Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

SemConvTree: Semantic Convolutional Quadtrees for Multi-scale Event Detection in Smart City

A peer-reviewed version of this preprint was published in:
Smart Cities 2024, 7(5), 2763-2780. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7050107

Submitted:

15 July 2024

Posted:

16 July 2024

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
The digital world is increasingly invading our reality, which leads to the formation of a significant reflection of the processes and activities taking place in the smart city. Such activities include well-known urban events, celebrations, and those with a very local character. Due to the mass occurrence, events have a comparable influence on the formation of the spirit and the urban atmosphere. This work presents an enhanced semantic version of the ConvTree algorithm - SemConvTree. It allows considering the semantic component of the data obtained by using semi-supervised learning of topic modeling ensemble (consisting of improved models BERTopic, TSB-ARTM, SBert-Zero-Shot). We also present an improved event search algorithm based on both statistical evaluations and semantic analysis of posts. This algorithm allows fine-tuning the mechanism of discovering the required entities with the specified particularity (such as a particular topic). Experimental studies were conducted within the area of New York City. They showed an improvement in the detection of posts devoted to events (about 40% higher f1-score) due to the accurate handling of events of different scales. These results lead in the long term to talk about the potential perspective in creating a semantic platform for the analysis and monitoring of urban events in the future.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  
Highlights
The main finding
Enhanced Event Detection Accuracy
The introduction of the SemConvTree model, which integrates improved versions of BERTopic, TSB-ARTM, and SBert-Zero-Shot, enables an enhancement in the detection accuracy of urban events. The model’s ability to incorporate semantic analysis along with statistical evaluations allows it to discern and categorize events from social media data more precisely. This results in approximately a 40% increase in the F1-score for event detection compared to previous methods.
Semantic Analysis for Event Identification The SemConvTree model leverages semi-supervised learning techniques to analyze the semantic content of social media posts. This approach helps to understand the contexts of urban events, improving the identification process. The model not only recognizes the occurrence of events but also categorizes them into groups based on their semantic characteristics, which is crucial for effective urban management and planning.
Implications of the main finding
The increased accuracy in event detection ensures that urban planners and emergency services can respond more effectively to both planned and unplanned urban events. More accurate data leads to better resource allocation, ensuring that services are deployed where they are most needed. This could lead to enhanced safety, improved traffic management, and better crowd control during events, enhancing urban living conditions.
By effectively categorizing urban events based on their semantic characteristics, city administrators can gain insights into the types of events that are prevalent in different areas of the city. This can inform more targeted community engagement strategies, help in the planning of public services and facilities, and ensure that urban policies are closely aligned with the actual dynamics of the city. Additionally, this can aid in long-term urban development strategies by identifying evolving trends and shifts in urban activity patterns.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, social networks are of vital importance to many people. Over half of the world’s population [1] uses social media to express emotions, share their thoughts and support social relationships. Regular users publish information about their daily life, and organizers of mass events broadcast public content via official pages. This trend makes social networks a valuable data source for various tasks dedicated to analyzing urban processes in Smart Cities[2]. Such data allows the creation of recommendation or crime monitoring systems based on detecting multi-scale events. Moreover, previous studies have revealed [3,4] that information about remarkable events, such as hurricanes, earthquakes and floods, appears in social networks faster than in traditional media. Among the diversity of social media, Instagram and Twitter are the most suitable for event detection tasks [5]. Both are highly widespread and continue to increase in popularity [6]. Posts in these sources may contain not only text data, images or videos, but some are also pinned to particular locations and time stamps, simplifying the identification of events. However, data from social media contains a large amount of noise: posts devoted to food, clothes, spam or advertisements do not reflect information about any event and lead to poor results [7].
In the scope of this work, we refer to one of the most basic definitions of event [8] and describe an urban event.
Definition 1. 
An event is a significant thing that happens at some specific time and place.
Definition 2. 
An urban event is an event that happens in an urban environment.
In order to detect new events, authors of the most advanced solutions usually use historical data and predict the number of new posts for specific locations [9,10,11]. Algorithms based on this scheme recognize candidates if the predicted value is lower than the real one. The main disadvantage of this approach is the need to set a high sensitivity threshold and the impossibility of noise processing. This idea allows for obtaining admissible results for detecting events presented by many posts (e.g. stadium soccer games, large concerts). However, such methods frequently need to be more sensible to cover less popular events and are represented by only a few posts. In order to distinguish such events, we introduce two following definitions:
Definition 3. 
A high-scale event is an event which is represented in data by more than three posts.
Definition 4. 
A low-scale event is an event which is not a high-scale event.
However, semantic analysis of content might help to solve not only the challenging task of multi-scale events detection but also to filter posts that contain noise and complicate events detection in general.
In this work, we set a goal to focus on low-scale event detection. Adding such events to the consideration of high-scale ones not only makes it possible to detect urban events online precisely but also allows us to make a live map of the city changing in real-time, to study various processes of the city related to leisure, work and recreation of citizens due to more significant number of detected events.
We emphasize that low-scale events could reflect personal aspects of citizens’ lives, although analyzed sources are publicly available. Thus the extracted knowledge should be treated carefully. Nevertheless, analyzing the distribution of such events in the city can help provide the necessary infrastructure for where such events are held. For example, an event detection approach could find which parks are regularly used for wedding photosets. Then it makes sense to build special constructions or to fence off dangerous areas in this park. Similarly, the proposed algorithm would help handle such low-scale events as car accidents. Extracting this knowledge might lead to traffic stream reorganizing and could have a strong positive social impact.
Our urban event detection approach is based on anomaly detection (i.e. abnormal number of posts detection concerning historical data). To achieve this goal, we have designed and implemented an early event detection software package consisting of several components:
  • data collectors;
  • semantics extraction and ranking module;
  • the adaptive mesh generation module;
  • anomaly detection module;
  • anomaly filtering and event linking module.
Our main contribution is developing an algorithm capable of detecting urban events of different scales that opens up the scope for investigating urban processes in dynamics at a granular level. The algorithm has significantly increased the number of detectable events (from tens to hundreds of events per day for New York City) compared to other event detection approaches.

3. Semantic Convolutional Quadtree

Anomaly detection approaches can vary in many research areas, including urban environment analysis and urban event detection tasks. The ConvTree algorithm was created to solve anomaly detection, prediction and clustering problems by processing geospatial and temporal data from social networks. Article [11] shows how the quadtree can be constructed based on the convolution mechanism, effectively distributing the influence between neighbouring areas and using frequency characteristics to find anomalies in urban social network data. However, the presented method has limitations in sensitivity and event detection ranges. Analysis and research of this algorithm showed its high sensitivity to noise, which is why the author of the original article had to set low sensitivity thresholds to maintain a high level of accuracy. Thus, the method manages well with high-scale events but is not suitable for capturing low-scale ones. In this section, we describe an algorithm that allows going beyond the limitations and making semantic sense of the found events.

3.1. ConvTree

Traditional frequency-based anomaly detection algorithms have a significant disadvantage in detecting events at multiple scales because of the predefined splitting criteria that are not related to data. To overcome this limitation, Visheratin et al. [11] proposed an efficient approach to frequency-based anomaly detection using the algorithm, which uses convolutional quadtrees and adaptive geogrids for detecting events in geo-data. By employing an advanced variant of quadtree called the Convolutional Quadtree (ConvTree), authors leverage the spatial distribution of data points to subdivide the target region. This ingenious use of quadtree enables the system to accurately differentiate between regions with high and low posting frequency, thereby amplifying the sensitivity of the event detection algorithm.
The quadtree data structure was selected by the authors for its ability to cover the entirety of the target area while offering scalability that facilitates the precise localization of a diverse spectrum of events, spanning a wide range of scales. However, the quadtree does not consider the spatial distribution of data during splitting. To address this limitation, the authors improved the quadtree by adding the functionality of split point search based using convolutional neural networks (CNNs).
To build a convolutional quadtree, the authors first split the target area into a uniform grid and create a matrix of the same size as the grid. They assign every element of the matrix a value equal to the weighted sum of points in the corresponding grid cell region. Then they perform a number of sequential convolutions on the initial matrix. The usage of convolutions helps take into account the inter-influence of neighboring elements and neutralize the adjacency effects of splitting the target area into the matrix. In order to select a split point the descending gradient is calculated on the normalized output matrix G starting at the maximum point. On each step, k authors select an array X k of values located at the distance k from the maximum point along any axis and greater or equal to the gradient value S k 1 acquired in the previous step. They continue the process of gradient calculation until the subset X k becomes empty:
X k = { g i , j G | ( | i m i | = k | j m j | = k ) g i , j S k 1 } ,
The gradient is calculated using the equation:
S k = τ × 1 | X k | × i = 1 i = | X k | x i
where τ is a threshold parameter responsible for the sensitivity of the algorithm, and S 0 = τ since the convolved matrix was normalized. The optimal value for τ was empirically found to be 0.8. Then, the authors select the coordinates of the vertex of the square formed on step k 1 , which is closest to the center of the matrix. This point is used to split the area into four child elements, and the process of convolution and split point search is recursively performed for each child element.
The event detection pipeline operates through four essential steps: data collection, historical grid generation, anomalies search, and event detection (Figure 1). In the data collection phase, the authors gather copious amounts of social network data over a minimum of one year to enable statistical analysis across all months. In the data collection phase, the authors gather copious amounts of social network data over a minimum of one year to enable statistical analysis across all months. The authors also derive baseline hashtags for each cell for every possible combination of month, day type, and hour, thereby establishing behavioral norms for the city. Next, in the anomalies search phase, the system conducts a comprehensive search for anomalies, wherein the current posting activity in a geogrid cell is compared against the baseline value derived from historical data. Subsequently, the algorithm proceeds to the event detection phase, where cells with anomalous behavior are processed. Upon identifying anomalous behavior, the algorithm proceeds to the event detection phase, where hashtags usage analysis is performed to identify the events. This entails constructing a post graph within the anomalous cell, with edges representing common hashtags, followed by splitting the graph into connected components. A connected component is considered an event if its size exceeds the threshold value.
The authors have validated the efficacy of their proposed method through experiments conducted on real-world datasets. The developed algorithm is adept at learning the appropriate underlying distributions for diverse datasets and detecting anomalous behavior. The experiments demonstrate that the method is capable of accurately detecting events of various scales and surpasses baseline algorithms in terms of spatiotemporal precision.
However, the presented method has certain limitations with regard to sensitivity and event detection ranges. Analysis and research on the algorithm revealed its susceptibility to noise, necessitating the authors to set low sensitivity thresholds to maintain a high level of accuracy. Consequently, while the method performs well in detecting high-scale events, it may not be suitable for capturing low-scale ones. In the subsequent section, we outline an algorithm that overcomes these limitations and enables semantic interpretation of the detected events.

3.2. Semantic-Based Model for Anomalies Detection

The task of event detection most often arises in large cities or districts. Therefore, let us consider the following geogrid for the investigated urban area:
S = { < u , v > : u { 1 . . N l a t } , v { 1 . . N l o n } } ,
where N l a t = l a t m a x l a t m i n s t e p , N l o n = l o n m a x l o n m i n s t e p , and ( l a t m i n , l o n m i n ) and ( l a t m a x , l o n m a x ) – are latitude’s and longitude’s min and max values. Geogrid cell < u , v > corresponds to the geographic area, which covered latitude from l a t m i n + ( u 1 ) · s t e p to l a t m i n + u · s t e p and longitude from l o n m i n + ( v 1 ) · s t e p to l o n m i n + v · s t e p .
Let us introduce the concept of discrete-time, represented by a set of hourly intervals T. We also introduce the concept of time periods τ as unions of subsets of hourly intervals t T , which are chosen according to the selected strategy of the algorithm. In our case, we consider time periods, corresponding to each of the 24 hours for weekdays and weekends separately for each of the 12 months of the year, constructed during the original tree formation. Thus, the number of time periods τ we consider, following the described logic of aggregation of hourly intervals, is 576.
The set of documents d j related to the time period τ and the geographic area, represented by grid cell < u , v > is described as follows:
D < u , v > τ = { d j : λ ( d j ) = < u , v > , ϕ ( d j ) = τ } ,
where λ ( d j ) = < u d j , v d j > – is a geogrid cell to which the geotag of document d j belongs, and ϕ ( d j ) = τ d j – is the time zone to which the document’s timestamp belongs.
The semantics of each document d j D < u , v > τ are described through an extracted and generated list of topics { t l } l = 1 L . Thus, for each hour interval t T , for each geographic area < u , v > there is a vector of topic distribution:
S < u , v > t = { { s l j [ 0 , 1 ] } l = 1 L } j = 1 D < u , v > τ ,
where l = 1 L s l j = 1 j { 1 . . D < u , v > τ } .
For each geogrig cell < u , v > we also calculate aggregated semantic (topic) vector S ^ < u , v > τ aggregated though time period τ :
S ^ < u , v > τ = { s l ¯ : s l ¯ = 1 D < u , v > τ j = 1 D < u , v > τ s l j } l = 1 L .
The original ConvTree algorithm used to detect anomalies by partitioning the geospace into regions that are subsets of a grid S, each characterized by the less than μ value of the number of posts per time period τ : s P ( S ) : D s τ μ . The value of the hyperparameter μ was chosen empirically by the authors and was equal to 12. To test the effectiveness of the semantic-based model, we should compare the results of identifying anomalies as bursts of posts frequency above the threshold value μ + 2 σ (according to the original ConvTree algorithm) and the results of anomalies detection using further introduced semantic threshold μ < u , v > τ . In SemConvTree we transformed frequency attribute μ into the weighted sum of semantic attributes:
μ < u , v > τ = j D < u , v > τ μ < u , v > , j τ
, each of which is calculated using the following formula:
μ < u , v > , j τ = 1 L l = 1 L e 1 α s l j s l ¯ β l ( s l j s l ¯ )
Here α is the adjustment factor, α [ 0 , 1 ] . It helps to highlight differences in the distribution of topics, and β l allows to increase or decrease the importance of the topic in the case of a directional event detection problem. This coefficient works as a regularizer and allows for additional tuning to recognize events on different topics.
In this work, we used the same values of the β l coefficient for different topics when conducting experimental research to solve the problem of event detection of arbitrary topics and to compare the results with other methods. Nevertheless, investigating the possibility of adjusting the influence of topics on the event detection task and conducting experiments in this area is on the list of tasks for the near future.
This extension of ConvTree – SemConvTree significantly increases the limits of applicability in the area of social data analysis as we can research different scales of events: high-scale events could be analysed on the level of μ < u , v > τ , while low-scale events and events of specific topics could be separately found on μ < u , v > , j level.
Following this idea, in the paper, we suggest an improvement of the previously developed algorithm by adding semantic module for two main aims: to decrease data noise (removing ads, reasoning thoughts, etc.), and decrease overall barrier μ for low-scale event detection.

3.3. Construction Algorithm

This section describes an algorithm for event detection with adaptive geogrids. Adaptive geo-grids, aka semantic convolutional quadtrees, partition the city space into regions of different sizes. The more posts there are in a region, the more leaves for that region will be in the adaptive grid to partition the whole space into cells with approximately the same number of posts. The convolutions make this quadtree more productive, and the semantic component gives the posts a ranking to reduce the influence of noise and advertising on the algorithm and increase the importance of posts related to event topics.
The discovery pipeline consists of two main parts: historical mode and online mode (Figure 2). For the historical mode, we collect open posts from the previous year to build historical adaptive grids with posts. After that, they and the real-time flow of posts are fed to the anomaly detection module, which detects anomalous bursts of posts in the city space. Afterwards, the detected anomalies are passed to the event detection module, which performs anomaly post-filtering and links posts in anomalies into events.
One of the critical components of the algorithm is the post-ranking module. An ensemble of three models is used to determine the potential importance of a post for the event detection task: BigARTM, BERTopic, and zero-shot classification based on Semantic BERT (Figure 3), which will be described in more detail in the respective sections. The first two models are unsupervised methods of thematic modelling; the second one implements the concept of group-supervised, which differs from the first two in that it has predefined classes of texts. For each post, the label is determined by the majority votes of the three ranking module models, and then the weighted posts are fed to the remaining blocks of the algorithm.

4. Semantic Filtering

One of the essential hyperparameters of the ConvTree algorithm is the maximum number of posts in a quadtree leaf. When building a tree, the furthest partitioning into smaller areas stops when the number of posts in this area is less than this threshold value. The lower this value, the more sensitive the algorithm becomes to finding anomalies. In the original article, threshold 12 was empirically selected for noise resistance and maintaining a high level of accuracy. The developed semantic filtering algorithm made it possible to reduce this value to 3 while maintaining noise resistance and improving the accuracy and completeness of detectable events.
This data might be precise for a particular area and time despite the possibility of distinguishing commonly used types of noise and events. Classes with small sizes may not occur in training data, even for large labelled datasets. Thus, applying unsupervised (or semi-supervised) approaches is a potentially more flexible solution for social media post classification. In particular, we have applied three models: BERTopics, TSB-ARTM, and SBERT-Zero-Shot.

4.1. BERTopic

Based on the BERTopic approach, the filter module assigns a tag to the post according to the subject tag to which it belongs. Clusters (i.e. topics) obtained by BERTopic can be interpreted as groups of posts related to events or groups consisting of noisy posts. We used a marked-up dataset to determine the cluster type and assigned a label concerning the distribution of labelled posts inside. A label with the most significant fraction of posts becomes the label of the whole cluster. As some clusters might not contain any labelled posts, there is no possibility of determining their type. In such cases, the algorithm marks the cluster as devoted to events. In other words, this module filters only clusters which can be successfully recognized as consisting of noisy data. The same logic is hidden behind assigning a label to outlines formed by HDBSCAN. Due to the necessity of using a labelled dataset to classify posts, this module is considered a semi-supervised filtering approach.

4.2. TSB-ARTM

Additive regularization of topic models (ARTM) [82] is an evolution of models based on LDA [77]. It allows combining regularizers to create models with given properties. This multi-criteria approach is based on optimizing a weighted sum of the primary criterion (log-likelihood) and some additional criterion regulators. Such an approach allows one to consider several optimization criteria simultaneously, as well as several different quality metrics, the help of which is used to validate the constructed model.
Besides additional criteria-regularizers, ARTM allows us to use various additional modalities, such as a timestamp or geospatial coordinate. Using such modalities made it possible to consider the seasonality and the hypothesis about the temporal solid and spatial connectivity of event posts. Our developed TSB-ARTM model uses as additional modalities a generalized timestamp (month of the post) and information about the urban sector to which the post belongs. This algorithm, as well as BERTopic, is an algorithm for thematic modelling without a teacher, and the same semi-supervised strategy was used to determine advertising topics for BERTopic.

4.3. SBert-Zero-Shot

The key idea of applying the Sentence-BERT model for zero-shot classification is hidden in calculating similarities between embeddings of social media text descriptions and predefined classes.
Firstly, we used two lists of categories for noise data and events defined during data analysis (this process is described more precisely in subparagraph 5.1). Secondly, we have obtained embeddings for two lists of predefined classes and all social media descriptions using the pre-trained sentence-transformers model «paraphrase-multilingual-MiniLM-L12-v2» [86]. This model maps paragraphs to a dense vector space and has established itself for clustering and semantic search NLP tasks. The last step of our approach was dedicated to calculating cosine similarities between each embedding of social media data and embeddings of predefined classes. As a result, we assigned social media descriptions to the most similar class and changed the label to a binary value reflecting the determined text description type: noise or event.

4.4. Models Comparison

The developed models were compared on a manually labelled dataset from the New York City, USA posts for 2019. In 2019 February, June and October, three one-day intervals were chosen to account for season and time of day differences. Three 1-hour periods were considered: the morning from 10 am to 11 am, the afternoon from 4 pm to 5 pm, and the evening from 10 pm to 11 pm.
Table 1 compares the completeness of promotional and non-events themes for each model separately and when used in an ensemble. The results show that using an ensemble of the three described models with the selection of the majority opinion allows a significant increase in the completeness of the selection of non-event posts, which subsequently has a significant impact on the increase in the quality of event selection.

5. Experimental Evaluation

The leading indicators in this problem are the number of different-scale events found by the algorithm and their precision and recall. Comparisons were made to the city of New York, which has one of the highest Instagram activity levels.

5.1. DataSet

There is no publicly available dataset which is suitable for low-scale event detection. Nevertheless, we managed to collect data by ourselves. Data is extracted from the popular social platform Instagram via the Legacy API and credentials, golang web scrapping techniques and libraries without any search keywords or specific topics of interest. For crawling, lists of New York City locations were extracted from the Facebook API. Each location was collected from the beginning of 2018 to April 2020. In total, for New York City were collected more than 26 million posts with text, timestamps, ordinates and other meta-information that is used in multimodal models.
In order to apply semi-supervised filtering modules, obtain candidate embeddings for SBert-Zero-Shot and evaluate the results of the whole pipeline, we defined categories of events. We used crowd-sourced judges to label part of the dataset. To define categories, we manually analyzed the dataset and distinguished the most frequent types of events (e.g., festivals, shows, sports competitions) and the most frequent noise topics (e.g., food, advertisement). Taking into account the necessity to cover all possible types of events and noise data, we have also added classes which aim to cover the rest of the possible candidates: «other private events», «other global events», and «other» for the rest of noise data. As a part of the dataset, we extracted posts for three one-hour periods of one-day intervals in three different months. More precisely, we picked days from June, October and February for the morning one from 10 am to 11 am, the afternoon one from 4 pm to 5 pm and the evening one from 10 pm to 11 pm. This choice is explained by the motivation to cover seasonality trends of social media users’ activities. As a result, we extracted 5829 posts, of which 646 judges were labelled on the Yandex Toloka platform. The judges were paid $US 0.01 per answer. We have also limited each judge to a maximum of 250 judgements. Due to the complicated semantics of posts, we added an opportunity to assign several labels to one text and expanded the list of categories with two additional ones: «future events» and «retrospective events». The list of defined categories and the number of labelled posts devoted to the categories are shown in Table 2.

5.2. Experimental Studies

To conduct event detection experiments, the dataset was divided into two parts, the first being Instagram posts from 2018, which were used to build historical data and adaptive grids and the second part from early 2019 to April 2020 was used to search for events in New York City. Through ranking, we were able to significantly increase the sensitivity of the quadtree to anomalous bursts, which allowed us to find not only more high-scale events, Table 3, but also allowed us to find a huge number of low-scale events. Due to different data sources (Instagram and Twitter), as well as different time intervals at which the search for events was carried out, the comparison of algorithms is not honest and the lack of large generally accepted available datasets with markup for the correct alignment of algorithms is one of the problems of the event detection task to be solved in the future [86].
Our main goal was to add to the algorithm the ability to detect low-scale events, but we also managed to increase the accuracy and completeness for high-scale events. At the same time, significantly more low-scale events were found, and the total number of events found increased from 10 thousand to 177 thousand, a 16-fold increase, Table 4.
Table 5 clearly shows the differences between the quality of event extraction by the ConvTree model [11] and the developed multimodal algorithm with an additional filtering step. The substantial increase in precision and recall metrics is due to comparing the algorithms on a dataset containing many posts related to low-scale events. The filtering-based model allows us to find such events qualitatively, while the original algorithm [11] is more focused on finding global events.

6. Conclusion and Future Works

In this paper, we developed an algorithm capable of low-scale events detection - Semantic Convolution Tree, which extends the existing solutions’ functionality by considering the topic modelling and selecting the most expressed to solve the event detection problem. We have shown how the semantic module was constructed based on an unsupervised learning mechanism using an ensemble approach of topic models. We also indicated how the BERTopic, TSB-ARTM, and SBert-Zero-Shot models were refined to consider temporal and spatial modalities. The event detection algorithm showed a significant increase in the number of found events (more than 16 times more) and detection accuracy. However, we still see a significant front of research on developing this direction. For example, we plan to process multi-dimensional event probability weights (textual semantic and spatial semantic) and to use integrated data from other social networks and other regions of the world (cities from other countries for additional cross-cultural analysis). Moreover, we also plan to extract anomalies both from the distribution of all messages and from a few messages relating to a particular topic. Similarly, obtaining separate metrics for specific categories would be interesting to compare them from the detectability point of view. Another idea is to include additional modalities, such as retrospective and future events labels. Finally, there is a considerable research gap in comparing different event detection methods. We plan to create and publish a universal dataset allowing researchers to compare their approaches conveniently.

7. Compliance with Ethical Standards

Research related to analyzing and processing social media data can carry the risk of revealing personal and vulnerable information. Referring to the ethics flag, we would like to explain our vision of event detection systems from this perspective. Our research focuses not only on event detection but also on the study of urban processes in general. Of course, personal events should not be shared, but analyzing the distribution of such events in the city can help provide the necessary infrastructure for the location of such events. For example, this framework helps to find which parks are regularly used for wedding photo shoots. This information can be the starting point for setting up infrastructure and increasing the level of interest. In addition, the proposed algorithm is also capable of handling other small-scale events, such as car accidents. Our algorithm can be used to highlight potentially dangerous road sections. Extracting this knowledge can lead to reorganizing traffic flows and have a strong positive social impact.

8. Research Data Policy and Data Availability Statement

For ethical reasons, the dataset used in this publication cannot be published, as we have not fully anonymized the data for the publication as part of this work. However, we are currently developing a single anonymized multimodal dataset for event detection approaches, which will be published in the public domain.

References

  1. Dixon, S.J. Number of social media users worldwide from 2017 to 2028(in billions), May, 2024. https://doi.org/https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/.
  2. Wolniak, R.; Stecuła, K. Artificial Intelligence in Smart Cities—Applications, Barriers, and Future Directions: A Review. Smart Cities 2024, 7.3, 1346–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. S., P.; C., D.; Guy, M. Twitter earthquake detection: earthquake monitoring in a social world. Annals of Geophysics 2012, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Osborne, M.; Moran, S.; McCreadie, R.; Lunen, A.V.; Sykora, M.; Cano, E.; Ireson, N.; Macdonald, C.; Ounis, I.; He, Y.; et al. Real-Time Detection, Tracking, and Monitoring of Automatically Discovered Events in Social Media. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations.; p. 2014. [CrossRef]
  5. Lim, B.H.; Lu, D.; Chen, T.; Kan, M.Y. Instagram. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015.; p. 2015. [CrossRef]
  6. Giridhar, P.; Wang, S.; Abdelzaher, T.; Amin, T.A.; Kaplan, L. Social Fusion: Integrating Twitter and Instagram for Event Monitoring. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC). IEEE, July 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, C.; Zhou, G.; Yuan, Q.; Zhuang, H.; Zheng, Y.; Kaplan, L.; Wang, S.; Han, J. GeoBurst: Real-Time Local Event Detection in Geo-Tagged Tweet Streams. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 16513–522. [CrossRef]
  8. McMinn, A.; Moshfeghi, Y.; Jose, J. Building a large-scale corpus for evaluating event detection on twitter. Otober 2013, pp. 409–418. [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, C.; Lei, D.; Yuan, Q.; Zhuang, H.; Kaplan, L.; Wang, S.; Han, J. GeoBurst+: Effective and Real-Time Local Event Detection in Geo-Tagged Tweet Streams. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Krumm, J.; Horvitz, E. Eyewitness. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 23rd SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems.; p. 2015. [CrossRef]
  11. Visheratin, A.A.; Mukhina, K.D.; Visheratina, A.K.; Nasonov, D.; Boukhanovsky, A.V. Multiscale event detection using convolutional quadtrees and adaptive geogrids. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSPATIAL Workshop on Analytics for Local Events and News.; p. 2018. [CrossRef]
  12. Saha, K.; Seybolt, J.; Mattingly, S.M.; Aledavood, T.; Konjeti, C.; Martinez, G.J.; Grover, T.; Mark, G.; De Choudhury, M. What Life Events Are Disclosed on Social Media, How, When, and By Whom? In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2021; CHI ’21. [CrossRef]
  13. DiCarlo, M.F.; Berglund, E.Z. Use of social media to seek and provide help in Hurricanes Florence and Michael. Smart Cities 2020, 3.4, 1187–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Becker, H.; Naaman, M.; Gravano, L. Beyond Trending Topics: Real-World Event Identification on Twitter. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 2021, 5, 438–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Khodabakhsh, M.; Kahani, M.; Bagheri, E.; Noorian, Z. Detecting life events from Twitter based on temporal semantic features. Knowledge-Based Systems 2018, 148, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sufi, F.K. AI-SocialDisaster: An AI-based software for identifying and analyzing natural disasters from social media. Software Impacts 2022, 13, 100319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cresci, S.; Tesconi, M.; Cimino, A.; Dell’Orletta, F. A.; Dell’Orletta, F. A Linguistically-Driven Approach to Cross-Event Damage Assessment of Natural Disasters from Social Media Messages. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 151195–1200. [CrossRef]
  18. Abdelhaq, H.; Sengstock, C.; Gertz, M. EvenTweet: Online localized event detection from twitter. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 2013, 6, 1326–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Neruda, G.A.; Winarko, E. Traffic Event Detection from Twitter Using a Combination of CNN and BERT. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS); 2021; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Timokhin, Stanislav, M.S.; Antoniou, C. Predicting venue popularity using crowd-sourced and passive sensor data. Smart Cities 2020, 3.3, 42. [CrossRef]
  21. Afyouni, I.; Aghbari, Z.A.; Razack, R.A. Multi-feature, multi-modal, and multi-source social event detection: A comprehensive survey. Information Fusion 2022, 79, 279–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Said, N.; Ahmad, K.; Regular, M.; Pogorelov, K.; Hassan, L.; Ahmad, N.; Conci, N. a: Disasters Detection in Social Media and Satellite imagery, 2019; arXiv:cs.IR/1901.04277].
  23. Atefeh, F.; Khreich, W. A Survey of Techniques for Event Detection in Twitter. Comput. Intell. 2015, 31, 132–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Saeed, Z.; Abbasi, R.; Maqbool, O.; Sadaf, A.; Razzak, I.; Daud, A.; Aljohani, N.; Xu, G. Twitter: A Survey and Framework on Event Detection Techniques. Journal of Grid Computing 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chandola, V.; Banerjee, A.; Kumar, V. Anomaly Detection: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 2009, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Markou, M.; Singh, S. Novelty detection: a review—part 1: statistical approaches. Signal Processing 2003, 83, 2481–2497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ada, I.; Berthold, M.R. Unifying Change – Towards a Framework for Detecting the Unexpected. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops; 2011; pp. 555–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dries, A.; Rückert, U. Adaptive concept drift detection. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal 2009, 2, 311–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. al Liu, N., Topic Detection and Tracking. In Encyclopedia of Database Systems; LIU, L.; ÖZSU, M.T., Eds.; Springer US: Boston, MA, 2009; pp. 3121–3124. [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, X.; Chen, X.; Chen, Y.; Wang, S.; Li, Z.; Xia, J. Event detection and popularity prediction in microblogging. Neurocomputing 2015, 149, 1469–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Brants, T.; Chen, F.; Farahat, A. A. A System for New Event Detection. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 26th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Informaion Retrieval, New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 03330–337. [CrossRef]
  32. Kaleel, S.B.; Abhari, A. Cluster-discovery of Twitter messages for event detection and trending. Journal of Computational Science 2015, 6, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Aiello, L.M.; Petkos, G.; Martin, C.; Corney, D.; Papadopoulos, S.; Skraba, R.; Göker, A.; Kompatsiaris, I.; Jaimes, A. Sensing Trending Topics in Twitter. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 2013, 15, 1268–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lampos, V.; Cristianini, N. Nowcasting Events from the Social Web with Statistical Learning. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2012, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Weng, J.; Yao, Y.; Leonardi, E.; Lee, B.S. Event Detection in Twitter. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 2011, pp. 1–21.
  36. Cheng, T.; Wicks, T. Event Detection using Twitter: A Spatio-Temporal Approach. PloS one 2014, 9, e97807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Weiler, A.; Grossniklaus, M.; Scholl, M. Event Identification and Tracking in Social Media Streaming Data. 14, Vol. 1133. 20 March.
  38. He, Q.; Chang, K.; Lim, E.P. Analyzing Feature Trajectories for Event Detection. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 30th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 07207–214. [CrossRef]
  39. Kleinberg, J. Bursty and Hierarchical Structure in Streams. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2002, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fung, G.P.C.; Yu, J.X.; Yu, P.S.; Lu, H. Parameter Free Bursty Events Detection in Text Streams. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Very Large Data Bases.; pp. 200505181–192.
  41. He, Q.; Chang, K.; Lim, E.P.; Zhang, J. Bursty Feature Representation for Clustering Text Streams. In Proceedings of the SDM; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kumar, R.; Novak, J.; Raghavan, P.; Tomkins, A. On the Bursty Evolution of Blogspace. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 03568–576. [CrossRef]
  43. Mei, Q.; Zhai, C. Discovering Evolutionary Theme Patterns from Text: An Exploration of Temporal Text Mining. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining, New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 05198–207. [CrossRef]
  44. Zhou, D.; Chen, L.; He, Y. An Unsupervised Framework of Exploring Events on Twitter: Filtering, Extraction and Categorization. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.; pp. 2015152468–2474.
  45. Lee, R.; Wakamiya, S.; Sumiya, K. Discovery of unusual regional social activities using geo-tagged microblogs. World Wide Web 2011, 14, 321–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Feng, W.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, W.; Han, J.; Wang, J.; Aggarwal, C.; Huang, J. STREAMCUBE: Hierarchical spatio-temporal hashtag clustering for event exploration over the Twitter stream. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Data Engineering. IEEE, April 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rehman, F.U.; Afyouni, I.; Lbath, A.; Basalamah, S. Understanding the Spatio-Temporal Scope of Multi-scale Social Events. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL Workshop on Analytics for Local Events and News.; p. 2017. [CrossRef]
  48. Khodabakhsh, M.; Kahani, M.; Bagheri, E.; Noorian, Z. Detecting Life Events From Twitter based on Temporal Semantic Features. Knowledge-Based Systems 2018, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mikolov, T.; Chen, K.; Corrado, G.; Dean, J. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space, 2013. arXiv:cs.CL/1301.3781].
  50. Peters, M.E.; Neumann, M.; Iyyer, M.; Gardner, M.; Clark, C.; Lee, K.; Zettlemoyer, L. 2018; arXiv:cs.CL/1802.05365].
  51. Pennington, J.; Socher, R.; Manning, C. Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation. Jan. 2014, Vol. 14, pp. 1532–1543. [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, Y.; Shirakawa, M.; Hara, T. A General Method for Event Detection on Social Media. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Advances in Databases and Information Systems; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hettiarachchi, H.; Adedoyin-Olowe, M.; Bhogal, J.; Gaber, M.M. Embed2Detect: temporally clustered embedded words for event detection in social media. Machine Learning 2021, 111, 49–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Devlin, J.; Chang, M.W.; Lee, K.; Toutanova, K. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding, 2018. [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, Y.; Ott, M.; Goyal, N.; Du, J.; Joshi, M.; Chen, D.; Levy, O.; Lewis, M.; Zettlemoyer, L.; Stoyanov, V. RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach, 2019. [CrossRef]
  56. Reimers, N.; Gurevych, I. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.; p. 2019.
  57. Wei, Z.; Yongli, W. Chinese Event Detection Combining BERT Model with Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 5th International Conference on Mechanical, Control and Computer Engineering (ICMCCE); 2020; pp. 1625–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Huang, L.; Shi, P.; Zhu, H.; Chen, T. Early detection of emergency events from social media: a new text clustering approach. Natural Hazards 2022, 111, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. McDonald, R.; Nivre, J. Analyzing and Integrating Dependency Parsers. Computational Linguistics 2011, 37, 197–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. . [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, X.; Luo, Z.; Huang, H. Jointly Multiple Events Extraction via Attention-based Graph Information Aggregation. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.; p. 2018. [CrossRef]
  62. Kipf, T.N.; Welling, M. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks, 2017. arXiv:cs.LG/1609.02907].
  63. Yan, H.; Jin, X.; Meng, X.; Guo, J.; Cheng, X. Event Detection with Multi-Order Graph Convolution and Aggregated Attention. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Hong Kong, China, November 2019; pp. 5766–5770. [CrossRef]
  64. Veličković, P.; Cucurull, G.; Casanova, A.; Romero, A.; Liò, P.; Bengio, Y. Graph Attention Networks, 2018. arXiv:stat.ML/1710.10903].
  65. Dutta, S.; Ma, L.; Saha, T.K.; Lu, D.; Tetreault, J.; Jaimes, A. GTN-ED: Event Detection Using Graph Transformer Networks, 2021. arXiv:cs.CL/2104.15104].
  66. Raiaan, M. A. K., M. M.S.H.F.K.F.N.M.S.S.M.M.M.J.A.S. A review on large Language Models: Architectures, applications, taxonomies, open issues and challenges. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 26839–26874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Snoek, C.G.M.; Worring, M.; Smeulders, A.W.M. Early versus late fusion in semantic video analysis. In Proceedings of the MULTIMEDIA ’05; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  68. Cui, W.; Du, J.; Wang, D.; Kou, F.; Xue, Z. MVGAN: Multi-View Graph Attention Network for Social Event Detection. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2021, 12, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jony, R.I.; Woodley, A.; Perrin, D. Fusing Visual Features and Metadata to Detect Flooding in Flickr Images. In Proceedings of the 2020 Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA); 2020; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Petkos, G.; Papadopoulos, S.; Kompatsiaris, I. Social event detection using multimodal clustering and integrating supervisory signals. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, ICMR 2012 2012. [CrossRef]
  71. Schinas, M.; Papadopoulos, S.; Petkos, G.; Kompatsiaris, I.; Mitkas, P. Multimodal Graph-based Event Detection and Summarization in Social Media Streams. October 2015, pp. 189–192. [CrossRef]
  72. Tong, M.; Wang, S.; Cao, Y.; Xu, B.; Li, J.; Hou, L.; Chua, T.S. Image Enhanced Event Detection in News Articles. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2020, 34, 9040–9047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Guo, C.; Tian, X. Event recognition in personal photo collections using hierarchical model and multiple features. 2015 IEEE 17th International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP) 2015, pp. 1–6.
  74. Kaneko, T.; Yanai, K. Event photo mining from Twitter using keyword bursts and image clustering. Neurocomputing 2016, 172, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zaharieva, M.; Zeppelzauer, M.; Breiteneder, C. Automated Social Event Detection in Large Photo Collections. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 13167–174. [CrossRef]
  76. Ali, F.; Ali, A.; Imran, M.; Naqvi, R.A.; Siddiqi, M.H.; Kwak, K.S. Traffic accident detection and condition analysis based on social networking data. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2021, 151, 105973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Blei, D.M.; Ng, A.Y.; Jordan, M.I. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 2003, 3, 993–1022. [Google Scholar]
  78. Sokolova, M.; Huang, K.; Matwin, S.; Ramisch, J.J.; Sazonova, V.; Black, R.; Orwa, C.; Ochieng, S.; Sambuli, N. Topic Modelling and Event Identification from Twitter Textual Data. ArXiv 2016. arXiv:abs/1608.02519.
  79. Zhang, C.; Wang, H.; Cao, L.; Wang, W.; Xu, F. A Hybrid Term-Term Relations Analysis Approach for Topic Detection. Know.-Based Syst. 2016, 93, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Choi, D.; Park, S.; Ham, D.; Lim, H.; Bok, K.; Yoo, J. Local Event Detection Scheme by Analyzing Relevant Documents in Social Networks. Applied Sciences 2021, 11, 577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vorontsov, K.; Frei, O.; Apishev, M.; Romov, P.; Dudarenko, M. BigARTM: Open Source Library for Regularized Multimodal Topic Modeling of Large Collections. In Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer International Publishing, 2015; pp. 370–381. [CrossRef]
  82. Vorontsov, K.V. Additive regularization for topic models of text collections. Doklady Mathematics 2014, 89, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhang, C.; Liu, L.; Lei, D.; Yuan, Q.; Zhuang, H.; Hanratty, T.; Han, J. TrioVecEvent. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.; p. 2017. [CrossRef]
  84. Grootendorst, M. BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure, 2022. arXiv:cs.CL/ 2203.05794].
  85. Wei, H.; Zhou, H.; Sankaranarayanan, J.; Sengupta, S.; Samet, H. DeLLe. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Analytics for Local Events and News.; p. 2019. [CrossRef]
  86. Korneev, A.; Kovalchuk, M.; Filatova, A.; Tereshkin, S. Towards comparable event detection approaches development in social media. Procedia Computer Science 2022, 212, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Scheme of events detection pipeline of ConvTree algorithm
Figure 1. Scheme of events detection pipeline of ConvTree algorithm
Preprints 112207 g001
Figure 2. Pipeline of the event detection system SemConvTree
Figure 2. Pipeline of the event detection system SemConvTree
Preprints 112207 g002
Figure 3. Scheme of the post ranking module
Figure 3. Scheme of the post ranking module
Preprints 112207 g003
Table 1. Filtering step results for posts by time of day: morning (M), afternoon (A), evening (E), - and for posts by month: February (Feb), June (Jun), October (Oct)
Table 1. Filtering step results for posts by time of day: morning (M), afternoon (A), evening (E), - and for posts by month: February (Feb), June (Jun), October (Oct)
Model Recall of the non-events posts detection
All M A E Feb Jun Oct
BERTopic 0.42 0.43 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.39
TSB-ARTM 0.51 0.48 0.5 0.49 0.48 0.52 0.51
SBert-Zero-Shot 0.46 0.44 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.47 0.48
Models ensemble 0.61 0.59 0.6 0.62 0.59 0.6 0.61
Table 2. Categories and posts number
Table 2. Categories and posts number
Category Posts number Category Posts number
Festival 64 Concert 115
Sport event 317 National holiday 214
Show/ Flashmob/ Pride 55 Exhibition 46
Stroll/ Camping 120 Accident 2
Lectures/Conferences 3 Other 2289
Other private event 135 Private celebration 157
Food 594 Other public event 164
Event advertisement 80 Other advertisement 205
Future event 17 Retrospective event 36
Unsure 2031
Table 3. Precision and recall comparison with other approaches
Table 3. Precision and recall comparison with other approaches
Method precision recall avg. events per day
Eyewitness [10] 70% - -
GeoBurst+ [9] 35% 48% -
TrioVecEvent [83] 78% 60% -
ConvTree [11] 77% 18% 22.2
SemConvTree 86% 64% 365.6
Table 4. Comparison of the original algorithm with low sensitivity, with high sensitivity, where a lot of advertising and noise, and the finalized algorithm with filtered advertising and noise
Table 4. Comparison of the original algorithm with low sensitivity, with high sensitivity, where a lot of advertising and noise, and the finalized algorithm with filtered advertising and noise
Method count of count of
events event posts
ConvTree 10757 151084
ConvTree with high 263533 803454
sensitive and noise events
SemConvTree 177315 538628
Table 5. Multi-scale events detection results comparison
Table 5. Multi-scale events detection results comparison
Model All Feb Jun Oct
Prec Rec Prec Rec Prec Rec Prec Rec
ConvTree [11] 0.77 0.18 0.78 0.21 0.77 0.17 0.77 0.17
SemConvTree 0.86 0.64 0.87 0.58 0.85 0.63 0.86 0.64
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated