Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 836–866 | Cite as

Learning agent influence in MAS with complex social networks

  • Henry Franks
  • Nathan Griffiths
  • Sarabjot Singh Anand
Article

Abstract

In complex open multi-agent systems (MAS), where there is no centralised control and individuals have equal authority, ensuring cooperative and coordinated behaviour is challenging. Norms and conventions are useful means of supporting cooperation in an emergent decentralised manner, however it takes time for effective norms and conventions to emerge. Identifying influential individuals enables the targeted seeding of desirable norms and conventions, which can reduce the establishment time and increase efficacy. Existing research is limited with respect to considering (i) how to identify influential agents, (ii) the extent to which network location imbues influence on an agent, and (iii) the extent to which different network structures affect influence. In this paper, we propose a methodology for learning a model for predicting the network value of an agent, in terms of the extent to which it can influence the rest of the population. Applying our methodology, we show that exploiting knowledge of the network structure can significantly increase the ability of individuals to influence which convention emerges. We evaluate our methodology in the context of two agent-interaction models, namely, the language coordination domain used by Salazar et al. (AI Communications 23(4): 357–372, 2010) and a coordination game of the form used by Sen and Airiau (in: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2007) with heterogeneous agent learning mechanisms, and on a variety of synthetic and real-world networks. We further show that (i) the models resulting from our methodology are effective in predicting influential network locations, (ii) there are very few locations that can be classified as influential in typical networks, (iii) four single metrics are robustly indicative of influence across a range of network structures, and (iv) our methodology learns which single metric or combined measure is the best predictor of influence in a given network.

Keywords

Conventions Norms Influence Learning Social networks 

References

  1. 1.
    Andersen, R., Borgs, C., & Chayes, J. (2007). Local computation of PageRank contributions. In Workshop of Graph Models of the Web (pp. 150–65).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ball, P. (2012). Why society is a complex matter. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowling, M. (2001). Rational and convergent learning in stochastic games. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 17(1), 1021–1026.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, W., Wang, Y., & Yang, S. (2009). Efficient influence maximization in social networks. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 199–208).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Domingos, P., & Richardson, M. (2001). Mining the network value of customers. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 57–66).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dong, J., & Horvath, S. (2007). Understanding network concepts in modules. BMC Systems Biology, 1, 24.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Easley, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eppstein, D., & Wang, J. (2002). A steady state model for graph power laws. In 2nd International Workshop on Web, Dynamics.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eppstein, D., & Wang, J. (2004). Fast approximation of centrality. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 8(1), 39–45.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fagyal, Z., Swarup, S., Maria Escobar, A., Lakkaraju, K., & Gasser, L. (2010). Centers and peripheries: Network roles in language change. Lingua, 120(8), 2061–2079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franks, H., Griffiths, N., & Anand, S. S. (2013). Learning influence in complex social networks. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (to appear).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franks, H., Griffiths, N., & Jhumka, A. (2013). Manipulating convention emergence using influencer agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 26(3), 315–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gjoka, M., Kurant, M., Butts, C., & Markopoulou, A. (2010). Practical recommendations on crawling online social networks. In Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Information, Communications (pp. 2498–506).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gollapudi, S., Najork, M., & Panigrahy, R. (2007). Using bloom filters to speed up hits-like ranking algorithms. In Algorithms and Models for the Web-Graph (pp. 195–201).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goyal, A., & Bonchi, F. (2011). A data-based approach to social influence maximization. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 5(1), 73–84.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gregory, S. (2008). Local betweenness for finding communities in networks. Bristol: Technical Report, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hajian, B., & White, T. (2012). On the interaction of influence and trust in social networks. In Workshop on Incentives and Trust in E-Commerce (pp. 63–74).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hartline, J., Mirrokni, V., & Sundararajan, M. (2008). Optimal marketing strategies over social networks. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on the, World Wide Web (pp. 189–98).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jennings, N. (1993). Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 8(3), 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jin, L., Chen, Y., Hui, P., Ding, C., Wang, T., Vasilakos, A. V., Deng, B., & Li, X. (2011). Albatross sampling: Robust and effective hybrid vertex sampling for social graphs. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Workshop on MobiArch (pp. 11–16).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kempe, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2003). Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 137–146).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., & Tardos, E. (2005). Influential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming (pp. 1127–1138).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khrabrov, A., & Cybenko, G. (2010). Discovering influence in communication networks using dynamic graph analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Social, Computing (pp. 288–94).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kittock, J. (1993). Emergent conventions and the structure of multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 1993 Santa Fe Institute Complex Systems Summer School (Vol. VI, pp. 1–14).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kleinberg, J. (1999). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM, 46(5), 604–632.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kleinberg, J. (2000). Navigation in a small world. Nature, 406(3), 845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee, C., Xu, X., & Eun, D. Y. (2012). Beyond random walk and Metropolis–Hastings samplers: Why you should not backtrack for unbiased graph sampling. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGMETRICS/PERFORMANCE Joint International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (pp. 319–30).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leskovec, J., Lang, K. J., Dasgupta, A., & Mahoney, M. W. (2008). Statistical properties of community structure in large social and information networks. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on the, World Wide Web (pp. 695–704).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li, L., Alderson, D., Doyle, J., & Willinger, W. (2005). Towards a theory of scale-free graphs: Definition, properties, and implications. Internet Mathematics, 2(4), 431–523.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marsden, P. (2002). Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality. Social Networks, 24(4), 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McDonald, D. B. (2007). Predicting fate from early connectivity in a social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(26), 10,910–10,914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mislove, A., Marcon, M., Gummadi, K. P., Druschel, P., & Bhattacharjee, B. (2007). Measurement and analysis of online social networks. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet, Measurement (pp. 29–42).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mitchell, M. (2011). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morales, J., López-Sánchez, M., & Esteva, M. (2011). Using experience to generate new regulations. In Proceedings of the 22th International Joint Conference on, Artificial Intelligence (pp. 307–12).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mossel, E., & Roch, S. (2010). Submodularity of influence in social networks: From local to global. SIAM Journal on Computing, 39(6), 2176–2188.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Newman, M. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2), 167–256.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oh, J., & Smith, S. (2008). A few good agents: multi-agent social learning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 339–46).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pujol, J., Delgado, J., Sangüesa, R., & Flache, A. (2005). The role of clustering on the emergence of efficient social conventions. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on, Artificial Intelligence (pp. 965–70).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Salazar, N., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A., & Arcos, J. (2010). Robust coordination in large convention spaces. AI Communications, 23(4), 357–372.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sen, Q. (2008). Scale-free topology structure in ad hoc networks. In 11th IEEE International Conference on Communication Technology (pp. 21–24).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sen, S., & Airiau, S. (2007). Emergence of norms through social learning. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on, Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1507–12).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shoham, Y., & Tennenholtz, M. (1997). On the emergence of social conventions: Modeling, analysis, and simulations. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1–2), 139–166.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Trusov, M., Bodapati, A., & Bucklin, R. (2010). Determining influential users in internet social networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Villatoro, D., Malone, N., & Sen, S. (2009). Effects of interaction history and network topology on rate of convention emergence. In Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop on Emergent Intelligence on Networked Agents (pp. 13–19).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Walker, A., & Wooldridge, M. (1995). Understanding the emergence of conventions in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 384–89).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Watkins, C. (1989). Learning from delayed rewards. (Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Watts, D. J. (2002). A simple model of global cascades on random networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(9), 5766–5771.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Young, H. (1996). The economics of convention. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yu, C., Werfel, J., & Nagpal, R. (2010). Collective decision-making in multi-agent systems by implicit leadership. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 1189–1196).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Franks
    • 1
  • Nathan Griffiths
    • 1
  • Sarabjot Singh Anand
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WarwickCoventry UK
  2. 2.Algorithmic InsightNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations