Advertisement

Identifying central nodes for information flow in social networks using compressive sensing

  • Hamidreza Mahyar
  • Rouzbeh Hasheminezhad
  • Elahe Ghalebi
  • Ali Nazemian
  • Radu Grosu
  • Ali Movaghar
  • Hamid R. RabieeEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of identifying central nodes from the information flow standpoint in a social network. Betweenness centrality is the most prominent measure that shows the node importance from the information flow standpoint in the network. High betweenness centrality nodes play crucial roles in the spread of propaganda, ideologies, or gossips in social networks, the bottlenecks in communication networks, and the connector hubs in biological systems. In this paper, we introduce DICeNod, a new approach to efficiently identify central nodes in social networks without direct measurement of each individual node using compressive sensing, which is a well-known paradigm in sparse signal recovery. DICeNod can perform in a distributed manner by utilizing only local information at each node; thus, it is appropriate for large real-world and unknown networks. We theoretically show that by using only \(O \big ( k \log (\frac{n}{k}) \big )\) indirect end-to-end measurements in DICeNod, one can recover top-k central nodes in a network with n nodes, even though the measurements have to follow network topological constraints. Furthermore, we show that the computationally efficient \(\ell _1\)-minimization can provide recovery guarantees to infer such central nodes from the constructed measurement matrix with this number of measurements. Finally, we evaluate accuracy, speedup, and effectiveness of the proposed method by extensive simulations on several synthetic and real-world networks. The experimental results demonstrate that the number of correctly identified central nodes and their estimated rank based on the DICeNod framework and the global betweenness centrality correlate very well. Moreover, the results show that DICeNod is a scalable framework and it can be efficiently used for identifying central nodes in real-world networks.

Keywords

Compressive sensing Betweenness centrality Top-k nodes Social networks Complex networks 

References

  1. Albert R, Barabasi AL (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74:47–97MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexa traffic statistics for Facebook (2016). http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/facebook.com
  3. Avrachenkov K, Litvak N, Nemirovsky D, Smirnova E, Sokol M (2010) Monte carlo methods for top-k personalized pagerank lists and name disambiguation. INRIA, Tech Report RR-7367 1Google Scholar
  4. Avrachenkov K, Litvak N, Sokol M, Towsley D (2014) Quick detection of nodes with large degrees. Internet Math 10:1–19MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babarczi P, Tapolcai J, Ho PH (2011) Adjacent link failure localization with monitoring trails in all-optical mesh networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 19(3):907–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bader D, Madduri K (2006) Parallel algorithms for evaluating centrality indices in real-world networks. In: International conference on parallel processing (ICPP), pp 539–550Google Scholar
  7. Bae J, Kim S (2014) Identifying and ranking influential spreaders in complex networks by neighborhood coreness. Phys A 395:549–559MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barabasi AL, Albert R (1999) Emregence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439):509–512MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benesty J, Chen J, Huang Y, Cohen I (2009) Pearson correlation coefficient. In: Noise reduction in speech processing. Springer Topics in Signal Processing, vol 2. Springer, pp 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00296-0_5
  10. Bergamini E, Meyerhenke H (2016) Approximating betweenness centrality in fully dynamic networks. Internet Math 12(5):281–314MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bergamini E, Borassi M, Crescenzi P, Marino A, Meyerhenke H (2016) Computing top-k closeness centrality faster in unweighted graphs. In: The eighteenth workshop on algorithm engineering and experiments (ALENEX), society for industrial and applied mathematics, vol 1, pp 68–80Google Scholar
  12. Berinde R, Gilbert A, Indyk P, Karloff H, Strauss M (2008) Combining geometry and combinatorics: a unified approach to sparse signal recovery. In: 46th annual Allerton conference on communication, control, and computing, pp 798–805Google Scholar
  13. Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: a family of measures. Am J Sociol 92:1170–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonchi F, De Francisci Morales G, Riondato M (2016) Centrality measures on big graphs: exact, approximated, and distributed algorithms. In: International conference companion on world wide web (WWW), pp 1017–1020Google Scholar
  15. Borassi M, Crescenzi P, Marino A (2015) Fast and simple computation of top-k closeness centralities. arXiv:1507.01490v1
  16. Borgatti SP (2006) Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Comput Math Organ Theory 12:21–34zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Borge-Holthoefer J, Moreno Y (2012) Absence of influential spreaders in rumor dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 85:026116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brandes U (2001) A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. J Math Sociol 25:163–177zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brandes U, Pich C (2007) Centrality estimation in large networks. Int J Bifurc Chaos 17:2303–2318MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brin S, Page L (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput Netw ISDN Syst 30:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Buhrman H, Miltersen PB, Radhakrishnan J, Venkatesh S (2002) Are bitvectors optimal? SIAM J Comput 31:1723–1744MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Candes EJ, Tao T (2005) Decoding by linear programming. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 51(12):4203–4215MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Candes EJ, Romberg JK, Tao T (2006) Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements. Commun Pure Appl Math 59(8):1207–1223MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen SS, Donoho DL, Saunders MA (2001) Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM Rev 43(1):129–159MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cheraghchi M, Karbasi A, Mohajer S, Saligrama V (2012) Graph constrained group testing. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 58(1):248–262MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Costa LDF, Rodrigues FA, Travieso G, Villas-Boas PR (2007) Characterization of complex networks: a survey of measurements. Adv Phys 56:167–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davenport M, Duarte M, Eldar Y, Kutyniok G (2012) Introduction to compressed sensing, chapter in compressed sensing: theory and applications, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Donoho D (2006) Compressed sensing. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 52(4):1289–1306MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dorogovtsev S, Mendes JFF (2002) Evolution of networks. Adv Phys 51:1079–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Erdos P, Renyi A (1959) On random graphs. Publ Math (Debrecen) 6:290–297MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Everett M, Borgatti SP (2005) Ego network betweenness. Soc Netw 27(1):31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Facebook advertising (2017). http://www.facebook.com/advertising
  33. Facebook Climbs To 1.59 Billion Users And Crushes Q4 Estimates With 5.8B Revenue (2016). http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/27/facebook-earnings-q4-2015
  34. Freeman L (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Freeman LC (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Geere D (2010) Samsung offers free phones to frustrated iPhone users. http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/07/24/samsung. replacing.iphones, CNN Tech
  37. Gephi platform for interactive visualization and exploration of graphs. http://rankinfo.pkqs.net/twittercrawl.dot.gz (2017)
  38. Ghalebi E, Mahyar H, Grosu R, Rabiee HR (2017) Compressive sampling for sparse recovery in networks. In: Proc of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD), 13th international workshop on mining and learning with graphs, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  39. Goldenberg J, Han S, Lehmann DR, Hong JW (2009) The role of hubs in the adoption process. J Mark 73(2):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hamed I, Charrad M (2015) Recognizing information spreaders in terrorist networks: 26/11 attack case study. Lect Notes Bus Inf Process 233:1–12Google Scholar
  41. Harvey N, Patrascu M, Wen Y, Yekhanin S, Chan V (2007) Nonadaptive fault diagnosis for all-optical networks via combinatorial group testing on graphs. In: IEEE INFOCOM, pp 697–705Google Scholar
  42. Huang X, Vodenska I, Wang F, Havlin S, Stanley HE (2011) Identifying influential directors in the united states corporate governance network. Phys Rev E 84:046101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ilyas MU, Shafiq MZ, Liu AX, Radha H (2013) A distributed algorithm for identifying information hubs in social networks. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 31(9):629–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ji S, Yan Z (2017) Refining approximating betweenness centrality based on samplings, pp 1–13. arXiv:1608.04472v5
  45. Kermarrec AM, Merrer EL, Sericola B, Tredan G (2011) Second order centrality: distributed assessment of nodes criticity in complex networks. Comput Commun 34:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keyou Y, Roberto T, Li Q (2015) Distributed algorithms for computation of centrality measures in complex networks. arXiv:1507.01694v1
  47. Kim H, Yoneki E (2012) Influential neighbours selection for information diffusion in online social networks. In: International conference on computer communications and networks (ICCCN)Google Scholar
  48. Kourtellis N, Alahakoon T, Simha R, Iamnitchi A, Tripathi R (2013) Identifying high betweenness centrality nodes in large social networks. Soc Netw Anal Min 3:899–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kyrillidis A, Cevher V (2012) Combinatorial selection and least absolute shrinkage via the clash algorithm. In: 2012 IEEE international symposium on information theory proceedings (ISIT). IEEE, pp 2216–2220Google Scholar
  50. Lee M, Choi S, Chung C (2016) Efficient algorithms for updating betweenness centrality in fully dynamic graphs. Inf Sci 326:278–296MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lehmann K, Kaufmann M (2003) Decentralized algorithms for evaluating centrality in complex networks, vol 1. Wilhelm Schickard Institute, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  52. Leskovec J, Kleinberg J, Faloutsos C (2007) Graph evolution: Densification and shrinking diameters. ACM Trans Knowl Discov Data 1(1):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Leskovec J, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J (2010) Predicting positive and negative links in online social networks. In: WWWGoogle Scholar
  54. Lim Y, Menasche DS, Ribeiro B, Towsley D, Basu P (2011) Online estimating the k central nodes of a network. In: IEEE network science workshop, pp 118–122Google Scholar
  55. Liu JG, Ren ZM, Guo Q (2013) Ranking the spreading influence in complex networks. Phys A 392:4154–4159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lu L, Zhou T, Zhang QM, Stanley H (2016) The h-index of a network node and its relation to degree and coreness. Nature Commun 7:10,168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mahyar H (2015) Detection of top-k central nodes in social networks: a compressive sensing approach. In: IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, ASONAM 2015, Paris, France, pp 902–909Google Scholar
  58. Mahyar H, Rabiee HR, Hashemifar ZS (2013a) UCS-NT: an unbiased compressive sensing framework for network tomography. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, ICASSP 2013, Vancouver, Canada, pp 4534–4538Google Scholar
  59. Mahyar H, Rabiee HR, Hashemifar ZS, Siyari P (2013b) UCS-WN: an unbiased compressive sensing framework for weighted networks. In: Conference on information sciences and systems, CISS 2013, Baltimore, USA, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  60. Mahyar H, Rabiee HR, Movaghar A, Ghalebi E, Nazemian A (2015a) CS-ComDet: a compressive sensing approach for inter-community detection in social networks. In: IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, ASONAM 2015, Paris, France, pp 89–96Google Scholar
  61. Mahyar H, Rabiee HR, Movaghar A, Hasheminezhad R, Ghalebi E, Nazemian A (2015b) A low-cost sparse recovery framework for weighted networks under compressive sensing. In: IEEE international conference on social computing and networking, SocialCom 2015, Chengdu, China, pp 183–190Google Scholar
  62. Mahyar H, Ghalebi E, Rabiee HR, Grosu R (2017) The bottlenecks in biological networks. In: Proc of the 34th international conference on machine learning (ICML), Computational Biology Workshop, Sydney, Australia, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  63. Mahyar H, Hasheminezhad R, Ghalebi EK, Nazemian A, Grosu R, Movaghar A, Rabiee HR (2018) Compressive sensing of high betweenness centrality nodes in networks. Phys A 497:166–184MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Maiya AS, Berger-Wolf TY (2010) Online sampling of high centrality individuals in social networks. Adv Knowl Discov Data Min 6118:91–98Google Scholar
  65. Manuel N (2015) Samsung to give iPhone users a trial run with new Galaxy smartphones. http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-to-give-iphone-users-a-trial-run-with-new-galaxy-smartphones, CNET Tech
  66. Marsden PV (2002) Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality. Soc Netw 24:407–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Middya R, Chakravarty N, Naskar MK (2016) Compressive sensing in wireless sensor networks: a survey. In: IETE technical reviewGoogle Scholar
  68. Mitzenmacher M, Upfal E (2005) Probability and computing: randomized algorithms and probabilistic analysis, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, New YorkzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Motter AE, Lai YC (2002) Cascade-based attacks on complex networks. Phys Rev E 6:065102Google Scholar
  70. Nanda S, Kotz D (2008) Localized bridging centrality for distributed network analysis. In: International conference on computer communications and networks (ICCCN), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  71. Needell D, Tropp JA (2009) CoSaMP: iterative signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate samples. Appl Comput Harmon Anal 26(3):301–321MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Newman S (2010) Networks: an introduction, vol 1. Oxford University Press, OxfordzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Okamoto K, Chen W, Li XY (2008) Ranking of closeness centrality for large-scale social networks. Front Algorithmics 5059:186–195zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Opsahl T, Panzarasa P (2009) Clustering in weighted networks. Soc Netw 31(2):155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Patwari N, Ash JN, Kyperountas S, Hero AO, Moses RL, Correal NS (2005) Locating the nodes: cooperative localization in wireless sensor networks. Sig Process Mag IEEE 22:54–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Python-iGraph: The open source network analysis package in python (2017). URL http://igraph.org/python/
  77. Riondato M, Kornaropoulos EM (2016) Fast approximation of betweenness centrality through sampling. Data Min Knowl Discov 30:438–475MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sabidussi G (1966) The centrality index of a graph. Psychometrika 31:581–603MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Santoro N (2006) Design and analysis of distributed algorithms, vol 56. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Singh B, Gupte N (2005) Congestion and decongestion in a communication network. Phys Rev E 71(5):055,103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Strogatz SH (2001) Exploring complex networks. Nature 410:268–276zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Suri NR, Narahari Y (2008) Determining the top-k nodes in social networks using the shapley value. In: International joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 3, pp 1509–1512Google Scholar
  83. Taheri SM, Mahyar H, Firouzi M, Ghalebi K, E, Grosu R, Movaghar A (2017) Extracting implicit social relation for social recommendation techniques in user rating prediction. In: Social computing workshop: spatial social behavior analytics on the web at 26th international world wide web conference (WWW), pp 1343–1351Google Scholar
  84. Taheri SM, Mahyar H, Firouzi M, Ghalebi KE, Grosu R, Movaghar A (2017) HellRank: a Hellinger-based centrality measure for bipartite social networks. Soc Netw Anal Min (SNAM) 7:22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Twitter Connections Limit. https://support.twitter.com/articles/66885 (2017)
  86. Vapnik VN, Chervonenkis AY (2015) On the uniform convergence of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities. In: Vovk V, Papadopoulos H, Gammerman A (eds) Measures of complexity. Springer, Cham, pp 11–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21852-6_3
  87. Wang M, Xu W, Mallada E, Tang A (2012) Sparse recovery with graph constraints: fundamental limits and measurement construction. In: IEEE INFOCOM, pp 1871–1879Google Scholar
  88. Wehmuth K, Gomes ATA, Ziviani A (2014) DANCE: a framework for the distributed assessment of network centralities. arXiv:1108.1067v2
  89. Xu S, Wang P (2017) Identifying important nodes by adaptive leaderrank. Phys A 469:654–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Xu W, Mallada E, Tang A (2011) Compressive sensing over graphs. In: IEEE INFOCOM, pp 2087–2095Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Science and EngineeringSharif University of Technology (SUT)TehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Computer EngineeringVienna University of Technology (TU Wien)ViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Computer EngineeringSharif University of Technology (SUT)TehranIran
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceETH Zurich (ETHZ)ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations