abstract: Recent advances have shown the capability of Fully Convolutional Neural Networks (FCN) to model cost functions for motion planning in the context of learning driving preferences purely based on demonstration data from human drivers. While pure learning from demonstrations in the framework of Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) is a promising approach, we can benefit from well informed human priors and incorporate them into the learning process. Our work achieves this by pretraining a model to regress to a manual cost function and refining it based on Maximum Entropy Deep Inverse Reinforcement Learning. When injecting prior knowledge as pretraining for the network, we achieve higher robustness, more visually distinct obstacle boundaries, and the ability to capture instances of obstacles that elude models that purely learn from demonstration data. Furthermore, by exploiting these human priors, the resulting model can more accurately handle corner cases that are scarcely seen in the demonstration data, such as stairs, slopes, and underpasses.
author: Markus Wulfmeier
Oxford Robotics Institute
Department of Engineering Science
University of Oxford
`email@example.com`
Dushyant Rao
Oxford Robotics Institute
Department of Engineering Science
University of Oxford
`firstname.lastname@example.com`
Ingmar Posner
Oxford Robotics Institute
Department of Engineering Science
University of Oxford
`firstname.lastname@example.com`
bibliography: main.bib
title: Incorporating Human Domain Knowledge
  into Large Scale Cost Function Learning

# Introduction

Manual handcrafting of cost functions for motion planning systems is an inherently complex and time consuming task. It requires high competency in the target area and expert knowledge about robotics systems and the applied algorithms. Ideally, robotic behaviour can be defined by untrained personnel, enabling task adaptation without involving highly trained experts. Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) targets this problem by learning direct reward models from demonstration samples, and has been successfully applied to problems in a wide range of areas .

Recent advances exploit the ease of generating samples for learning from demonstration, and combining with with high capacity representations through Neural Networks in domains such as games and autonomous driving . While the possibility to create large amounts of training data without manual labelling enabled training large networks, corner cases still represent a challenge for deep learning as less training data is present. Our work targets initialising neural networks by employing human priors to improve performance in these cases.

While CNNs can be integrated straightforwardly into different domains, the IRL framework introduces additional challenges. One of the dominant influences is spatially sparse feedback from our objective function as displayed in Figure . For example, when training a model for image segmentation, the objective creates feedback for each individual pixel. When training with a loss based on Deep Inverse Reinforcement Learning on the other hand, error terms will focus on the region around the demonstration trajectories. These error terms are based on states visited by the demonstration samples and the planning algorithm, which inherently focuses around sample data. Our work addresses the shortcomings by pretraining the network towards a dense human-provided prior, to learn richer feature representations for untraversed areas and increase the network's ability to generalise.

We will show quantitatively that regression based pretraining improves prediction performance as well as classification performance for traversable terrain. Furthermore, we qualitatively present the advantages in the context of corner cases of manual cost functions, where pretraining followed by IRL-based training is able to recover more accurate and safe cost representations.

# Related Work

A major share of early work in IRL focuses on small-scale scenarios and benchmarks . However, with recent technological advances, IRL approaches have been applied to larger state and feature spaces in real life applications . In particular, these techniques harness the potential of deep neural networks, learning rich representations that are able to model the relationship between the state of the environment and the reward structure implied by demonstrated behaviour.

When working with large state spaces and end-to-end learning of reward functions, exploration of the state space becomes more important to enable learning rich feature representations and improve on generalisation. Such capabilities are particularly important when learning driving behaviours from human demonstration: since the demonstrations cannot cover every possible driving scenario, it is necessary to ensure the vehicle can handle the unseen or scarcely seen "corner cases".

One paradigm that has been commonly employed in the past for deep neural networks is that of pretraining. In previous work, networks are pretrained in a greedy layer-wise fashion , by training each layer as a single layer unsupervised model (such as an autoencoder or restricted Boltzmann machine ), and using the hidden activations as the input to the next layer of unsupervised training. This pretraining has the effect of initialising the weights of the deep neural network to a region of the parameter space that is good for unsupervised tasks , from which the entire model can be fine-tuned to the specific classification task. This can be seen as being conceptually similar to the notion of *inductive transfer*, in which a model or representation learned for one task can be utilised or adapted to another.

In this work, we draw inspiration from these ideas, by performing pretraining of the deep IRL model with a manual cost map. In contrast to the unsupervised layer-wise training approach, however, we pretrain the network as a *regressor* to predict the manual cost map as output. This has the effect of initialising the network weights to a region of the parameter space which can accurately represent the manual cost map. This affords us the ability to inject domain knowledge into the network as a 'human prior', which is a crucial capability for self-driving vehicles to ensure that environments and behaviours that are absent from the expert demonstration data are handled gracefully.

# Methods

## Maximum Entropy Deep Inverse Reinforcement Learning

The goal of IRL is to infer the reward structure that underlies certain behaviours. The process can be defined under a Markov Decision Process framework $\mathcal{M} = \{\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{T}, \gamma, r \}$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is the state space, $\mathcal{A}$ is the set of possible actions, $\mathcal{T}$ denotes the state transition model, $\gamma \in (0, 1]$ is a discount factor that moderates the influence of future rewards, and $r: \mathcal{S} \times \mathcal{A} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a function specifying the reward structure. As $r$ is unknown, it must be inferred from a set of demonstrations $\mathcal{D} = \{\varsigma_1, \varsigma_2, \ldots, \varsigma_N\}$, each of which is a sequence of state-action pairs $\varsigma_i = \{ (s_1, a_1), (s_2, a_2), \ldots, (s_K, a_K)\}$ representing a sample trajectory.

The IRL model commonly needs to overcome two problems when reasoning about reward structures: suboptimality of sample trajectories given the underlying reward; and reward ambiguity, where multiple rewards can explain the same behaviour.

The Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt) approach to IRL explicitly addresses these concerns, by representing the expert behaviour as a distribution over demonstrated trajectories and assuming that this distribution has maximal entropy. The agent's behaviour under the policy $\pi_{\mathcal{D}} (a \mid s)$ maximises the reward given the current model. Consequently, the probability of any trajectory $\varsigma$ between specified initial and final states is proportional to the exponential of the reward along the path: $$P(\varsigma \mid r) = \prod_{i=1}^K \pi_D(a_i \mid s_i) \propto \exp \left\{ \sum_{{i=1}}^K  ~ r_{s_i,a_i} \right\}.
\label{eq:maxent_prob}$$

The training loss in Maximum Entropy Deep Inverse Reinforcement Learning (MEDIRL) consists of a data term, which maximises the log likelihood of the demonstration trajectories given the parametrised reward function, and a regularisation term: $$\mathcal{L(\theta)} = \log P(\mathcal{D},\theta \mid r(\theta)) = \underbrace{\log P(\mathcal{D} \mid r(\theta))}_{\mathcal{L_D}} + \underbrace{\log P(\theta)}_{\mathcal{L_\theta}}.
\label{eq:maxent_objective}$$

The data term in Equation  can be split using the chain rule, into the gradient of the objective with respect to the reward, and the gradient of the reward with respect to the network parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:maxent_gradients}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L_D}}{\partial \theta} &=& \frac{ \partial \mathcal{L_D} }{ \partial r } \frac{ \partial r }{ \partial \theta }\\ \nonumber
&=& \underbrace{\left(\mu_{\mathcal{D}} - \mathbb{E} [\mu]\right)}_{ {State Visitation} \atop {Frequency Matching}} \underbrace{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} r(\theta)}_{ {Backpropagation}} .
\end{aligned}$$ Here, the first term computes the difference in state visitation frequencies - how often specific states are traversed - between the demonstrations ($\mu_{\mathcal{D}}$) and the model; while the second term backpropagates this error through the network. It becomes obvious in this formulation that the area and therefore the types of features learned based on these error terms focus around the demonstration trajectories.

## Model Architecture

The CNN architecture used for this work is the multi-scale fully convolutional network (MS-FCN) proposed in . The input to the network is a 2D laser occupancy grid, and the output is a cost map specifying the reward for each location in the grid. The architecture consists of $5\times5$, $3\times3$, and $1\times1$ convolutional layers, including nonlinearities, max pooling and upsampling layers, and a separate branch to learn intermediate representations at a different scale, which are concatenated in the higher layers. For more details, the reader is referred to .

## Training

Each iteration of training under the MEDIRL framework is composed of the following steps. First, the reward function (cost map) is computed by performing a forward pass of the network, and the MDP is solved for this current reward estimate. Using the policy $\pi$ computed by the MDP, we can obtain the expected state visitation frequencies $\mathbb{E} [\mu]$ and the MaxEnt loss and gradients from Equations and . Finally, these errors are backpropagated through the network to obtain the weight updates.

In the pretraining setup, the CNN first learns to predict the manual cost map as output - which results in a dense map of gradients over the full area - and then fine-tuned with the above steps. This is discussed in further detail in the next section.

## Incorporating Human Priors

Due to the iterative nature of planning and refining the cost model in the training process, the approach described in Section tends to focus on discriminative features around highly visited states as depicted in Figure . Features for terrains that are neither explored by demonstration samples nor the planning step will never be formed by backpropagation of error terms through the network. Therefore, the model has to generalise based on similarity to more commonly traverse areas, resulting in artifacts and noisy reward maps. This situation is enhanced in scenarios where feature representations for similar places differ based on their position in state space, as is the case in the dataset used in this work . The LIDAR scan points in this setup will be spread sparser at greater distance from the car, resulting in spatially variant representation.

In order to address this shortcoming, we suggest training the network as a regressor towards a prior cost map. These cost maps can be automatically generated from the laser input data based on manually handcrafted features, which enables us to utilise the availability of large amounts of data without human labelling efforts. However, the principal benefit is the ability to explore all features relevant to generating the cost function, leading to better generalisation in areas with greater distance from the demonstration trajectories.

# Experiments

We evaluate all approaches on the large scale dataset presented in and investigate how performance progresses between training from random initialisation and employing prior human knowledge.

## Data

The dataset consists of 25,000 demonstration samples of urban driving from 13 different drivers. The data was collected in the inner city of Milton Keynes and includes driving around different types of obstacles, including but not restricted to: bollards, green patches, bike racks, slopes, cars, and underpasses. To increase the performance of our approaches as path planning cost maps, we added common preprocessing steps, such as normalising the input data, and trained on shorter trajectories that are more representative for the motion primitives employed in our motion planning framework.

## Prediction Performance

To evaluate how well the trained models approximate human behaviour, we use two common metrics: the negative log-likelihood (NLL) and the modified Hausdorff Distance (MHD) . The first metric is representing how likely the expert demonstrations are given the current cost function and the latter is a spatial metric for how close the demonstrations are to samples drawn from a probability distribution given the cost map. The learned models generally outperform the handcrafted approach as increasing the probability of the demonstration samples is inherently part of their objective function, in contrast to the manual cost function. As Table displays pretraining improves our ability to predict where people are more likely to drive.

```latex
\begin{tabular}{l|M{30mm}|M{30mm}}
       \toprule
        Metric & NLL & MHD \\
        \midrule
        Manual cost function & 56.402 & 0.286  \\
        wo pretraining & 47.535 & 0.218  \\
        w pretraining & \textbf{46.767} & \textbf{0.182}  \\
        \bottomrule
    \end{tabular}
```

## Classification Performance

One major drawback for evaluating all approaches in a real world setup is the absence of absolute ground truth for the cost map. To overcome this impediment, we evaluate the approach based on its performance as a classifier for feasible example trajectories. Given a set of traversable trajectories - taken from our test set - and a set of artificial collision trajectories, we can analyse the accuracy of the model in a classification setup for traversable trajectories. In this setup, traversable terrain is taken as the positive class, meaning that a high precision model is conservative when assigning traversability.

While utilising human priors already improves accuracy for prediction, its principal gain lies in being able to improve spatial generalisation and the ability to learn more robust cost functions. Figure depicts the Precision-Recall curves for networks with and without pretraining. The handcrafted cost function does not include a threshold parameter and is therefore represented as a point. While this approach is manually designed to be conservative and enables us to operate at maximum precision, it falsely rejects much of the terrain as untraversable. The learned cost functions enable us to find possible paths in many situations when the manual cost function will get stuck. When introducing human prior knowledge into the training process, the approach achieves a significant gain in precision compared to random initialisation. Hence, utilising this knowledge is an important step towards robust application of learned cost maps.

```latex
\begin{tabular}{lM{39mm}M{39mm}M{39mm}}
      \toprule
        Scenario & Manual cost function & wo pretraining & w pretraining \\
        \midrule
        Stairs &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/stairs_manual.png} &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/stairs_wopretrain.png} &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/stairs_wpretrain.png} \\
        Bollards &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/bollard_manual.png} &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/bollard_wopretrain.png} &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/bollard_wpretrain.png} \\
        Grass &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/grass_manual.png} &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/grass_wopretrain.png} &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/grass_wpretrain.png} \\
        Underpass &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/underpass_manual.png} &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/underpass_wopretrain.png} &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/underpass_wpretrain.png} \\
        Slope &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/slope_manual.png} &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/slope_wopretrain.png} &
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/slope_wpretrain.png} \\
        \bottomrule
    \end{tabular}
```

## Qualitative Assessment of Learned Cost Functions

Table represents various situations emphasising shortcomings of the manual cost function. One point of high importance is, that all learned cost functions show additional obstacles starting at about 13 meters distance from the vehicle position, which is the length of the demonstration trajectories. By choosing the length of the trajectories, we define how far we trust our perception systems. Since features in distant areas are only traversed but planner and not demonstration samples in the training process, they will classified as untraversable with high probability.

The principal rules behind the handcrafted cost function are based on a threshold on the height range of detected points within a cell and the expansion of obstacles by the size of the vehicle to enable point based planning. This can lead to inaccuracies in the presence of slopes, which can exceed the threshold and will be shown as untraversable, and the same can occur for underpasses, where scans from ceiling and floor result in a high height range. Stairs on the other hand can still fit within the same threshold but present obstacles for any vehicle since they cannot be traversed due to their indiscontinuity. Bollards that are extended slightly too far will seem untraversable and areas such as grass might look very similar in features to pathways but should not be traversed.

While the randomly initialised network already learns to represent the main obstacles and traversable areas, it results in some noisy areas and artificial obstacles. Based on human prior domain knowledge, the network learns to refine the representation and is significantly more robust, learns to represent distinct obstacle boundaries and displays fewer artifacts. The approach learns that slopes are traversable, while stairs are not and extends obstacle boundaries only as far as necessary for safe traversal as seen in the respective cases in Table .

We conjecture that without pretraining, a lot of the expressive power of the network is employed to learn the very specific representation focused around the demonstration trajectories. If we instead pretrain the model to predict an existing cost map, the remainder of the learning process is able to generalise broader and better capture some of the corner cases described previously.

## Implementation Details

When performing path planning, a threshold has to be determined to define untraversable and unsafe terrain. To simplify this step we normalise the output by sending it through a sigmoid. After first trials with Rectified Linear Units (ReLU) as activation functions within the network, the sigmoid saturates early on and training slows down, we exchanged all activation functions with sigmoid units. Furthermore, we introduce early stopping to increase generalisation performance; since following the pretraining step, the model requires fewer iterations to converge.

# Conclusions and Ongoing Work

We develop an approach for incorporating human prior knowledge into cost function learning in the context of IRL. By utilising human priors, we can improve on prediction of demonstrator trajectories. Adding the pretraining step enables us to start from a significantly more desirable network initialisation; giving a richer representation for features at arbitrary position and enabling more effective generalisation. The approach improved classification performance for traversable terrain and results in more robust and distinct cost representations. Our evaluation furthermore depicts the advantages in specific corner cases of our environment given by slopes, bollards, underpasses and stairs.

Ongoing research looks into employing variations of Progressive Neural Networks , which represent another opportunity to exploit human priors by switching to modelling the error/residual between the human given prior and the true cost function. Different variations of the approach can focus on directly reusing the learned features of the trained model or simply focus on approximating the difference between the manual cost function and the optimal function to describe human behaviour.

The focus shifts in context of the latter from learning all representations needed to approximate a function to learning the difference between the manual cost function and the one best suited to explain human behaviour. This approach benefits from expert domain knowledge such that it only needs to embody the variations that the expert did not consider.

# Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of this work by the EPSRC through grant number DFR01420, and a DTA Studentship.


abstract: We present the first comprehensive characterization of the diffusion of ideas on Twitter, studying more than 4000 topics that include both popular and less popular topics. On a data set containing approximately 10 million users and a comprehensive scraping of all the tweets posted by these users between June 2009 and August 2009 (approximately 200 million tweets), we perform a rigorous temporal and spatial analysis, investigating the time-evolving properties of the subgraphs formed by the users discussing each topic. We focus on two different notions of the spatial: the network topology formed by follower-following links on Twitter, and the geospatial location of the users. We investigate the effect of initiators on the popularity of topics and find that users with a high number of followers have a strong impact on popularity. We deduce that topics become popular when disjoint clusters of users discussing them begin to merge and form one giant component that grows to cover a significant fraction of the network. Our geospatial analysis shows that highly popular topics are those that cross regional boundaries aggressively.
author: Sebastien Ardon; Amitabha Bagchi; Anirban Mahanti; Amit Ruhela; Aaditeshwar Seth; Rudra Mohan Tripathy; Sipat Triukose
title: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Topic Popularity in Twitter

# Introduction

We live in the era of Twitter. From the shenanigans of pop stars and actors to enduring political transformations, everything is being transacted on microblogging services. Nonetheless, fundamental questions remain unanswered. We know, for instance, that discussions around certain topics "go viral" whereas other topics die an early death. The network propagates some ideas, and some make no headway. In view of the enormous influence of online social networks (OSN), understanding the mechanics of these systems is critical. To characterize the properties of popular and non-popular topics is of surpassing importance to our understanding of how these complex networks are shaping our world.

In this paper we present a large-scale measurement study that attempts to describe and explain the processes that animate microblogging services. We study a large set of popular and non-popular topics derived from a comprehensive data set of tweets and user information taken from Twitter. A key strength of our study is that we observe both popular and not-so-popular topics. This allows us to hypothesize about the temporal and spatial behavior of popular topics and support our hypotheses by showing that non-popular topics display contrary behavior.

Note that we use the more general term *popular* rather than the more specific term *viral.* This is to make a clear distinction between those topics that achieve popularity because of processes and situations that lie *outside* the network and those whose popularity can be attributed to the dynamics that take place within the network. We reserve the term viral for those topics whose vast popularity is a product of the social network's internal dynamics. These topics could not have gained popularity in the pre-OSN era unless traditional news media decided to promote them. Our study does not focus on these kinds of topics in particular because we intend to study the entire ecosystem.

Our work emphasizes the structural aspects of topic spread. We give the semantic aspect its due importance in the process of topic identification and then proceed to study the fundamental temporal and spatial aspects of the spread of topics. In particular, we study topic movement over two interrelated spatial dimensions: the topology of the Twitter network as formed by "follower" and "following" relationships, and the geospatial embedding of that network in the map of the world.

Our study spans several aspects of spatial diffusion, but our primary focus is on characterizing the temporal and spatial underpinnings of popularity. We focus on three important aspects as described in the sequel. First, in Section , we study how topic initiators influence popularity of the topic, and make the following observations:

Second, in Section , we study the effect of topology and the dynamics of topic spread on popularity. The primary objects of study to this end are the subnetworks formed by users discussing each topic. While it is known that the Twitter network, like most large OSN, contains a giant connected component, a key finding is that the subgraph of users talking about a popular topic on a particular days always contains a giant connected component containing most of the nodes (users) of the subgraph, whereas the subgraphs of non-popular topics tend to be highly disconnected. To summarize, we make the following observations:

Finally, we study the impact of geography on popularity by partitioning the Twitter network according to regional divisions and studying the behavior of popular and non-popular topics.

The evidence for this observation is presented in Section .

Apart from the highlights mentioned above, we review related work in Section . We describe the various methodological issues that needed to be surmounted to perform our study in Section . Section  concludes the paper with a discussion of the implications of our observations on different aspect of the OSN sphere.

# Background and Related Work

Leskovec, Backstrom and Kleinberg's seminal work on the evolution of topics in the news sphere was the starting point for this paper . They studied how the growth of one topic affects the growth of other topics in the blogosphere. They identified and tracked a small number of popular threads, and showed that the growth of the number of posts on a thread negatively impacts the growth of other threads. The basic question that arose on reading that work was this: Can the nuances of the temporal evolution of topics be explained by a more thorough study of their spatial evolution? Working with a data set taken from Twitter we were able to extract the high level of structural and geographical information about the actors of the process that has allowed us to answer this question in the affirmative. This allows us to challenge the line of research that studies only the temporal evolution of topics , or seeks to explain this evolution on the basis of content .

Following the paper cited above there has been more interest in understanding how information and ideas propagate on OSNs. A pioneering study on these phenomena on Twitter was conducted by Kwak et. al.  where several aspects of topic diffusion were studied. Of particular relevance to our work was their study on the topological properties of retweet trees. Since our data set is built on the data set they used (cf. Section ) for details), our work can easily be compared. Our major contribution is that we work with a more general notion of a topic and that we work with an ecosystem of topics. Also our work views the diffusion of topics through the lens of what we call "topic graphs" (cf. Section ), that are a significant generalization of retweet trees. Retweet cascades have also been studied specifically for the case of tweets with URLs in them by Galuba et. al.  and by Rodrigues et. al. . There is a line of work that seeks to uncover the structural processes behind topic diffusion by studying cascade models (e.g. Ghosh and Lerman , Sadikov et. al. ) but we feel this is a limited view of the effect of topology and try to view the network structure in a more complex way.

In another work relevant to ours, Sousa el al.  investigated whether user interactions on Twitter are based on social ties or on topics, by tracking replies and message exchange on Twitter; their study is focused on only three topics namely sports, religion, and politics. More recently, Romero et al.  studied topic diffusion mechanisms on Twitter by focusing on topics identifiable by hashtags. They study the probability of a topic adoption based on repeated exposure, and provide quantitative evidence of a contagion phenomenon made more complex than normal studies of virus-like phenomena by the existence of multiple topics, and briefly report on the graph structure of topic networks. One major limitation of this work we found is that only a very small fraction (approx. 10%) of tweets are tagged with hashtags (see Table  in Section ). Our methodology of using a Natural Language Processor (OpenCalais ) allows us to study topic diffusion on a much larger scale than in this work since our topic choices are not limited to hashtags. On the geographical front, Yardi et al.  examine information spread along the social network and across geographic regions by analyzing tweets related to two specific events happening at two different geographic locations. As an aside we mention that Krishnamurthy et. al. characterized the geographical properties of the Twitter user base in 2008 .

On a more general level, we note that it is implicitly assumed that the attention of users on a platform like Twitter is elastic but bounded (see e.g. ) and hence the diffusion process is essentially a competitive one, even if it is not explicitly adversarial. The study of competitive diffusion has largely revolved around the application domain of viral marketing where there is competition between different products . Budak et al. consider the problem of diffusion of mis-information, where opposing ideas are competing and propagating in a social network. The study of processes by which rumor spread may be combated is another example of competitive diffusion . Our work provides an important input into this area of study, articulating the properties of a complex system that requires extensive study to model correctly and comprehensively.

# Methodology

## Data Set Description

We used a portion of the 'tweet7' data set crawled by Yang et al. . This data set contains 467 million tweets, collected over a period of seven months, from June to December, 2009. The tweets emanated from over 17 million users and are estimated to constitute about 20-30% of all tweets posted during that time period. For our analysis, we used the first three month's tweets of this data set.

| Tweets               | 196,985,580 |
|:---------------------|------------:|
| Users                |   9,801,062 |
| Hashtags             |   1,341,733 |
| Tweets with Hashtags |  19,043,104 |
| Retweets             |  15,126,588 |
| Tweets with URLs     |  54,443,857 |
| Direct (@) Tweets    |  41,951,786 |

Data set summary.

The high-level description of the data we used is shown in Table . As shown, out of approximately $200$ millions tweets, only approximately $20$ millions tweets contain a hashtag. Next, we augmented this data set with network information, in particular, the Twitter follower-following relationship between users, using a separate data set collected from Twitter during the same time period by Kwak et al. . This allowed us to construct a directed graph of Twitter users, where a node represents a Twitter user and an edge between two nodes $u$, $v$, represented $(u
\rightarrow v)$, represents that $v$ is a follower of $u$. This captures the fact that if $v$ follows $u$ then $u$'s tweets are visible directly on $v$'s timeline.

```latex
\begin{figure*}[t]\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\begin{minipage}{5.3cm}
\epsfig{figure=figures/indegree_distribution.eps,width=5.3cm,height=3.5cm}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}{5.3cm}
\epsfig{figure=figures/outdegree_distribution.eps,width=5.3cm,height=3.5cm}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}{5.3cm}
\epsfig{figure=figures/in_vs_out1.eps,width=5.3cm,height=3.5cm}
\end{minipage} \\
(a) In-degree distribution &(b) Out-degree distribution &(c) In-degree VS Out-degree\\
 \end{tabular}
\caption{Basic properties of the Twitter social network.}
\label{fig:properties}
\vspace{-.1in}
\end{figure*}
```

Figure  shows the basic properties of the collected Twitter graph. Both the in- and out-degree distributions follow a power-law . Most users follow a few people and a few users are followed by a large number of people ("celebrities"). We notice that the in- and out-degree values are positively correlated, as shown in Figure (c) by an overall clustering of points around the $x=y$ line. In addition, we observe an additional cluster of points on the top-left quadrant of this graph, which are "celebrities".

## Geospatial Data

We augmented the tweet7 data set by querying Twitter to obtain user profile information, which often contains the user's location. Using the Twitter User ID available in the tweet7 data set, we queried Twitter using its API to extract location information from user profiles. The major issue we faced was that of rate limiting by Twitter. Using a white-listed Twitter account allowed 20,000 queries per hour, and running parallel instances of our crawler to reach up to this limit, we were able to retrieve location information of approximately 7.4 million Twitter users in approximately 200 hours. This is roughly 75% of the user population available in the tweet7 data set. The rest of the users had been banned by Twitter or had deleted their accounts in the time elapsed between our data collection June, 2011 and the time the tweet7 data was generated June, 2009.

Only 62% of the 7.4 million users in the data set provided location information. A further problem was that location was specified in several different formats. Hence we first converted the location information into latitude-longitude pairs and then reverse-geocoded the coordinates into a city, stat,e and country format, using the Yahoo! PlaceFinder service which is part of the Yahoo Geo API.

After processing all available location information, countries with the largest number of users in the data set are the USA (57.6% users), followed by UK (7.7%), Brazil (7.1%), and Canada (3.7%). As the USA contains large number of users, we sub-divide it into five commonly used regions: Northeast (10.7%), Southeast (13.5%), Midwest (10.4%), Southwest (6.8%), and West (16%).

## Topic Identification

The Twitter service allows users to identify topics in messages using hashtags, a single word starting with '#'. This allow users to follow not only other users but also conversations around specific tags. Using hashtags to identify topics in tweets has been used in several past contributions , but results in sparse data sets, as the majority of users do not use hashtags. From Table , we can see that only about 10% of the tweets contain a hashtag.

In order to determine topics for tweets without hashtags, we used the OpenCalais  text analysis engine to extract entities, fact, and events from tweet texts in English, French, and Spanish languages. We have, in a sense, "outsourced" the semantic analysis of tweets to the OpenCalais service. This service extracts entities and tags. We have assumed that each distinct tag or entity is a separate topic, although, as we describe subsequently, the output provided by OpenCalais is just a starting point in the process of settling on a reasonable set of topics.

OpenCalais also has a rate limit of 50,000 requests per day. This made sending one tweet a time a virtual impossibility. Using a small sample of text data, we computed the topic coverage value of a bundle of tweets, by comparing the number of identified topics when bundling, with the number of identified topic without bundling. We vary the bundle size from 1 tweet to 100KB worth of tweets. Using this technique, we determine an optimum bundling size of 40K, which allows a tractable topic extraction time of 2 weeks, while resulting in a topic coverage value of approximately 94%.

Using this method, we were able to extract nearly 6.2M topics in 52M tweets. The remaining tweets were discarded as no topic could be identified. Reasons for this include short tweet, unsupported language, or no clearly identifiable topic. Examples of topics identified and their occurrence count are 'IRANELECTION' (341674), 'TWITPOCALYPSE' (1031), 'SONG OF NICK JONAS' (16).

Figure (a) shows the frequency distribution of these 6.2M topics. The distribution follows a power-law shape: most topics are talked by very few users (\< 10 users). These topics can be considered as noise in our study, as they are useless to study the diffusion and popularity of topics in the network. We therefore apply a threshold-based filtering, by removing topics used by less than 15 users. After filtering, we are left with 0.9M topics which is still quite a large set. We further reduce this set by sampling 4135 topics which were manually examined to ensure that duplicates were merged and that the topic set comprised sensible concepts, taking care to include both popular and non-popular topics. Figure (b) shows the frequency distribution of this reduced topic set. We can see in Figure (b) that, the frequency distribution follows a power-law. In the rest of the paper we refer to this set of 4135 as the *base set* of topics. The analysis done in Sections  and  is done using this set of topics.

To identify and measure the popularity diversity of topics, Figure  compare the number of users to the number of tweets, by plotting those two variables on a scatter plot, for each of the 4135 topics. This graph effectively shows the difference in popularity for all topics. From the graph, we can see that users of unpopular topics typically tweets more than one time on that topic. Popular topics on the other hand, are typically tweeted once by most users. In the following section, we observe and explain why some topics become popular, and other not.

One problem with the base set is that it contains topics that already existed in the network at the beginning of the time window over which the data set was collected. While this still allows us to observe the temporal and spatial variation of the topics during the window, it makes it difficult for us to estimate the effect of initiators on the popularity of a topic. In order to address this problem filtered out all topics whose first tweet appears within the first 7 days of the window. We called this reduced set of topics the *filtered set*. The analysis of the effect of initiators (in Section ) is done using only the topics in the filtered set.

We note that an initial report on the data engineering process described in this section has been accepted for presentation . However, there have been significant extensions done for the purposes of this work, including the querying of follower-following relationships of several million users whose links were missing from the original data set, and the creation of the filtered set for the purposes of studying initiator influence.

# The influence of initiators

The sudden rise in importance of Twitter as a global communication medium has made it important to study who are the entities that wield most influence on this medium. In this section we make an initial contribution by finding, as stated in Observation 1, that popular topics are generally initiated by users with very high follower counts. These users are usually either traditional or web-based news media outlets or media personalities (pop stars, politicians, writers etc.); we will refer to such users as *celebrities.* Finding that the mean number of followers of a user in our data set's Twitter network was 65.7 and the standard deviation of this quantity was 1291.7, we decided to designate any user with more than 3,000 followers as a celebrity.

As stated earlier, we conducted our study on the influence of initiators on popularity only on the filtered set of topics (i.e., those whose first tweet appeared at least 7 days after the beginning of our data set's time window). Popularity here refers to the number of users tweeting about a topic on a day. For each such topic we considered the first 5% of all tweets on that topic in the window and designated the set of users who posted these tweets as the *initiators* of the topic.

In Figure  we present two scatter plots: the first shows the relationship between popularity and the total number of followers of the initiators. We note that highly popular topics have very high aggregate followers of the initiators. But we note in Figure (b) that the average number of followers of the initiators of highly popular topics is in the hundreds rather than the thousands. This indicates that there are some initiators with very large number of followers involved in these popular topics.

When we examined the maximum and second highest number of followers of the initiators of each topic (cf. Figure ) we found that it was indeed the case that celebrity users were involved in initiating highly popular topics while most unpopular topics were initiated by users with a low number of followers.

An interesting observation can be made by looking at the points plotted near the bottom right corner of all plots in Figures  and . These are topics started by a few celebrities that did not achieve any popularity. Hence we see that while it is the case that celebrities drive the popularity of topics, it is not the case that every topic promoted by celebrities becomes popular. This helps us establish Hypothesis 1: Celebrities influence the spread of topics, but cannot make a topic popular unless common users pick up on them.

We expect that regions containing larger numbers of Twitter users will influence the topics discussed to a greater extent. To determine this we tabulated the number of topics for which each region has at least one user in the initiator set (cf. Figure ).

We find that there is a linear relationship between the number of topics initiated and the size of the regions user base. While this does lead us to conclude that regions with larger user bases have more influence on the network, at least the relationship is not super-linear, implying that an increase in users in a given region could potentially lead to an increase in the share of the topics initiated therein.

However, a cautionary note is struck in Figure . Here we again plotted the number of topics started by a region on the $y$-axis, but on the $x$-axis instead of plotting the size of the user group from the region (as done in Figure ), plotted the number of celebrities contained in those regions. Further, we did not consider all topics for this plot, instead focusing on only the top 500 topics (by topic user count) in the filtered set. We found that countries with a greater number of celebrities initiated a disproportionately high number of these topics.

We see a kind of continuity with the past here. The cultural and political dominance of certain regions that existed before Twitter came into being is reflected in the presence of a greater number of celebrity users in those regions, and consequently translates into a greater impact for those regions in terms of popular topics.

# Graph theoretic properties of topics

In this section we establish Hypothesis 2 and argue towards Hypothesis 2a. To do this we study three different types of graphs associated with each topic. First, we study the *lifetime graph* of a topic; this is the subgraph induced on the Twitter network by all the users who have tweeted on that topic at any time in our window. Second, we study the *evolving graphs* of a topic. In particular, we partition the tweets related to a particular topic by day and for each day we construct the subgraph induced on Twitter by the users who have tweeted on that topic on that particular day. Finally, we study the *cumulative evolving graphs* of a topic. We denote by $G_i^t =
(V_i^t,E_i^t)$, the cumulative evolving graph for topic $t$ on day $i$ and define it as follows:

-   The vertex set of $G^t_0$ comprises the users $V_0$ who tweet about $t$ on day 0. The edge set is empty.

-   The vertex set $v_i^t$ of $G_i^t$ is the set of all users who have tweeted on a topic in days 0 through $i$. An edge $(u \rightarrow
      v)$ is added to $E_i^t$ if $u \in V_{i-1}^t$ and $v$ tweets about $t$ on day $i$.

## Lifetime Graphs

We constructed lifetime graphs for each of the 4135 topics in the base set. Our first observation from these graphs is that popular topics tend to occupy the more well-connected portions of the network. To establish this we studied the relationship of the total number of users who have tweeted on a topic (referred to as the *topic user count*) to the *density* of the lifetime graph of the topic (defined as the number of edges per user in the graph). In Figure , we note something important: the lifetime graphs of non-popular topics (e.g., user count \< 1000) do not have densities greater than 10, and in fact many tend to have a density less than 1. A density of less than one for a subgraph of a reasonably well-connected graph like the Twitter network clearly indicates a high number of small isolated clusters. This isolation is observed even in the lifetime graph which establishes relationships between users even where they may not exist, for example, by putting an edge from $u$ to $v$ although $v$ may have tweeted on the topic *before* $u$. Hence Figure  strongly supports one side of Hypothesis 2: less popular topics generally exist in highly disconnected clusters.

It is difficult to establish the other direction of Hypothesis 2 from lifetime graphs because of the optimistic selection of edges mentioned earlier. Nonetheless we get strong indicative evidence for our hypothesis that a popular topic tends to be discussed in one large cluster that contains most of the users that have tweeted on that topic. This evidence comes from studying the relationship of the topic user count to the size of the largest connected component of the lifetime graph, as shown in Figure . From Figure , notice that for more popular topics there is a clear linear relationship between the popularity of the topic and the size of the largest component of the lifetime graph. This is strongly indicative of Hypothesis 2, although it cannot be used as conclusive evidence.

As an aside, we investigated how many of the initiator nodes are present in the largest connected component for the topics in the filtered set used in Section . In Figure , we see that the more popular topics tend to contain almost all their initiators in their largest connected component (which we know from above is very large). Hence popular topics tend to spread around their initiators, implying that initiators have a topological impact as well as a geographical one for popular topics. Another way of putting this is that those people who are not connected to the "cool" people may in fact miss out on the "hot" topics: an unfortunate conclusion that leads us to think that greater awareness gives some users a jumpstart in the process of collecting cultural capital on OSNs like Twitter.

## Evolving Graphs

It is in the study of evolving graphs that we are able to establish that most users tweeting on popular topics form one large connected component (we will refer to this large component as the *giant component* from now on). To establish this we began by splitting our base set into three categories, depending on the topic user count $\rho$: *popular* ($\rho>10,000$), *medium popular* ($1000< \rho <10,000$) and *non-popular* ($\rho<1000$). For each category, we randomly chose $40$ topics, and computed evolving graphs for each. For each day's graph, we then computed the ratio between the sizes of the largest and the second largest component, and also the ratio between the radii of the largest and second largest component.

In Figure (a) and (b) we present histograms for the ratios of component and radii sizes. The buckets divide the ranges of ratios observed for the size and the radius. We find the median ratio for each topic and display the percentages of these medians that land in each bucket. Note that only the highly popular topics populate the buckets with size ratio greater than sixteen, and that the median size ratio for these popular topics goes all the way up into the range of $10^2$ and this is just the median, the maximum tends to be much higher but we study the median here because it is a more robust statistic. Most unpopular topics stay below 4 showing a remarkable evenness in the distribution of component sizes. The radii ratios similarly show that the width of the reach of the popular topics comes from the width of one large component rather than from a large number of small components. This effectively establishes Hypothesis 2.

Moving towards Hypothesis 2a, we first clarify in the context of evolving graphs what we mean when we say clusters merge. If we visualize the social network as a set of communities connected through users who may belong to multiple communities, our narrative of topic spread says that topics that are going to become very popular witness intense discussion *within* communities at first. When the level of intensity rises then the users who bridge communities enter the discussion in a big way causing a merging of what were earlier disjoint discussions. If Hypothesis 2a is correct then it can be reinterpreted to mean that the bridge users serve as a baraometer of the topics rising popularity. To investigate the applicability of this narrative we study the conductance of evolving topic graphs. Motivated by a definition widely used in the study of mixing times of random walks in graphs, we define the conductance $\phi(S)$ of a subset of nodes $S$ of a directed graph $G=(V,E)$ as the ratio of the edges outgoing from the vertices of $S$ that land outside $S$: $$\phi(S) = \frac{|\{(u \rightarrow v) : u\in S, v \in V\setminus
    S\}|}{|\{(u \rightarrow v) : u\in S\}|}.$$ Clearly, the higher the value of $\phi(S)$, the more the number of nodes outside $S$ that are made aware of a topic being tweeted by the users in the set $S$.

In Figure  we plot the evolving value of the conductance of the user set of the day's graph alongside the evolving topic user count for four topics: one less popular topic "CAMBRIDGE", one periodically popular topic "FOLLOWFRIDAY", and two topics that display distinct and very high peaks in their popularity "MICHAEL JACKSON" and "IRANELECTION". Observing the three popular topics we notice that conductance is very high just before the peak is seen. As soon as the peak is formed the conductance dips down to a low value. This supports Hypothesis 2a because when the users that bridge distinct clusters start tweeting on the topic then a larger number of edges become internal to the day's topic graph, hence the conductance should dip as it does. Again, we clarify that this result is merely indicative of Hypothesis 2a.

There are a number of other interesting artifacts that can be observed here. The sharp peak in Figure (d) comes on the day of Michael Jackson's demise. The conductance for this topic was uniformly high earlier, indicating a steady level of discussion about Michael Jackson, in tune with his general popularity. But his death leads to a sharp rise in tweets about him, causing an immediate dip in the conductance. After this initial dip the conductance rises again but no peak comparable to the first one is see, indicating that a high sustained level of interest in this topic is accompanied by a high sustained level of disinterest in the followers of the users continuing to tweet about Michael Jackson. Figure (c) shows a similar initial behavior accompanying an event, the holding of elections in Iran. Subsequently there is sustained discussion which is more of the nature of a conversation (the latter part of the "IRANELECTION" trajectory shows an unusually high number of tweets per user on this topic). This conversation proceeds in regions of the network that have reasonably high conductance but occasionally show dips in conductance, indicating a higher level of clustering in the user set, something that might be expected of a conversation. We note the the similarly high values of conductance displayed by the topic "CAMBRIDGE" in Figure (a) have a different connotation to the high values seen in the other graphs because, like most less popular topics, this too shows highly disconnected daily graphs.

The results on conductance presented here are replicated in other evolving graphs for popular topics, but we omit a wider discussion due to space constraints.

## Cumulative Evolving Graphs

By using a timing relationship to establish edges for the construction of cumulative evolving graphs, we make them a better approximation for the spread of a topic than the lifetime graphs we studied in Section . In Figure  we plot the fraction of nodes in the largest component of the cumulative evolving graph for two highly popular topics "MICHAEL JACKSON" and "IRAN ELECTION" and two less popular topics "INDIANA, UNITED STATES" and "SMARTPHONE". Note that even at the end of their evolution the two less popular topics have only 25% and 35% of their users in the giant component of the cumulative evolving graph while the two popular topics have half the users in the giant component even before the time window finishes. This supports Hypothesis 2 since the cumulative evolving graph is a better approximation of the spread of a topic.

But, more importantly, the sharp rise in the fraction of nodes in the giant component that accompanies a peak in the evolution of the number of tweets stands in support of Hypothesis 2a because a merging of smaller clusters into one large cluster would be accompanied by a sharp rise in this fraction. It could be argued that this rise in the fraction is because of a sharp growth in the number of users in the largest component rather than a merging of clusters, but that seems unlikely given the extent of the rise, and the large number of users already present in the cumulative evolving graph at that point. The less popular topics also show increases in the fraction when their topic user counts drift upwards, but the rise is much less dramatic than that shown by the popular topics, and could possibly be explained by a general growth in the larger component rather than a radical merging of smaller clusters.

# Geographical analysis

This section establishes Hypothesis 3. We argue that the popularity of topics is correlated with their geographical spread. We begin by simply studying the number of regions represented by at least one user talking about a topic and plotted it against the popularity of the topic (see Figure ). It is quite clear from this plot that the number of regions touched by less popular topics is less than those touched by more popular topics. This plot does not establish our hypothesis but it is indicative of it in the sense that it does not falsify it either.

```latex
\begin{figure*}[t]\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\begin{minipage}{5.3cm}
\epsfig{figure=figures/BARACK_Geo.eps,width=5.1cm,height=3.4cm}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}{5.3cm}
\epsfig{figure=figures/Cambridge_Geo.eps,width=5.1cm,height=3.4cm}
\end{minipage} &
\begin{minipage}{5.3cm}
\epsfig{figure=figures/Hamburg_Geo.eps,width=5.1cm,height=3.4cm}
\end{minipage} \\
(a) BARACK &(b) CAMBRIDGE &(c) HAMBURG\\
 \end{tabular}
\caption{Popularity vs edges crossing geography.}
\label{fig:GeoProperties}
\vspace{-.1in}
\end{figure*}
```

In order to establish the hypothesis, we investigated a geographical property of the cumulative evolving graphs defined in Section . For each topic we determined the fraction of edges in the cumulative evolving graph that went from one region to another; that is, we studied the fraction of edges $(u \rightarrow v)$ such that $u$ belongs to one region and $v$ is a user from another region. The evolution of this fraction for three topics, one highly popular, one with a medium level of popularity and one with a low level of popularity (as defined in Section ) is shown in Figure . We observe that the highly popular topic "BARACK" shows a high fraction of edges crossing regional boundaries throughout its evolution, ranging between 0.74 and 0.81. On the other hand the topic with medium popularity, "CAMBRIDGE", has a low fraction of edges crossing regions. It's noteworthy that an increase in the popularity of the topic "CAMBRIDGE" is accompanied by an increase in the fraction of edges crossing regional boundaries. This further supports Hypothesis 3. The topic "HAMBURG" which has low popularity shows a very small fraction of edges crossing regional boundaries.

To examine this phenomenon at an aggregate level we took 40 topics from each category (as we had done in Section ) and computed the mean and median of the fraction of edges crossing regional boundaries for the entire period in our window where the topic is tweeted on. We plotted a histogram using five different ranges for this fraction (see Figure ). This histogram clearly shows that the most popular topics tend to have a very large fraction of edges crossing regional boundaries while the least popular topics have cumulative graphs that generally evolve within regional boundaries with small fractions of edges going to other regions.

# Concluding Remarks

The studies we have presented in this paper have wide-ranging implications, some of which, we hope, will be discovered in the future. For now we present a brief discussion of those area we feel our results may have an impact on.

Perhaps the most important implication pertains to the role and impact of highly influential users (and consequently of highly influential geographies). The rise of OSNs has been accompanied by a triumphal narrative of democratization of communication through technology, and while it is true that Twitter and other OSN platforms have played an important role in giving voice to individuals who might otherwise find it difficult to speak to an audience beyond their immediate geography, our study shows that traditional holders of power and influence have not been unseated.

Our hypothesis on how a giant component forms on Twitter–by the merging of smaller tightly clustered sets of users–is an important input into the sociology of how information is transacted on a social network. There is reason to believe that despite the fact that OSN platforms being the world closer, older notions of proximity and community continue to contribute significantly to popularity in the way described. Our study is broad in nature and captures a coarse phenomenon that we hope will excite sociologist and invite them to tease out the finer nuances that lie within such phenomena.

From an engineering standpoint issues of content distribution and caching can be addressed from observing that highly popular topics cross national boundaries. A closer study of which national boundaries are crossed more often than others could underpin efficient content placement methods.

Our results could also be of great interest to those involved in using the vast reach of media like Twitter to advertise their products and services. The notions of trust and reputation inherent in OSNs have been leveraged to a great extent already for marketing purposes. Our study could help advertisers and marketers figure out how best to use these platforms for efficient and well-targeted marketing.


author: Liu Leqi, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Zachary C. Lipton
[`email@example.com`](mailto:firstname.lastname@example.com), [`email@example.com`](mailto:email@example.com), [`firstname.lastname@example.com`](mailto:firstname.lastname@example.com)
bibliography: refs.bib
title:  When Curation Becomes Creation: Algorithms, Microcontent, and the Vanishing Distinction between Platforms and Creators

Ever since social activity on the Internet began migrating from the wilds of the open web to the walled gardens erected by so-called *platforms* (think Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or TikTok), debates have raged about the responsibilities that these platforms ought to bear. And yet, despite intense scrutiny from the news media and grassroots movements of outraged users, platforms continue to operate, from a legal standpoint, on the friendliest terms.

You might say that today's platforms enjoy a "have your cake, eat it too, and here's a side of ice cream" deal. They simultaneously benefit from: (1) broad discretion to organize (and censor) content however they choose; (2) powerful algorithms for curating a practically limitless supply of user-posted microcontent according to whatever ends they wish; and (3) absolution from almost any liability associated with that content.

This favorable regulatory environment results from the current legal framework, which distinguishes between intermediaries (e.g., platforms) and content providers. This distinction is ill-adapted to the modern social media landscape, where platforms deploy powerful data-driven algorithms (so-called AI) to play an increasingly active role in shaping what people see and where users supply disconnected bits of raw content (tweets, photos, etc.) as fodder.

Specifically, under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, "interactive computer services" are shielded from liability for information produced by "information content providers." While this provision was originally intended to protect telecommunications companies and Internet service providers from liability for content that merely passed through their plumbing , the designation now shelters services such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, which actively shape user experiences.

Excepting obligations to take down specific categories of content (e.g., child pornography and copyright violations), today's platforms have license to monetize whatever content they like, moderate if and when it aligns with their corporate objectives, and curate their content however they wish.

## ANTECEDENTS IN MODERATION

In his 2018 book, Custodians of the Internet , Tarleton Gillespie examines platforms through the lens of content moderation, calling into focus an apparent contradiction: Platforms constantly do (and arguably, must) wade into the normative, making political decisions about what content to allow; and yet they operate absent responsibility on account of their purported *neutrality*.

Throughout, Gillespie is even-handed, expressing sympathy for platforms' predicament. They must moderate, and all mainstream platforms do. Without moderation, platforms are readily taken over by harassers and robots; and yet no moderation policy is value neutral.

Flash points in the moderation debates include years-long protests over Facebook's policy of classifying (and later declassifying) breastfeeding photographs as "obscene" content; Facebook's controversial policy of taking down obscene but historically significant images, such as the Pulitzer Prize-winning "Napalm Girl" photograph notable for its role in bending public opinion on the Vietnam War; and, following the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, the wave of account suspensions that swept across Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and even Pinterest.

In all of these cases, platforms faced consequences in the marketplace, as well as brand-management challenges. From a legal standpoint, however, their autonomy has seldom been challenged.

In the end, Gillespie provokes his readers to reconsider whether platforms should be entrusted with decisions that are inevitably political and affect all of us. Analyzing platforms through the lens of moderation raises fundamental questions about the sufficiency of current regulations. The moderation lens, however, seldom forces us to question the very validity of the intermediary-creator distinction.

## WHAT IS CONTENT CREATION, ANYWAY?

This article argues that major changes in both the technology used to curate content and the nature of user content itself are rapidly eroding the boundary between intermediaries and creators.

First, breakthroughs in machine-learning algorithms and systems for intelligently assembling the underlying content into curated experiences have given companies the power to determine with unprecedented control not only what *can be seen*, but also what *will actually be seen* by users in service of whatever metric a company believes serves its business objectives.

Second, unlike traditional bulletin board sites for sharing links to entire articles, or blogging platforms for sharing article-length musings, modern social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter traffic primarily (and increasingly) in microcontent—isolated snippets of text and photographs floating *a la carte* through their ecosystems.

Third, the largest platforms operate on such an enormous scale that their content contains nearly any assertion of fact (true or false), nearly any normative assertion (however extreme), and nearly any photograph (real or fake) floating through the zeitgeist.

Platforms now enjoy vast expressive power to create media products for their users, limited only by the available atomic content and by the power of their algorithms, both of which are advancing rapidly because of economies of scale and advances in technology, respectively.

We are not the first to suggest that curation fundamentally alters the distinction between platforms and creators. In a recently proposed amendment to Section 230, motivated by more pragmatic regulatory concerns, U.S. Representatives Anna G. Eshoo (D-Cal.) and Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) recently proposed to reclassify those "interactive computer service\[s\]" (platforms) that "used an algorithm, model, other computational process to rank, order, promote, recommend, amplify, or similarly alter the delivery or display of information" as an "information content provider" (creator) . To be clear that the interpretation of these legal terms is faithful to the original meaning in Section 230, here is the official definition:

Immediate legal goals aside, why target (algorithmic) content curation? At first glance, it might seem absurd that by virtue of curating content, an Internet service should assume not only some measure of responsibility, but also the very same status, vis-a-vis liability, as the creators of the underlying content. This distinction, however, may not actually be so far-fetched.

Similar debates have arisen in the arts. Who can claim responsibility for a pop song that heavily samples preexisting audio? Are the Beastie Boys the creators of *Paul's Boutique*, or do the creators of the original snippets have a sole right to that distinction? Can Jasper Johns be considered the creator for his prints and collages that repackage and juxtapose previous works of art (by himself and others)?

With such derived works, claims to creatorship, rights to the spoils, and liability need not be mutually exclusive. This precedent suggests at least one sphere of life where people appear to be comfortable with the idea that those who produce microcontent and those who assemble it into larger-scale works can share the designation of *creator*.

Of course, the line must be drawn somewhere. The DJ does not create the music in the same way that the Beastie Boys do. Art galleries do not create art in the same way that Jasper Johns does. Beneath the neat system of legal categories lies a messy spectrum of creative activities.

## WHEN DOES CURATION BECOME CREATION?

Returning to the activities of web platforms, let's consider two extremes on the curation-creation spectrum. First, let's consider the activities of a typical aggregator website such as the Drudge Report, whose content consists entirely of outbound links to full articles that exist elsewhere on the Internet. Arguably, Drudge plays the role of the DJ, creating something more like a playlist than a song.

Now consider the typical online blogger or the typical overworked journalist of the online era offering commentary or synthesis but not original reporting. They scour the Internet for content, assembling words, phrases, whole quotes, and photographs, all of which could be found elsewhere, to produce an article or post. Most readers undoubtedly concur that this qualifies as creation. Indeed, it is creation in the same sense that Twitter and Facebook users are creators of the content they post.

Now consider the middle ground, where someone fashions content by assembling neither whole articles nor individual words but instead individual sentences, drawn from the entirety of the Internet, stripped of their original context, and assembled to present any desired picture of the discourse surrounding any topic.

Legal scholars and politicians can debate whether this middle ground warrants official categorization as creation versus curation. It's hard to deny, however, that these acts indeed constitute a spectrum and that the curator of sentences bears greater resemblance to the curator of words than does the curator of articles.

Today's platforms have been creeping steadily along this spectrum. From the earliest days, when a comparatively puny reservoir of content was presented in reverse chronological order, to the modern era's black-box systems that power Twitter's and Facebook's news feeds, there is a shifting landscape of actors that look less and less like disinterested utilities happy to transport any content that shows up in its plumbing and more and more like active creators of a media product.

To be sure, activity along this spectrum is not uniform, even within a single platform. Take Twitter, for example: While the default news feed is indeed customized according to an opaque process, the content consists mostly of recent posts by (or retweeted by) individuals whom you follow. On the other hand, Twitter's Explore screen bears a striking resemblance to the middle-ground curator of sentences. They both present a set of hot topics, each titled according to some unknown process, and they curate, from the (often) millions of tweets on a topic, a chosen set to represent the story.

In an era where many journalistic articles appearing in traditional venues consist of curated sets of tweets loosely connected by narrative and interpretation, the line separating intermediary from creator has grown so thin as to suggest the possibility that a double standard is already at play.

## WHERE DO WE GO NEXT?

While the focus here is on actions that platforms take to present content, this is not the only way they influence the information a user consumes. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook regularly translate messages across languages. Image-sharing platforms, such as Instagram and Snapchat, apply algorithmic transformations to photographs. As technology advances, the murky line between curation and creation is likely to become less, not more, distinct.

In the future, platforms might not only translate across languages, but also paraphrase across dialects  or provide content summaries . They may move past applying cute filters and render whole synthetic images to specification . Perhaps to mollify users aghast at the toxicity of the web, Twitter and Facebook might offer features to render messages more polite .

Coming up with policies that balance the competing desiderata of corporate accountability, economic vibrancy, and individual rights to free speech is difficult. This article does not presume to champion a single point on the curation-creation spectrum as the one true cutoff. Nor does it purport to offer definitive guidance on the viability of a system predicated on such a distinction in the first place.

Instead, the goal here is to elucidate that there is indeed a spectrum between curation and creation. Furthermore, technological advances provide platforms with a powerful, diverse, and growing set of tools with which to build products that exist in the gray area between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers."

Regulating this influential and growing sector of the Internet requires recognition of the essential gray-scale nature of the problem and that we eschew reductive regulatory frameworks that shoehorn all online actors into simplistic systems of categorization.

At some point, the increasing influence that modern platforms wield over user experiences must be accompanied by greater responsibilities. It is hard to decide the precise point along the intermediary-creator spectrum at which platforms should assume liability. The bill proposed by Representatives Eshoo and Malinowski suggests that such a point has already been reached. Surely, Facebook's legal team would disagree. What is clear, however, is that today's platforms play a growing role in creating media products and that any coherent regulatory framework must adapt to this reality.


abstract: Vertex detectors at future hadron colliders will need to cope with large particle fluences. Diamond is a particularly radiation hard material and exhibits further properties that makes it an attractive material for such detectors. Within the RD42 collaboration several chemical vapor deposition diamond samples are being studied in the form of strip and pixel detectors. While the quality of the poly-crystalline diamond samples is constantly increasing and the feasibility of producing wafers has been demonstrated, recently a single-crystal diamond pixel detector has been assembled and characterized in a 100 GeV particle beam at CERN. Results on performance, detection efficiency, spatial resolution and charge collection are reported here together with the latest radiation damage studies.
address: Physikalisches Institut, Universität Bonn, Nussallee 12, 53115 Bonn, Germany
author: Markus Cristinziani
title: Diamond Prototypes for the ATLAS SLHC Pixel Detector

# Introduction

While the Large Hadron Collider is scheduled to start collecting data this year, the design luminosity of the planned Super Large Hadron Collider (SLHC) of $10^{35}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ poses a serious challenge for future vertex detectors close to the interaction region, in particular due to the harsh radiation environment. In SLHC scenarios the total expected fluence at a radius of about 5cm will exceed $10^{16}$particles/cm$^2$. A number of studies are currently being performed to find solutions for detectors that can operate in such environments. Chemical Vapor Deposition diamond, in either single-crystal (scCVD) or polycrystalline (pCVD) form, is one material which is being considered for such detectors. Besides being radiation tolerant, diamond is also an attractive material, since it is an excellent thermal conductor and it exhibits no leakage current, fast collection times and a small input capacitance.

Recently pCVD diamond material has become available in the form of wafers. Figure  shows two such diamond wafers with as-grown collection distances of 315$\mu$m and 310$\mu$m respectively, produced by Element Six . The collection distance is a measure of the quality of material and routinely exceeds 300$\mu$m.

After characterizing four full wafers, all indications are that Element Six can reproducible grow and process high-quality detector-grade CVD diamond material. Advances in the production of scCVD diamonds have lead to the production of sensors with sizes larger than 1cm$^2$ and thicknesses of up to 700$\mu$m. The production process is still in its development and the sensors often come in irregular shapes. scCVD detector material is superior in terms of charge collection and homogeneity than poly-crystalline diamond sensors.

Several diamond pixel detectors have been constructed within the RD42 collaboration, developing and characterizing detectors, in cooperation with the Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration (IZM) , performing fine-pitch flip-chip bump bonding. Single-chip devices and also multi-chip module detectors have been assembled and tested in particle beams. Testbeam results for a scCVD pixel detector  and a full module pCVD pixel detector  are presented in this paper, together with radiation tolerance studies .

# Diamond pixel detectors

Two diamond pixel detectors have been assembled with standard ATLAS pixel electronics, calibrated in the laboratory and characterized in high-energy particle beams. For assembly, both sides are metallised with Ti/W. One side is segmented into a $50\times400\mu$m$^2$ pixel pattern to match the pattern of the ATLAS pixel front-end chip (FE-I3). Solder (PbSn) bumping and flip-chipping technology at IZM has been employed to mate both parts. Figure  shows the two assemblies, a single-chip detector, with an irregularly shaped $395\mu$m thick single-crystal diamond sensor (left) and a $800\mu$m thick full-size, $61 \times 16.5\mu$m$^2$ polycrystalline module with 16 front-end chips (right).

The ATLAS pixel electronics provides zero suppression in the readout with a typical threshold level of 3000-4000 electrons and a noise of 160 electrons when used with silicon detectors. As diamond sensors are basically free of leakage currents and have lower input capacitance, the sensor was operated at thresholds of about 1700 electrons with a noise level of about 130 electrons, as determined from fitting the threshold curves of the pixels (S-curves). Analog information is obtained via the in-pixel measurement of time-over-threshold (ToT) with an approximate resolution of 8 bit. The ToT calibration is obtained for every pixel individually, by fitting the ToT response to input pulses injected over a capacitance of 41.4fF.

# Testbeam performance

The pCVD module has been tested in a 6 GeV electron beam at DESY. The measurements were affected by multiple scattering as reported in . With a bias voltage of 800V a noise of 130 electrons at a threshold of $\sim 1500$ electrons were measured. More than $97\%$ of the electronics channels were operational.

The scCVD single-chip module was tested in a 100 GeV pion test beam at CERN, using the Bonn-ATLAS telescope  as a reference for tracking and efficiency measurements. It consists of double-sided silicon microstrip detectors with $50\mu$m pitch. Only tracks with a single hit in each telescope plane are selected. The extrapolated spatial uncertainty at the device under test (DUT) is $5\mu$m.

Unlike in silicon the electric field inside good scCVD diamond is fairly uniform and thus the spatial response of the detector was uniform for bias voltages larger than 0.25 V/$\mu$m. Due to the faster charge collection smaller cluster sizes are observed at increasing bias voltages. The measured most probable charge value (MPV) in the sensor at 400 V is 13.1 ke compatible with the expected value using the ToT charge calibration outlined in . The measured MPV increases with the applied bias voltage and saturate above 100 V, indicating that the charge collection is complete above these values. For full charge collection single and double hit clusters have roughly equal sharing. The overall efficiency to find a hit near a track point extrapolated on the plane of the DUT is found to be $99.9\% \pm 0.1\%$.

Charge collection and space point reconstruction in pCVD are affected by the grain structure and the trapping of electric charges at their boundaries which may cause horizontal polarization fields. In  it was observed that the distribution of residuals across the sensor is not statistically distributed but exhibits regions with systematically positive or negative residuals on a scale smaller than $100 \mu$m. To quantify this apparent clustering, the linear correlation coefficient between the residuals of all track pairs has been determined. Since each selected event has exactly one reconstructed track, pairs are formed considering tracks of two different events. The average correlation coefficients are determined in bins of the distance between the two tracks of a pair. An empirical function, a sum of a sinusoidal modulation with the periodicity of the pixel pitch with a falling exponential that accounts for the residual shifts introduced by the grain structure, was found to provide a good description of the data. In  the data for a low-quality pCVD diamond were fit, resulting in a correlation length (the decay factor in the exponential) of $r_c= 36 \mu$m. Here, we repeat this measurement for the single-chip detector. Since there are no grain boundaries the device exhibits optimal charge collection and a correlation length compatible with $0 \mu$m is observed , indicating the absence of horizontal polarization fields. This is illustrated in Figure .

The spatial resolution is shown in Figure , where the difference between the track position predicted by the telescope on the plane of the DUT (the scCVD sensor) and the reconstructed hit of the DUT device is shown for both directions of the pixel.

For the hit reconstruction first only the digital information is used (light gray distribution), i.e. the pixel with the largest charge signal above threshold collected in a cone around the extrapolated track position is taken as the hit pixel and its center is assumed to be the reconstructed position. The expected digital resolutions of pixel pitch divided by $\sqrt{12}$ in both directions, i.e. 14.4 $\mu$m and 115.5 $\mu$m, respectively, folded by the resolution of the track extrapolation of about 5 $\mu$m, is observed. Position reconstruction which exploits the analog information available via the ToT readout is done by using the $\eta$-algorithm . The corresponding residual distribution is shown by the dark histograms in Figure . It shows a pronounced peak with good resolution for clusters with two pixel hits, for which the $\eta$-algorithm improves the resolution substantially. In the short pixel direction where the fraction of two hit clusters is about 40% the intrinsic resolution of the device, after quadratically subtracting the telescope extrapolation error of 5$\mu$m, becomes ($8.9 \pm 0.1$)$\mu$m for a bias voltage of 200V. The error quoted is obtained from the fit to the residual distribution. Repeating the analysis on several data samples indicate an additional systematic uncertainty in the order of 0.5$\mu$m. In the direction of the long pixel dimension, the resolution for events with two-hit clusters ($\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}10%) is an order of magnitude better than for events with single hit clusters. The space resolution depends on the bias voltage. The charge collection efficiency and hence the total collected charge are field dependent until full charge collection is obtained. Also the sharing of charge between pixels due to diffusion depends on the field inside the sensor. The measured resolution shows an optimum between both effects at bias voltages of 200V  for this device.

# Radiation Hardness

The RD42 irradiation program consists of testing each sample prepared as a detector in a CERN test beam before and after irradiation. Previously, diamond samples were irradiated with reactor neutrons and charged pions. Most recently we irradiated the highest quality polycrystalline CVD diamond with 24 GeV protons from CERN PS to a fluence of $1.8 \cdot 10^{16}$ p/cm$^2$.

Figure  shows the signals observed in various pCVD and scCVD diamond sensors after a range of irradiations. The scCVD diamond is expected to be representative of the next generation high quality polycrystalline material. A single damage curve given by the equation ccd$^{-1}$ = ccd$_0^{-1} + k \phi$, with ccd$_0$ the initial collection distance and $k$ the damage constant can accommodate for the different measurements shown, with one universal constant $k$. In particular, also the measurements on the scCVD fall on the same curve if shifted by $-3.8 \cdot 10^{15}$p/cm$^2$. The interpretation is that, owing to the intrinsic crystallite structure, the unirradiated pCVD material behaves as effectively having the same number of trapping centers as the scCVD material after a dose of $-3.8 \cdot 10^{15}$p/cm$^2$. After ten years of SLHC running typical fluences of $2 \cdot 10^{16}$p/cm$^2$ are anticipated for vertex detectors at 4cm. From Figure  we see that diamond sensors still retain an average signal of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}2500 electrons after such fluences .