2014 International Conference of Advanced Informatics: Concept, Theory and Application (ICAICTA)

Prediction of Interest for Dynamic Profile of

Twitter User
Elisafina Siswanto

Masayu Leylia Khodra

Luh Joni Erawati Dewi

School of Electrical Engineering and

Informatics
Institut Teknologi Bandung
Bandung, Indonesia
[Link]@[Link]

School of Electrical Engineering and

Informatics
Institut Teknologi Bandung
Bandung, Indonesia
masayu@[Link]

Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha

luhdewi@[Link]

AbstractNumerous studies have been conducted to explore

the social network of Twitter; some have been conducted to
predict the interest or the topic of the user's tweet. In this study,
we investigate the best classification model for determining the
users interest based on the bio and a collection of tweets. We use
the supervised learning-based classification with the lexical
features. Two approaches were proposed; they are the
classification that was made based on the user's tweet using
multilabel classification method and the classification that was
made based on specific accounts. From the result of experimental
result, it could be concluded that the employment of the
classification using specific accounts approach led to better
accuracy.
Keywords interest, topic, classification, Twitter, lexical,
machine training

I.

INTRODUCTION

The rapid growth of social network users, such as Twitter,

in the last few years has produced a large number of the usergenerated texts. In 2014, 650 million of Twitter users have
been recorded and the average number of tweets in one day has
totaled 58 million [1]. Such a large quantity of information
may have been useful in various fields, especially in the
product marketing field. However, the profile of every Twitter
user is not complete; its only contain name, location, website,
and bio. This information is still too narrow to determine the
market segmentation of product marketing.
The social network of Twitter has made the researcher easy
to take the tweet data. This caused the development of
researches in the prediction of the profile of the Twitter user by
using the users tweets. Some have been intended to identify
the users personalities (introvert, extrovert, etc.) based on the
interaction among the users on Twitter [2], determine the users
category in an event [3]. In addition, some others have been
intended to form the demographic information of the user [4],
determine the topic of every tweet [5], and so forth. The user
profile may be divided into two; they are static profile and
dynamic profile [6]. The static profile is the users profile,
which rarely or never changes such as sex, groups of ages,
status of marriage, and so forth. The dynamic profile is the
users profile, which frequently change over time such as the
users interest. Numerous studies have been conducted to

explore both the English tweet [4,7-9] and the Indonesian one
[10-11]. However, the study, which explored the dynamic
profile of the Indonesian-speaking user, had never been
conducted yet.
This research is intended to predict the users interest, the
topics in which the Twitter user are interested in, based on the
tweet content or bio of the user. The users interest is under the
category of the dynamic profile as it is changeable. This study,
which explored the prediction of the users interest, was
conducted as the result may be used for various needs,
especially in the marketing field. If someones interest can be
identified, products may be marketed to those who are
interested in the products; as a result, time and the expenses
needed for marketing the products may be reduced.
In this study, we assumed that the topic in which the twitter
user was interested was the topic that frequently appeared
among all the user's tweets. Unlike Michelson and Macskassy,
who predicted the topic from an English twitter using
knowledge based method taken from Wikipedia [5], we
predicted the topic of every tweet using the model established
by the supervised-learning method.
We particularly explored the Indonesian tweets seeing that
Indonesia is the fifth biggest Twitter users in the world. In
addition, the researches about tweet's topic in Indonesian
language are still rare. So far, two studies have been conducted
to predict the static profile of the Twitter user for gender
attribute [10] and age and employment attributes [11]; none
had been conducted to explore the dynamic profile.
The prediction was made using two approaches; they are
the approach using the user's tweet by multilabel classification
and the approach of classification based on the other Twitter
users using specific accounts. Lexical features such as n-gram
word and n-gram character, and preprocess adapted for the
sentiment analysis of Indonesian tweet [12] were used for the
two approaches. We examined various machine learning and
features selection methods using WEKA library [13].
In the following sections, related works will be discussed.
Section 3 explains how the prediction of the dynamic profile
was made. Section 4 explains the data used in this research.
Section 5 describes how the preprocess was staged. The

978-1-4799-5100-0/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

266

2014 International Conference of Advanced Informatics: Concept, Theory and Application (ICAICTA)
feature types, feature selection, and machine learning methods
are described in section 6. Experiment result can be seen in
section 7. The last section contains the conclusions drawn and
the suggestions provided to develop this study.
II.

RELATED WORKS

If a user spreads tweet with a particular topic, then it can be

assumed that he/she is interested in such a topic. Numerous
studies have been conducted to obtain the topic using the tweet
data in English. One of the ways of conducting these studies
which intended to obtain the topic of a tweet is by employing a
knowledge-based method using Wikipedia [5,14]. Another way
which has been employed to obtain the topic of a tweet by
using unsupervised learning method, especially Latent
Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) [15-17]. Takahashi, in his study,
assumed that a topic might emerge not only when a tweet was
written, but also through the behavior of other users, for
example, reply or retweet [18].
Only a few studies that have analyzed the Indonesian tweet.
So far, the studies which have explored the Indonesian tweet
regarding the sentiment analysis [12,19], extracting the
information on the traffic jam in Bandung [20], and the
information on the online transaction in Indonesia [21], some
explained the trend of Indonesian topic [22], predicted the
gender of the users using lexical and sociolinguistic features
[10], and the rest predicted the ages and job of the users based
on the tweet data [11]. Only the [10,11] which predicted the
static profile of the Indonesian-speaking users. Moreover, none
had predicted the dynamic profile of the Indonesian-speaking
users.
The supervised-learning is the common technique used to
analyze the Indonesian tweets [10-12,19-21]. The supervisedlearning in the studies using the tweet data may generally be
divided into two; one tweet is regarded as a document, or all
the tweet users are combined into one great document.
The basic difference between the supervised-method and
unsupervised-method is that in the supervised-learning the
dataset used has been labeled depending on the classes,
whereas in the unsupervised-method the dataset is not labeled
and is grouped by paying attention to the distance of each
instance. The unsupervised learning is labeled after groups of
categories are formed. The study using the machine learning
approach is conducted in order to determine the topic of a
Twitter user, and as explained in the previous sections, the
unsupervised-learning method is generally used. The result of
the unsupervised learning using LDA method only leads to N
number of topics, and every topic is made up of keywords. The
weakness of such a method is that the labeling process of a new
class is done after groups or clusters are made, therefore, it is
possible that any group does not represent the topic, which was
expected to appear.
III.

RESEARCH METHOD

In marketing, every product usually has a topic or a group

to which it belongs. As an illustration, hand phones are under
the category of technology. Therefore, in the present study the
dynamic profile is formed using the supervised learning
method.

The first stage of the supervised learning in the present

study is the training data got into the stages of preprocess and
feature extraction. The features that had already been obtained
were processed in the stage of the machine learning; as a result,
a model classification was formed. Next, this classification
model was used to classify the new data, which had been
processed in the stages of preprocess and feature extraction.
The fields in which the users were interested could be
divided into Business and Finance, Sports, Technology,
Entertainment (including music, film, and game), Health and
Beauty, Travelling, Automotive, Family, Flora and Fauna,
Politics and Law, and Unknown. Such divisions were made
based on summary result and modification of the news
categories from various news sites in Indonesia for example
[Link], [Link], Yahoo News, and [Link].
These results of divisions were also modified in accordance
with the categories of the products on the trading site such as
Kaskus and Tokobagus. The Unknown class was a tweet
group which did not belong to the other 10 classes and did not
have any particular topic, for example, selamat pagi semua
(Good Morning all).
The users interest in this present study was predicted using
two approaches. The first approach was the approach using the
multilabel classification. Such an approach was applied based
on the data obtained through questionnaire in which a user
might choose more than one interests, meaning that one
document containing the user's entire tweet could have more
than one label. That required to be dealt using the multilabel
classification. The second approach used specific accounts. It
was chosen, as each tweet would have a topic of itself;
however, the result of the questionnaire only contained the
users name and the list of the topics he/she was interested in.
The result of questionnaire data was too limited to classify the
topic of each tweet; therefore, specific accounts was used when
we construct a classification model. Specific account refers to
the Twitter account that writes tweets about a particular topic.
As an illustration, the account detikSport will contain the
tweet related to sports.
A. Multilabel Classification Approach
The first stage in the multilabel classification approach was
to obtain labeled data through questionnaire containing the
username, and one or more areas in which he/she was
interested; the unknown class was not used in the multilabel
classification. Then bio data of every username and maximum
of last 500 tweet data were taken using Twitter API [23]. Every
tweet was made to go through various combinations of
preprocess and the feature type (the n-gram word and n-gram
character).
In this approach, the dataset was made with three
variations; they are the dataset that only contained the bio only;
the dataset with a maximum of 500 tweets only for one
instance; and the dataset containing the bio and a maximum of
500 tweets for one instance. Afterwards the dataset containing
the string data was changed into the vector of words using the
StringToWordVector method of WEKA.
When we searched for the best model, the dataset was
divided into the training data and testing data with 75% to 25%
comparison. Such dataset was then tested using various

267

2014 International Conference of Advanced Informatics: Concept, Theory and Application (ICAICTA)
methods of machine learning and feature selection in order to
determine the best model using WEKA and library Multilabel
MEKA [24] with Binary Relevance classification.
B. Classification using Specific Accounts
The second approach that was applied in this research is
using specific accounts, where a tweet was assumed to have
one topic and the result of the prediction of the users interest
was obtained from the percentage of the appearance of each
topic exceeding a particular limit of the threshold value. The
labeled data used were the data of specific accounts, in which
one instance of data contained a tweet and its topic.
When this approach was employed, first of all, N tweets
were taken from specific accounts for each topic. Then every
tweet was made to go through various combinations of
preprocess and feature type (n-gram word and n-gram
character). After that, the dataset containing the string data was
changed into the vector of words using the
StringToWordVector method of WEKA. Next, we divided the
dataset into the training data and testing data with 75% to 25%
comparison. This dataset was then tested using various
methods of machine learning and selection features to
determine the best model.
Next step, we used the best model to determine the minimal
threshold value of the percentage of the appearance of a topic.
First, maximum of the last 500 tweets were taken from every
user data obtained from the questionnaire and the tweet topics
were classified using the model which already available before.
If the user had 200 tweets, then there would be 200 topics as
the result of classification. The next stage was that the
percentage of the appearance of the topic produced by every
topic was calculated; the Unknown topic was excluded. As
an illustration, the percentage of the appearance of the user As
topic was as follows: Sports 10%, Technology 20%, Business
and finance 5%, Health and beauty 5%, Entertainment 20%,
Family 10%, Travel 10%, and Automotive 20%.
After getting the percentage of occurrences of topics, then
threshold value can be determined. Such a value was the
minimal value of the percentage of the appearance of a topic to
make it included in the users list of interests. Referring to the
example above, if the threshold was 15%, then the dynamic
profile of User A would contain Technology, Entertainment
and Automotive. The threshold value was determined by
dividing the data obtained from the questionnaire into 75%
training data and 25% testing data. Next, the total percentages
of the topics were collected in accordance with the interests of
each user for the training data. This collection of the
percentages of true value was used to determine the threshold
value. In this present study, the threshold value used was the
average value, the median value, and the upper quartile value.
The testing data were used to test such three values to discover
the most accurate threshold value.
IV.

DATA

We spread questionnaire in which the user was requested to

write his/her username and one or more interests in order to
create the tweet dataset. A maximum of last 500 tweet data was
taken from every user. Apart from that, the tweet data, which
were taken, were only Indonesian tweet data. The distribution

of the data in the interests of 299 users can be seen from Table
I. The data of specific accounts used in the classification using
specific accounts approach can be seen from Table II.
V.

PREPROCESSING

One of the characteristics of the tweet data is that they have

high noise. It is necessary to preprocess the data to reduce such
noise. The stage of preprocess was made from the modification
of the preprocess phase in Indonesian sentiment analysis
research [12]. The preprocess of tokenization, case folding,
clear number, and convert number in the present study was
used without any modification. The preprocess of stopword
removal was modified in the stopword dictionary used. In this
present study, the stopword dictionary contained the
Indonesian general stopword, the Twitter specific words, and
the short forms of such stopword. The features normalization
preprocess, in this study were modified into the normalization
of URL features, mention, and Hashtag. RT deletion is not
used as a retweet can contain keywords of a topic.
In this present study, we added four preprocess step. First
one is using Dictionary of Slang Words. This dictionary was
used to change the non-standard words into the standard ones.
As an illustration, the slang word cemunguut whose standard
form is semangat (being encouraged). The second
preprocessing is deletion of letter duplication. Such a deletion
was made in order to delete the letters in a word which were
the same as the previous letters. This can be exemplified by the
word assssiiiiiikkkk bangeeeeet which was changed into
asik banget (being passionate about something).
TABLE I.

DISTRIBUTION OF INTEREST DATA

Class
Business & Finance
Sports
Technology
Entertainment
Health and Beauty
Travel
Automotive
Family
Flora and Fauna
Politics and Law
TABLE II.
Class
Business &
Finance
Sports
Technology
Entertainment
Health and
Beauty
Travel
Automotive
Family
Flora and Fauna
Politics and Law
Business &
Finance

Total user
86
154
148
199
88
116
34
13
47
32

SPECIFIC ACCOUNTS FOR EACH CLASS

Specific Accounts

YukBisnisCom; Kelaspengusaha;
EntrepreneursID;KemenkeuRI; KontanKEUANGAN
WartaOlahRaga; Detiksport; media_olahraga
KompasTekno; InfoKomputer; InfoTekno; Lip6Tekno
MusikKL; blitzmegaplex; cinema21; GameStation_ID;
Gemoper
TrikSehat; Sehatcantik ;SehatPlus; info_cantik;
TentangFashion
detikTravel; MyHotelMyResort; TravelersIndo; Detikfood;
Resep_Kuliner; WarisanKuliner; ceritaperut
Otomotifweekly; Otoneters; kompasOTOMOTIF; detikoto;
99otomotif; TipsOtomotif; otopedia
Mommiesdaily; BicaraAnak
Dokterhewanku; pertanian_ID
Politikjabar; Rumahpemilu; SeputarPemilu; POLITIKindo;
Klinikhukum; HukumOnline
PEPATAHKU; kata2bijak; pepatah; MTLovenHoney;
TweetRAMALAN

268

2014 International Conference of Advanced Informatics: Concept, Theory and Application (ICAICTA)
TABLE III.
Preprocessing
Features
Normalization
(Base
preprocessing)
Clear Number
and Convert
Number
Stopword
Removal

Dictionary of
Slang Words

The Deletion of
Duplication

Vowel Deletion

PREPROCESSING RESULT

Before Preprocessing

After Preprocessing

Lo Mahasiswa ? Follow
@KampusTwit Yuk, Twit
Gaya Mahasiswa yang
bakal bikin perut lo
sakit karena ketawa.
#AsliBikinNgakak"
"@Ucupsetiawan
"@JawabJUJUR: Mention
teman2 kamu yang
ngomong nya 4l4y
banget? #JJ |
@melani_angelina""
"Pacarmu minta
password kamu? Putusin
aja. Pacaran kok gak
menghargai kehidupan
pribadi orang lain.
Gitu."
"yuhuui, cemunguuut
bro ^^, \"@DenyAxen:
alhamdulilah , lumayan
design sekitar 35%
lagi kelar ..
semangat!!! lanjut
minggu akakaka...""
"@hels_healey supeeer
sekali,betul sekali,
pinteeerr,siapa dulu
dong
bapaknya...hahahahahah
a"
"@hels_healey
@hikari_lita
@nobitakarai sudah
hel, borgol juga lepas
lagi, kegedean
borgolnya
juga....hahaha...v"

lo mahasiswa follow
yuk twit gaya
mahasiswa yang bakal
bikin perut lo sakit
karena ketawa asli
bikin ngakak
mention teman kamu
yang ngomong nya
alay banget jj

pacarmu minta
password putusin
pacaran menghargai
pribadi

yuhuui cemunguuut
saudara alhamdulilah
lumayan design
sekitar 35 lagi
kelar semangat
lanjut minggu
akakaka
super sekali betul
sekali pinter siapa
dulu dong bapaknya
haha

sdh hl brgl jg lps

lg kgdn brglny jg
hhh v

We also added deletion of Duplication of Syllables

preprocessing. This deletion was made when the user wrote
hahahahaha or wkwkwkw for the expression of laughing,
that every user could write using a different word length. This
expression is generally written using two distinct letters (one
repeated syllable). For example, hahahaha and hahahahaha
would be changed into haha. The last one, we removed all
the vowels from the document, leaving short forms of words in
the document. We employed this preprocessing because one
form of noise on Twitter was there were too many short forms
which were made by deleting vowels. Sample of preprocessing
result can be seen in Table III.
VI.

FEATURE AND MACHINE LEARNING

The features used in the present study are the lexical

features; the reason is that classification was made based on the
users tweet. Apart from that, the characteristic of tweet did not
have standard form and had a high level of noise; as a result, it
was difficult to apply syntactical, semantic or pragmatic
features. In this research, we tested three types of feature. First
one is unigram lexical, as was done by [10]. Second, bigram
lexical that was used in [4,7-9]. The last type of feature is ngram characters, as was done by [7-9], with n value which
were tested are 3 and 4.
Then the features already obtained were chosen using a
feature selection method. In order to determine the best
selection method, we compared three feature selection
methods. The first method is minimal frequency with the
minimal values of appearance 3, 5, or 7, as was done by [10].
We also employed Information Gain and Chi Squared methods,
which were used in [8,9], to discover the best 500 features.

In this present study, we also compared several machine

learning methods. The first is the Naive Bayes method that is
widely used in text classification researches [7,9,10]. The
second is Support Vector Machine (SVM) method, as was
done by [4,7,10]. The last one, we also tried to use Decision
Tree method with C4.5 algorithm that has never been used in
previous profile classification researches.
VII. EXPERIMENT
In the present study, the experiment was carried out in
order to determine the best method to predict Twitter users
interests. The first experiment is done to determine the best
machine learning and feature selection method. After that,
testing was conducted to determine the best type of features.
The next stage was that the best preprocess was determined
using the learning method, the feature selection method, and
the types of features that was found from previous experiment.
We tested various combinations of preprocessing, which are
clean and covert number, deletion of duplicate letters and
syllables, stopword removal, convert slang words, and vowel
removal.
In the multilabel classification approach in particular, the
data used were compared whether using the bio was enough,
whether using the tweet only or the combination of the bio and
tweet led to the best performance. The classification of
dynamic profile using specific accounts approach in particular,
we added experiment to find the best threshold value that
produced the highest accuracy. The final stage was that the two
approaches were compared in order to determine the best
approach.
A. Multilabel Classification Approach
As explained in the previous part, from the data obtained
through the questionnaire, it was found that 299 users and
would be divided into two, 75% training data and 25% testing
data. The distribution of the training data and testing data of the
multilabel classification approach can be seen in Table IV.
From Table V, it can be seen that the best machine learning
method was SVM with feature selection using minimal
frequency 3 for the combined dataset of bio and tweet and the
dataset of tweet only, and minimal frequency 7 for the dataset
of bio. The most suitable type of features used to predict the
dynamic profile was n-gram character for the dataset of bio and
the combined dataset of bio and tweet and unigram word in the
dataset of tweet. The best preprocess for the three datasets
could only increase accuracy slightly, that is, less than 1%.
TABLE IV.

DISTRIBUTION OF TRAINING AND TESTING DATA

Class
Business & Finance
Sports
Technology
Entertainment
Health and Beauty
Travel
Automotive
Family
Flora and Fauna
Politics and Law

Training Data
65
118
115
151
69
83
32
10
37
22

Testing Data
21
36
33
48
19
33
2
3
10
10

269

2014 International Conference of Advanced Informatics: Concept, Theory and Application (ICAICTA)
TABLE V.
Dataset
Bio +
Tweet
Bio
Tweet

TESTING RESULT OF MULTILABEL CLASSIFICATION

APPROACH

Machine Learning
SVM + min freq 3
(70.89%)
SVM + min freq 7
(70.98%)
SVM + min freq 3
(70.89%)

Type of
Feature
4char
(70.89%)
3char
(72.88%)
unigram
lexical
(70.89%)

Preprocess
Slang_StopWord
(71.11%)
Number_Duplicate
(73.15%)
Duplicate_StopWord
(71.33%)

From Table V it could be seen that the best model for

predicting the dynamic profile was using the dataset containing
the bio data only. The reason was that many users wrote
keyword to the topic they preferred in the bio part.
B. Classification using Specific Accounts
The classification with specific accounts was tested using
several N values (the number of tweets for every class), that is,
100, 200, and 500. The testing result showed that the higher the
N value the more accuracy was found. Therefore, in the testing
undertaken to determine the type of features and the best
preprocess, the dataset used contained 5000 tweets per class.
From the testing result, it was found that the best model
was the one using SVM, the feature selection with minimal
frequency 3, the feature of word bigram, and the preprocess
using the dictionary of slang words leading to the accuracy of
model by 79,28%. The test was undertaken using such a model
in order to find the best threshold. From the testing result of the
threshold in Table VI, it could be seen that the best threshold
value used to predict interests using specific accounts was
3.8%.
C. Comparison of Multilabel Classification Approach and
Specific Accounts
The comparison of the testing result of the best model of
the two approaches can be seen in Table VII. If viewed from
the prediction result of data test, the prediction of interests
using the multilabel method always resulted in the same
prediction of interests, that is, Sports", "Entertainment and
technology; however, the other class had never been
successfully saved as the result of prediction. That resulted
from the imbalanced data as seen in Table I. On the other hand,
the method of classification with specific accounts might
produce varied predictions, in spite of the small threshold
value, that is, 3.8%. Therefore, the best method for predicting
interests was the classification with specific accounts.
TABLE VI.

TESTING RESULT OF THRESHOLD VALUE

Threshold

TABLE VII.
Method
Multilabel
(bio)
Specific
Accounts

49.78

Median = 9.4%

59.42

Upper Quartile = 3.8%

75.22

COMPARISON OF BEST MODEL

Type of
Feature
3char
(72.88%)
bigram
lexical
(79.28%)

Preprocess

Threshold
-

Number_
Duplicate
(73.15%)
Slang
(79.28%)

Threshold =
3.8%,
accuracy of
questioner
data=
75.22%

VIII. SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK

This present study was conducted to predict the users
interests based on the user's tweet and bio data. The
conclusions which can be withdrawn is from the testing result
of the multilabel classification approach and specific accounts,
it was found that the best machine learning method was SVM,
the best method of feature selection was minimal frequency
and it turned out that the preprocess of tweet data were not
contributed to a significant accuracy. After we comparing the
two approaches, the best approach was using the classification
with specific accounts. Although the accuracy of both methods
was more quite high, that is, 70%, the imbalance of the
questionnaire data caused the classification result have a
tendency to the majority class (in the classification of
multilabel) or to need very small threshold value (in the
classification with specific accounts).
This present study can be developed to make it better. One
of the things that can be done to develop it is by adding process
to deal with the imbalanced data in the multilabel
classification. In this present study, the lexical features were
used; therefore, in the further study the syntactical features or
how a user writes the sentence tweet can be developed.
IX.

REFERENCES

[1]

[(2014,
May)
Statistic
Brain.
"[Link]

[2]

Daniele Quercia, M. Kosinski, David Stillwell, and Jon Crowcroft, "Our

Twitter Profiles, Our Selves: Predicting Personality with Twitter," in
Privacy, security, risk and trust (passat), 2011 ieee third international
conference on and 2011 ieee third international conference on social
computing (socialcom), Boston, MA, 2011, pp. 180 - 185.

[3]

Munmun De Choudhury, Nikolas Diakopoulos, and Moor Naaman,

"Unfolding the Event Landscape on Twitter: Classification and
Exploration of User Categories," in Proceedings of the ACM 2012
conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, ACM, 2012, pp.
241-244.

[4]

Delip Rao, David Yarowsky, Abhishek Shreevats, and Manaswi Gupta,

"Classifying Latent User Attributes in Twitter," in Proceedings of the
2nd international workshop on Search and mining user-generated
contents, ACM, 2010, pp. 37-44.

[5]

Matthew Michelson and Sofus A Macskassy, "Discovering Users'

Topics of Interest on Twitter: a First Look," in Proceedings of the fourth
workshop on Analytics for noisy unstructured text data, ACM, 2010, pp.
73-80.

[6]

Manel Mezghani, Corinne Amel Zayani, Ikram Amous, and Faiez

Gargouri, "A user profile modelling using social annotations: a survey.,"
in Proceedings of the 21st international conference companion on World
Wide Web, ACM, 2012, pp. 969-976.

[7]

John D. Burger, John Henderson, George Kim, and Guido Zarrella,

Accuracy (%)

Average = 13.9%

Machine
Learning
SVM + min
freq 7
(70.98%)
SVM + min
freq 3
(72.76%),
total tweet per
class
increased to
5000

[Online].

270

2014 International Conference of Advanced Informatics: Concept, Theory and Application (ICAICTA)
"Discriminating Gender on Twitter," in Conference on Empirical
Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2011, pp. 1301-1309.
[8]

[9]

William Deitrick et al., "Gender Identification on Twitter Using the

Modified Balanced Winnow," Communications & Network, vol. 4, no.
3, 2012.
Zachary Miller, Brian Dickinson, and Wei Hu, "Gender Prediction on
Twitter Using Stream Algorithms with N-gram Character Features,"
International Journal of Intelligence Science 2, vol. 2, p. 143, 2012.

[10] Yudi Wibisono and Naufal Faruqi, "Penentuan Gender Otomatis

Berdasarkan Isi Microblog Memanfaatkan Fitur Sosiolinguistik," Jurnal
Cybermatika, vol. 1, no. 1, 2013.
[11] Elisafina Siswanto and Masayu Leylia Khodra, "Predicting latent
attributes of Twitter user by employing lexical features," in Information
Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE), 2013 International
Conference, IEEE, 2013, pp. 176-180.
[12] Ismail Sunni and Dwi Hendratmo Widyantoro, "Analisis Sentimen dan
Ekstraksi Topik Penentu Sentimen pada Opini Terhadap Tokoh Publik,"
Jurnal Sarjana Institut Teknologi Bandung Bidang Teknik Elektro dan
Informatika, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 200-206, Juli 2012.
[13] University of Waikato. (2013, June) Weka 3: Data Mining Software in
Java. [Online]. "[Link]
[14] Chunliang Lu, Wai Lam, and Yingxiao Zhang, "Twitter User Modeling
and Tweets Recommendation Based on Wikipedia Concept Graph," in
Workshops at the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, 2012.
[15] Jianshu Weng, Ee-Peng Lim, Jing Jiang, and Qi He, "Finding TopicSensitive Influential Twitterers," in Proceedings of the third ACM
international conference on Web search and data mining, ACM, 2010,
pp. 261-270.

Twitter Users," in Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2012

International Conference on and 2012 International Confernece on
Social Computing (SocialCom), IEEE, 2012, pp. 91-100.
[18] Toshimitsu Takahashi, Ryota Tomioka, and Kenji Yamanishi,
"Discovering Emerging Topics in Social Streams via Link Anomaly
Detection," in Data Mining (ICDM), 2011 IEEE 11th International
Conference, IEEE, 2011, pp. 1230-1235.
[19] Aqsath Rasyid Naradhipa and Ayu Purwarianti, "Sentiment
classification for Indonesian message in social media," in Cloud
Computing and Social Networking (ICCCSN) International Conference,
2012, pp. 1-5.
[20] Muhammad Hasby and Masayu Leylia Khodra, "Optimal Path Finding
based on Traffic Information Extraction from Twitter," in ICT for Smart
Society (ICISS), 2013 International Conference, IEEE, 2013, pp. 1 - 5.
[21] Masayu Leylia Khodra and Ayu Purwarianti, "Ekstraksi Informasi
Transaksi Online pada Twitter," Jurnal Cybermatika, vol. 1, no. 1, 2013.
[22] Yosef Ardhito Winatmoko and Masayu Leylia Khodra, "Automatic
Summarization of Tweets in Providing Indonesian," in 4th International
Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, ICEEI , 2013, pp.
1027 1033.
[23] (2013, June) Twitter Developers. [Online]. "[Link]
[24] Jesse Read, Reutemann, and Peter. (2014, March) MEKA: A Multi-label
Extension to WEKA. [Online]. "[Link]
[25] Sri Krisna Endarnoto, Sonny Pradipta, Anto Satriyo Nugroho, and James
Purnama, "Traffic Condition Information Extraction & Visualization
from Social Media Twitter for Android Mobile Application," in
Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI) International
Conference, 2011, pp. 1-4.

[16] Wayne Xin Zhao et al., "Comparing Twitter and Traditional Media
using Topic Models," in Advances in Information Retrieval.: Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 338-349.
[17] Claudia Wagner, Vera Liao, Peter Pirolli, Les Nelson, and Markus
Strohmaier, "It's not in Their Tweets: Modeling Topical Expertise of

271