4,C5,C8,C11,C12} coincides with the nonzero rows of Table 4.4, obtained from the same 17,000-tweet ISIS-proponent dataset. Section 4.2 then uses that same table to calculate the 'average radicalization rate' of 8.097%. Thus the headline number is fitted in-sample: the formula was chosen after seeing which criteria were nonzero, and the reported rate is an arithmetic summary of those same rows. This is not a case of self-citation circularity; the influence-maximization comparison (PSO-IM vs. Memetic) is an empirical benchmark against an external algorithm, and the Knowledge Lake / LIWC references are background support rather than a forced derivation. The circularity is localized to the Context Analytics evaluation, but that component is the only part of iRadical that connects influence maximization to radicalization, so it is load-bearing for the central claim. The uniform zeros in Table 4.3 further underscore that the radicalization criteria were not validated on a general-population corpus, but that is a validity concern rather than an additional circularity. Overall, the central radicalization-rate result reduces by construction to the data used to select its own definition, warranting a score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard math (submodularity, PSO convergence) and on domain assumptions about measuring psychology from keywords and using 2-hop spread as a proxy. The most consequential free parameters are the similarity threshold, the prospective-selection constants, and the post-hoc choice of radicalization criteria.

free parameters (8)
  • simthresh = 0.6
    Similarity threshold in Algorithm 3 (RHD) to exclude similar neighbors; Section 3.2.1 says it is determined based on various datasets.
  • theta = 4
    Magnification term in Eq. (3.3) controlling number of prospective nodes per community; Table 4.2.
  • lambda = 10
    Constant in Eq. (3.3) ensuring minimum nodes per community; Table 4.2.
  • population_size = 20
    PSO population size; Table 4.2.
  • maxgen = 50
    Maximum generations in PSO; Table 4.2.
  • cognitive_coefficient = 1.5
    cogef f in velocity update; Table 4.2.
  • social_coefficient = 100
    soccoe in velocity update; Table 4.2 sets 100, contradicting the text constraint soccoe <= 4 in Section 3.2.1.
  • radicalization_criteria_subset = C2,C3,C4,C5,C8,C11,C12 with equal weights
    The criteria in Eq. (3.12) were selected based on the authors' experiments on the same dataset; the seven criteria correspond to nonzero rows in Table 4.4.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption 2-hop influence spread is a sufficient proxy for true expected influence spread under the Independent Cascade model.
    Adopted from Gong et al. [11] without independent verification; used as fitness function Eq. (3.4) in Section 3.2.1.
  • domain assumption The 13 radicalization criteria from domain expert literature can be operationalized as keyword counts in tweets.
    Section 3.2.2 Step 1 constructs knowledge bases for criteria like introversion and discrimination; no validation of this measurement model.
  • domain assumption BGLL modularity optimization correctly identifies communities relevant to influence spread.
    Used in Section 3.2.1 for clustering; standard algorithm, but the link between detected communities and influence is assumed.
  • standard math Standard PSO convergence and submodularity results from the cited literature hold for this fitness function.
    Borrowed from Kempe et al. and Gong et al.
invented entities (1)
  • Social Personality Graph
    purpose: A graph data model that enriches users with social activity features, affective/cognitive/personal concern features, and relationships to items, to support radicalization analysis.
    Definitions 1-3 in Section 3.1 introduce this concept; it is a modeling construct without a falsifiable prediction or external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Social Influence and Radicalization: A Social Data Analytics Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q2DXNSVJ

@misc{pith2026191001212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Social Influence and Radicalization: A Social Data Analytics Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q2DXNSVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1910.01212}
}
read the original abstract

The confluence of technological and societal advances is changing the nature of global terrorism. For example, engagement with Web, social media, and smart devices has the potential to affect the mental behavior of the individuals and influence extremist and criminal behaviors such as Radicalization. In this context, social data analytics (i.e., the discovery, interpretation, and communication of meaningful patterns in social data) and influence maximization (i.e., the problem of finding a small subset of nodes in a social network which can maximize the propagation of influence) has the potential to become a vital asset to explore the factors involved in influencing people to participate in extremist activities. To address this challenge, we study and analyze the recent work done in influence maximization and social data analytics from effectiveness, efficiency and scalability viewpoints. We introduce a social data analytics pipeline, namely iRadical, to enable analysts engage with social data to explore the potential for online radicalization. In iRadical, we present algorithms to analyse the social data as well as the user activity patterns to learn how influence flows in social networks. We implement iRadical as an extensible architecture that is publicly available on GitHub and present the evaluation results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1910.01212 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. illustrates the iRadical framework. In Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the influence spread of two algorithms on the Dolphin Dataset using the IC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p067_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rashotte

    L. Rashotte. Social influence. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (2007). 1

    2007

  2. [2]

    Kempe, J

    D. Kempe, J. Kleinberg, and É. Tardos.Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 137–146 (ACM, 2003). 1, 8, 15, 16

    2003

  3. [3]

    Understanding the radicalisation process

    Australian-Government. Understanding the radicalisation process . https://www.livingsafetogether.gov.au/informationadvice/Documents/understanding- the-radicalisation-process.pdf (2017). 2, 25, 41

    2017

  4. [4]

    A. W. Kruglanski, M. J. Gelfand, J. J. Bélanger, A. Sheveland, M. Hetiarachchi, and R. Gunaratna. The psychology of radicalization and deradicalization: How significance quest impacts violent extremism. Political Psychology35(S1), 69 (2014). 2, 23, 25, 41, 42

    2014

  5. [5]

    W. Chen, Y. Wang, and S. Yang.Efficient influence maximization in social networks. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 199–208 (ACM, 2009). 3, 6, 8, 26

    2009

  6. [6]

    W. Chen, L. V. Lakshmanan, and C. Castillo.Information and influence propagation in social networks. Synthesis Lectures on Data Management5(4), 1 (2013). 3, 14, 15, 16

    2013

  7. [7]

    B. Liu, G. Cong, D. Xu, and Y. Zeng.Time constrained influence maximization in social networks. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on, pp. 439–448 (IEEE, 2012). 6 55 56 References

    2012

  8. [8]

    Zhuang, Y

    H. Zhuang, Y. Sun, J. Tang, J. Zhang, and X. Sun.Influence maximization in dynamic social networks. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on, pp. 1313–1318 (IEEE, 2013). 6

    2013

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    G. Song, X. Zhou, Y. Wang, and K. Xie.Influence maximization on large-scale mobile social network: a divide-and-conquer method. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 26(5), 1379 (2015). 6

    2015

  2. [10]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. T. Nguyen, H. Zhang, and M. T. Thai.Least cost influence maximization across multiple social networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON)24(2), 929 (2016). 7

    2016

  3. [11]

    M. Gong, C. Song, C. Duan, L. Ma, and B. Shen.An efficient memetic algorithm for influence maximization in social networks. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine 11(3), 22 (2016). 7, 37, 47, 48

    2016

  4. [12]

    F. Tang, Q. Liu, H. Zhu, E. Chen, and F. Zhu.Diversified social influence maximization. In Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 2014 IEEE/ACM International Conference on, pp. 455–459 (IEEE, 2014). 7

    2014

  5. [13]

    M. Gong, J. Yan, B. Shen, L. Ma, and Q. Cai.Influence maximization in social networks based on discrete particle swarm optimization. Information Sciences367, 600 (2016). 7

    2016

  6. [14]

    Jiang, S

    F. Jiang, S. Jin, Y. Wu, and J. Xu.A uniform framework for community detection via influence maximization in social networks. In Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 2014 IEEE/ACM International Conference on, pp. 27–32 (IEEE, 2014). 7

    2014

  7. [15]

    Townsend

    A. Townsend. Genetic algorithm-a tutorial . Av.: www-course. cs. york. ac. uk/evo/SupportingDocs/TutorialGAs. pdf (2003). 8

    2003

  8. [16]

    M. Gong, C. Song, C. Duan, L. Ma, and B. Shen.An efficient memetic algorithm for influence maximization in social networks. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine 11(3), 22 (2016). 8, 35, 37 References 57

    2016

  9. [17]

    Marini and B

    F. Marini and B. Walczak.Particle swarm optimization (pso). a tutorial. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems149, 153 (2015). 8, 33

    2015

  10. [18]

    Goyal, W

    A. Goyal, W. Lu, and L. V. Lakshmanan.Simpath: An efficient algorithm for influence maximization under the linear threshold model. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on, pp. 211–220 (IEEE, 2011). 8

    2011

  11. [19]

    Leskovec, A

    J. Leskovec, A. Krause, C. Guestrin, C. Faloutsos, J. VanBriesen, and N. Glance.Cost- effective outbreak detection in networks. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 420–429 (ACM, 2007). 8, 9

    2007

  12. [20]

    Kimura and K

    M. Kimura and K. Saito.Tractable models for information diffusion in social networks. In European Conference on Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, pp. 259–271 (Springer, 2006). 8

    2006

  13. [21]

    Goyal, W

    A. Goyal, W. Lu, and L. V. Lakshmanan.Celf++: optimizing the greedy algorithm for influence maximization in social networks. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference companion on World wide web, pp. 47–48 (ACM, 2011). 9

    2011

  14. [22]

    W. Chen, A. Collins, R. Cummings, T. Ke, Z. Liu, D. Rincon, X. Sun, Y. Wang, W. Wei, and Y. Yuan. Influence maximization in social networks when negative opinions may emerge and propagate. InProceedings of the 2011 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 379–390 (SIAM...

    2011

  15. [23]

    Borgs, M

    C. Borgs, M. Brautbar, J. Chayes, and B. Lucier.Maximizing social influence in nearly optimal time. InProceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pp. 946–957 (SIAM, 2014). 9

    2014

  16. [24]

    Jiang, G

    Q. Jiang, G. Song, G. Cong, Y. Wang, W. Si, and K. Xie.Simulated annealing based influence maximization in social networks.In AAAI, vol. 11, pp. 127–132 (2011). 9

    2011

  17. [25]

    Chen, W.-Y

    Y.-C. Chen, W.-Y. Zhu, W.-C. Peng, W.-C. Lee, and S.-Y. Lee.Cim: Community-based influence maximization in social networks. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST)5(2), 25 (2014). 9 58 References

    2014

  18. [26]

    C. Zhou, P. Zhang, W. Zang, and L. Guo.On the upper bounds of spread for greedy algorithms in social network influence maximization. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering27(10), 2770 (2015). 9

    2015

  19. [27]

    Nguyen and R

    H. Nguyen and R. Zheng.On budgeted influence maximization in social networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications31(6), 1084 (2013). 10

    2013

  20. [28]

    G. Tong, W. Wu, S. Tang, and D.-Z. Du.Adaptive influence maximization in dynamic social networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON)25(1), 112 (2017). 10

    2017

  21. [29]

    Rahimkhani, A

    K. Rahimkhani, A. Aleahmad, M. Rahgozar, and A. Moeini. A fast algorithm for finding most influential people based on the linear threshold model. Expert Systems with Applications 42(3), 1353 (2015). 10, 33

    2015

  22. [30]

    Y. Wang, G. Cong, G. Song, and K. Xie.Community-based greedy algorithm for mining top-k influential nodes in mobile social networks. InProceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 1039–1048 (ACM, 2010). 10

    2010

  23. [31]

    Dean and S

    J. Dean and S. Ghemawat. Mapreduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Communications of the ACM51(1), 107 (2008). 11, 12, 13

    2008

  24. [32]

    Karloff, S

    H. Karloff, S. Suri, and S. Vassilvitskii.A model of computation for mapreduce. In Proceedings of the twenty-first annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 938–948 (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2010). 11

    2010

  25. [33]

    Chierichetti, R

    F. Chierichetti, R. Kumar, and A. Tomkins.Max-cover in map-reduce. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pp. 231–240 (ACM, 2010). 11

    2010

  26. [34]

    Lattanzi, B

    S. Lattanzi, B. Moseley, S. Suri, and S. Vassilvitskii.Filtering: a method for solving graph problems in mapreduce. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures, pp. 85–94 (ACM, 2011). 11

    2011

  27. [35]

    Kumar, B

    R. Kumar, B. Moseley, S. Vassilvitskii, and A. Vattani.Fast greedy algorithms in mapreduce and streaming. ACM Transactions on Parallel Computing (TOPC)2(3), 14 (2015). 11 References 59

    2015

  28. [36]

    Mirzasoleiman, A

    B. Mirzasoleiman, A. Karbasi, R. Sarkar, and A. Krause.Distributed submodular max- imization: Identifying representative elements in massive data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2049–2057 (2013). 12

    2013

  29. [37]

    Lucier, J

    B. Lucier, J. Oren, and Y. Singer.Influence at scale: Distributed computation of complex contagion in networks. InProceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 735–744 (ACM, 2015). 12

    2015

  30. [38]

    Goyal, F

    A. Goyal, F. Bonchi, and L. V. Lakshmanan.A data-based approach to social influence maximization. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment5(1), 73 (2011). 12

    2011

  31. [39]

    K. Jung, W. Heo, and W. Chen.Irie: Scalable and robust influence maximization in social networks. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on, pp. 918–923 (IEEE, 2012). 12

    2012

  32. [40]

    C. Wang, W. Chen, and Y. Wang.Scalable influence maximization for independent cascade model in large-scale social networks. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery25(3), 545 (2012). 12

    2012

  33. [41]

    Heidari, M

    M. Heidari, M. Asadpour, and H. Faili.Smg: Fast scalable greedy algorithm for influence maximization in social networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 420, 124 (2015). 12

    2015

  34. [42]

    X. Liu, M. Li, S. Li, S. Peng, X. Liao, and X. Lu.Imgpu: Gpu-accelerated influence maximization in large-scale social networks. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 25(1), 136 (2014). 13

    2014

  35. [43]

    Durrett.Lecture notes on particle systems and percolation(Brooks/Cole Pub Co, 1988)

    R. Durrett.Lecture notes on particle systems and percolation(Brooks/Cole Pub Co, 1988). 15

    1988

  36. [44]

    T. M. Liggett.Interacting particle systems, vol. 276 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012). 15

    2012

  37. [45]

    Goldenberg, B

    J. Goldenberg, B. Libai, and E. Muller. Using complex systems analysis to advance marketing theory development: Modeling heterogeneity effects on new product growth 60 References through stochastic cellular automata. Academy of Marketing Science Review2001, 1 (2001). 15

    2001

  38. [46]

    Goldenberg, B

    J. Goldenberg, B. Libai, and E. Muller.Talk of the network: A complex systems look at the underlying process of word-of-mouth. Marketing letters12(3), 211 (2001). 15

    2001

  39. [47]

    R. M. Anderson and R. M. May.Infectious diseases of humans: dynamics and control (Oxford university press, 1992). 15

    1992

  40. [48]

    Granovetter.Threshold models of collective behavior

    M. Granovetter.Threshold models of collective behavior. American journal of sociology 83(6), 1420 (1978). 16

    1978

  41. [49]

    T. C. Schelling.Micromotives and macrobehavior(WW Norton & Company, 2006). 16

    2006

  42. [50]

    Centola and M

    D. Centola and M. Macy.Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American journal of Sociology113(3), 702 (2007). 16

    2007

  43. [51]

    C. C. Aggarwal.An introduction to social network data analytics. In Social Network Data Analytics, pp. 1–15 (Springer, 2011). 17, 26

    2011

  44. [52]

    Beheshti, B

    A. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, A. Tabebordbar, H. R. Motahari-Nezhad, M. C. Barukh, and R. Nouri. Datasynapse: A social data curation foundry. Distributed and Parallel Databases pp. 1–34 (2018). 17, 28, 41, 54

    2018

  45. [53]

    Beheshti, B

    A. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, R. Nouri, and A. Tabebordbar. Corekg: a knowledge lake service. PVLDB 11(12), 1942 (2018). URLhttp://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol11/ p1942-beheshti.pdf. 28

    2018

  46. [54]

    Beheshti, A

    S. Beheshti, A. Tabebordbar, B. Benatallah, and R. Nouri.On automating basic data curation tasks. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, Perth, Australia, April 3-7, 2017, pp. 165–169 (2017). 54

    2017

  47. [55]

    Beheshti, K

    A. Beheshti, K. Vaghani, B. Benatallah, and A. Tabebordbar.Crowdcorrect: A curation pipeline for social data cleansing and curation. In Information Systems in the Big Data Era - CAiSE Forum 2018, Tallinn, Estonia, June 11-15, 2018, Proceedings, pp. 24–38 (2018). References 61

    2018

  48. [56]

    Beheshti, A

    S. Beheshti, A. Tabebordbar, B. Benatallah, and R. Nouri.Data curation apis. CoRR abs/1612.03277 (2016). 1612.03277, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03277. 17

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Beheshti, B

    S. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, S. Venugopal, S. H. Ryu, H. R. Motahari-Nezhad, and W. Wang. A systematic review and comparative analysis of cross-document coreference resolution methods and tools. Computing 99(4), 313 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00607-016-0490-0. 18, 19, 21

    2017

  50. [58]

    Schiliro, A

    F. Schiliro, A. Beheshti, S. Ghodratnama, F. Amouzgar, B. Benatallah, J. Yang, Q. Z. Sheng, F. Casati, and H. R. Motahari-Nezhad.icop: Iot-enabled policing processes. In Service-Oriented Computing - ICSOC 2018 Workshops - ADMS, ASOCA, ISYyCC, CloTS, DDBS, and NLS4IoT, Hangzhou...

    2018

  51. [59]

    Amouzgar, A

    F. Amouzgar, A. Beheshti, S. Ghodratnama, B. Benatallah, J. Yang, and Q. Z. Sheng. isheets: A spreadsheet-based machine learning development platform for data-driven process analytics. In Service-Oriented Computing - ICSOC 2018 Workshops - ADMS, ASOCA, ISYyCC, CloTS, DDBS, and...

    2018

  52. [60]

    Beheshti, S

    S. Beheshti, S. Venugopal, S. H. Ryu, B. Benatallah, and W. Wang.Big data and cross-document coreference resolution: Current state and future opportunities. CoRR abs/1311.3987 (2013). 1311.3987, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.3987. 18

    2013 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ciaramita and Y

    M. Ciaramita and Y. Altun. Broad-coverage sense disambiguation and information extraction with a supersense sequence tagger. In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 594–602 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2006). 20

    2006

  54. [62]

    Van Zaanen, D

    M. Van Zaanen, D. Mollá,et al. A named entity recogniser for question answering. In Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics(2007). 20

    2007

  55. [63]

    Jurafsky and J

    D. Jurafsky and J. H. Martin.Speech and language processing, vol. 3 (Pearson London, 2014). 19 62 References

    2014

  56. [64]

    Manning, M

    C. Manning, M. Surdeanu, J. Bauer, J. Finkel, S. Bethard, and D. McClosky.The stanford corenlp natural language processing toolkit. In Proceedings of 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: system demonstrations, pp. 55–60 (2014). 19

    2014

  57. [65]

    A. Rao, N. Spasojevic, Z. Li, and T. DSouza.Klout score: Measuring influence across multiple social networks. In Big Data (Big Data), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 2282–2289 (IEEE, 2015). 22

    2015

  58. [66]

    Schaefer

    M. Schaefer. Return on influence: The revolutionary power of Klout, social scoring, and influence marketing(McGraw-Hill New York, 2012). 22

    2012

  59. [67]

    Eirinaki, S

    M. Eirinaki, S. P. S. Monga, and S. Sundaram.Identification of influential social networkers. International Journal of Web Based Communities8(2), 136 (2012). 22

    2012

  60. [68]

    Tinati, L

    R. Tinati, L. Carr, W. Hall, and J. Bentwood.Identifying communicator roles in twitter. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 1161–1168 (ACM, 2012). 22

    2012

  61. [69]

    Bartholomay, S

    T. Bartholomay, S. Chazdon, M. S. Marczak, and K. C. Walker.Mapping extension’s networks: Using social network analysis to explore extension’s outreach. Journal of extension 49(6), 1 (2011). 22

    2011

  62. [70]

    Weng, E.-P

    J. Weng, E.-P. Lim, J. Jiang, and Q. He.Twitterrank: finding topic-sensitive influential twitterers. In Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on Web search and data mining, pp. 261–270 (ACM, 2010). 22

    2010

  63. [71]

    Beheshti, B

    S. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, H. R. M. Nezhad, and M. Allahbakhsh.A framework and a language for on-line analytical processing on graphs. In Web Information Systems Engineering - WISE 2012 - 13th International Conference, Paphos, Cyprus, November 28-30, 2012. Proceedings, pp. 21...

    2012

  64. [72]

    Bartlett and C

    J. Bartlett and C. Miller.The edge of violence: Towards telling the difference between violent and non-violent radicalization. Terrorism and Political Violence24(1), 1 (2012). 23, 41 References 63

    2012

  65. [73]

    King and D

    M. King and D. M. Taylor. The radicalization of homegrown jihadists: A review of theoretical models and social psychological evidence. Terrorism and Political Violence 23(4), 602 (2011). 23, 41

    2011

  66. [74]

    J. Berger. Tailored online interventions: The islamic state’s recruitment strategy. CTC Sentinel 8(10), 19 (2015). 23

    2015

  67. [75]

    J. Hall. Canadian foreign fighters and isis. Foreign Fighters - cgai.ca (2015)

    2015

  68. [76]

    C. Winter. Documenting the virtual ’caliphate’. Quilliam Foundation33, 1 (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    Allahbakhsh, A

    M. Allahbakhsh, A. Ignjatovic, B. Benatallah, S. Beheshti, N. Foo, and E. Bertino. Representation and querying of unfair evaluations in social rating systems. Computers & Security 41, 68 (2014). URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2013.09.008

    2014 doi

  70. [78]

    Allahbakhsh, A

    M. Allahbakhsh, A. Ignjatovic, B. Benatallah, S. Beheshti, E. Bertino, and N. Foo. Collusion detection in online rating systems. In Web Technologies and Applications - 15th Asia-Pacific Web Conference, APWeb 2013, Sydney, Australia, April 4-6, 2013. Proceedings, pp. 196–207 (2013)

    2013

  71. [79]

    Allahbakhsh, A

    M. Allahbakhsh, A. Ignjatovic, B. Benatallah, S. Beheshti, E. Bertino, and N. Foo. Reputation management in crowdsourcing systems. In 8th International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing, CollaborateCom 2012, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Oc...

    2012

  72. [80]

    O’Callaghan, N

    D. O’Callaghan, N. Prucha, D. Greene, M. Conway, J. Carthy, and P. Cunningham. Online social media in the syria conflict: Encompassing the extremes and the in-betweens. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mini...

    2014

  73. [81]

    J. M. Berger and J. Morgan.The isis twitter census: Defining and describing the population of isis supporters on twitter. The Brookings Project on US Relations with the Islamic World3(20), 4 (2015). 23, 24 64 References

    2015

  74. [82]

    Magdy, K

    W. Magdy, K. Darwish, and I. Weber.# failedrevolutions: Using twitter to study the antecedents of isis support. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02401 (2015). 23, 24

    2015 arXiv

  75. [83]

    H. Saif, T. Dickinson, L. Kastler, M. Fernandez, and H. Alani.A semantic graph-based approach for radicalisation detection on social media. InEuropean semantic web conference, pp. 571–587 (Springer, 2017). 24, 41

    2017

  76. [84]

    Beheshti, B

    A. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, and H. R. Motahari-Nezhad.Processatlas: A scalable and extensible platform for business process analytics. Softw., Pract. Exper.48(4), 842 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2558. 28

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    Beheshti, F

    A. Beheshti, F. Schiliro, S. Ghodratnama, F. Amouzgar, B. Benatallah, J. Yang, Q. Z. Sheng, F. Casati, and H. R. Motahari-Nezhad.iprocess: Enabling iot platforms in data- driven knowledge-intensive processes. In Business Process Management Forum - BPM Forum 2018, Sydney, NSW, ...

    2018

  78. [86]

    Beheshti, B

    A. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, R. Nouri, V. M. Chhieng, H. Xiong, and X. Zhao.Coredb: a data lake service. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2017, Singapore, November 06 - 10, 2017, pp. 2451–2454 (2017). 28

    2017

  79. [87]

    Beheshti, A

    S. Beheshti, A. Tabebordbar, B. Benatallah, and R. Nouri.On automating basic data curation tasks. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, Perth, Australia, April 3-7, 2017, pp. 165–169 (2017). 28

    2017

  80. [88]

    Beheshti, B

    S. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, S. Sakr, D. Grigori, H. R. Motahari-Nezhad, M. C. Barukh, A. Gater, and S. H. Ryu. Process Analytics - Concepts and Techniques for Query- ing and Analyzing Process Data(Springer, 2016). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-25037-3

    2016

  81. [89]

    Beheshti, B

    S. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, and H. R. M. Nezhad. Enabling the analysis of cross- cutting aspects in ad-hoc processes. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering - 25th References 65 International Conference, CAiSE 2013, Valencia, Spain, June 17-21, 2013. Proceedings, pp. 51–6...

    2013

  82. [90]

    Batarfi, R

    O. Batarfi, R. E. Shawi, A. G. Fayoumi, R. Nouri, S. Beheshti, A. Barnawi, and S. Sakr. Large scale graph processing systems: survey and an experimental evaluation. Cluster Computing 18(3), 1189 (2015). URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-015-0472-6. 28

    2015 doi

  83. [91]

    Hammoud, D

    M. Hammoud, D. A. Rabbou, R. Nouri, S. Beheshti, and S. Sakr.DREAM: distributed RDF engine with adaptive query planner and minimal communication. PVLDB 8(6), 654 (2015). URL http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol8/p654-Hammoud.pdf. 28

    2015

  84. [92]

    Beheshti, B

    S. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, and H. R. Motahari-Nezhad.Scalable graph-based OLAP analytics over process execution data. Distributed and Parallel Databases 34(3), 379 (2016). 30

    2016

  85. [93]

    Beheshti, B

    S. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, and H. R. Motahari-Nezhad.Galaxy: A platform for explorative analysis of open data sources. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, EDBT 2016, Bordeaux, France, March 15-16, 2016, Bordeaux, France, March...

    2016

  86. [94]

    V. D. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment 2008(10), P10008 (2008). 31, 32

    2008

  87. [95]

    Kaggle (2018)

    https://www.kaggle.com/fifthtribe/how-isis-uses twitter/home.How isis uses twitter. Kaggle (2018). 31, 48, 50

    2018

  88. [96]

    M. E. Newman.Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences103(23), 8577 (2006). 32

    2006

  89. [97]

    Lee and C.-W

    J.-R. Lee and C.-W. Chung.A fast approximation for influence maximization in large social networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 1157–1162 (ACM, 2014). 33 66 References

    2014

  90. [98]

    Tabebordbar and A

    A. Tabebordbar and A. Beheshti.Adaptive rule monitoring system. InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Software Engineering for Cognitive Services, SE4COG@ICSE 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 28-2, 2018, pp. 45–51 (2018). 40

    2018

  91. [99]

    C. Blum, J. Puchinger, G. R. Raidl, and A. Roli.Hybrid metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: A survey. Applied Soft Computing11(6), 4135 (2011). 40

    2011

  92. [100]

    L. Li, A. Scaglione, A. Swami, and Q. Zhao.Trust, opinion diffusion and radicalization in social networks. In Signals, systems and computers (ASILOMAR), 2011 conference record of the forty fifth asilomar conference on, pp. 691–695 (IEEE, 2011). 41

    2011

  93. [101]

    Bermingham, M

    A. Bermingham, M. Conway, L. McInerney, N. O’Hare, and A. F. Smeaton.Combining social network analysis and sentiment analysis to explore the potential for online radi- calisation. In Social Network Analysis and Mining, 2009. ASONAM’09. International Conference on Advances in, ...

    2009

  94. [102]

    Lara-Cabrera, A

    R. Lara-Cabrera, A. G. Pardo, K. Benouaret, N. Faci, D. Benslimane, and D. Camacho. Measuring the radicalisation risk in social networks. IEEE Access5, 10892 (2017). 41, 42

    2017

  95. [103]

    K. Bhui, B. Everitt, and E. Jones.Might depression, psychosocial adversity, and limited social assets explain vulnerability to and resistance against violent radicalisation?PloS one 9(9), e105918 (2014). 42

    2014

  96. [104]

    K. Bhui, N. Warfa, and E. Jones.Is violent radicalisation associated with poverty, migration, poor self-reported health and common mental disorders?PloS one9(3), e90718 (2014). 42

    2014

  97. [105]

    Gilpérez-López, J

    I. Gilpérez-López, J. Torregrosa, M. Barhamgi, and D. Camacho.An initial study on radicalization risk factors: Towards an assessment software tool. In Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA), 2017 28th International Workshop on, pp. 11–16 (IEEE, 2017). 42

    2017

  98. [106]

    R. Borum. Psychological vulnerabilities and propensities for involvement in violent ex- tremism. Behavioral sciences & the law32(3), 286 (2014). 42 References 67

    2014

  99. [107]

    J. Horgan. From profiles to pathways and roots to routes: Perspectives from psychology on radicalization into terrorism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science618(1), 80 (2008). 42

    2008

  100. [108]

    J. Monahan. The individual risk assessment of terrorism.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 18(2), 167 (2012). 42

    2012

  101. [109]

    Mastors and R

    E. Mastors and R. Siers.Omar al-hammami: A case study in radicalization. Behavioral sciences & the law32(3), 377 (2014). 42

    2014

  102. [110]

    Doosje, F

    B. Doosje, F. M. Moghaddam, A. W. Kruglanski, A. De Wolf, L. Mann, and A. R. Feddes. Terrorism, radicalization and de-radicalization. Current Opinion in Psychology11, 79 (2016). 42

    2016

  103. [111]

    D. E. Pressman and C. Ivan.Internet use and violent extremism: A cyber-vera risk assessment protocol. In Combating Violent Extremism and Radicalization in the Digital Era, pp. 391–409 (IGI Global, 2016)

    2016

  104. [112]

    H. M. Trujillo, M. Prados, and M. Moyano.Psychometric properties of the spanish version of the activism and radicalism intention scale/propiedades psicométricas de la versión española de la escala de intención de activismo y radicalismo. Revista de Psicología Social 31(1), 157...

    2016

  105. [113]

    Beheshti, B

    A. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, A. Tabebordbar, H. R. Motahari-Nezhad, M. C. Barukh, and R. Nouri. Datasynapse: A social data curation foundry. Distributed and Parallel Databases pp. 1–34 (2018). 48

    2018

  106. [114]

    Lusseau, K

    D. Lusseau, K. Schneider, O. J. Boisseau, P. Haase, E. Slooten, and S. M. Dawson.The bottlenose dolphin community of doubtful sound features a large proportion of long-lasting associations. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology54(4), 396 (2003). 48

    2003

  107. [115]

    Maamar, S

    Z. Maamar, S. Sakr, A. Barnawi, and S. Beheshti.A framework of enriching business processes life-cycle with tagging information. In Databases Theory and Applications - 26th Australasian Database Conference, ADC 2015, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, June 4-7, 2015. Proceedings, pp. ...

    2015

  108. [116]

    Y. J. Sun, M. C. Barukh, B. Benatallah, and S. Beheshti.Scalable saas-based process cus- tomization with casewalls. InService-Oriented Computing - 13th International Conference, ICSOC 2015, Goa, India, November 16-19, 2015, Proceedings, pp. 218–233 (2015)

    2015

  109. [117]

    Beheshti, B

    S. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, H. R. M. Nezhad, and S. Sakr.A query language for analyzing business processes execution. In Business Process Management - 9th International Confer- ence, BPM 2011, Clermont-Ferrand, France, August 30 - September 2, 2011. Proceedings, pp. 281–297 (2011). 54

    2011

  110. [118]

    S. M. Ghafari, S. Yakhchi, A. Beheshti, and M. Orgun. Social context-aware trust prediction: Methods for identifying fake news. In Web Information Systems Engineering - WISE 2018 - 19th International Conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, November 12-15, 2018, Proceedings, P...

    2018

  111. [119]

    S. M. Ghafari, S. Yakhchi, A. Beheshti, and M. Orgun.SETTRUST: social exchange theory based context-aware trust prediction in online social networks. In Data Quality and Trust in Big Data - 5th International Workshop, QUAT 2018, Held in Conjunction with WISE 2018, Dubai, UAE, ...

    2018

  112. [120]

    Yakhchi, S

    S. Yakhchi, S. M. Ghafari, and A. Beheshti.CNR: cross-network recommendation em- bedding user’s personality. In Data Quality and Trust in Big Data - 5th International Workshop, QUAT 2018, Held in Conjunction with WISE 2018, Dubai, UAE, November 12-15, 2018, Revised Selected Pa...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.