Seed Selection for Spread of Influence in Social Networks: Temporal vs. Static Approach
The problem of finding optimal set of users for influencing others in the social network has been widely studied. Because it is NP-hard, some heuristics were proposed to find sub-optimal solutions. Still, one of the commonly used assumption is the one that seeds are chosen on the static network, not the dynamic one. This static approach is in fact far from the real-world networks, where new nodes may appear and old ones dynamically disappear in course of time.
The main purpose of this paper is to analyse how the results of one of the typical models for spread of influence - linear threshold - differ depending on the strategy of building the social network used later for choosing seeds. To show the impact of network creation strategy on the final number of influenced nodes - outcome of spread of influence, the results for three approaches were studied: one static and two temporal with different granularities, i.e. various number of time windows. Social networks for each time window encapsulated dynamic changes in the network structure. Calculation of various node structural measures like degree or betweenness respected these changes by means of forgetting mechanism - more recent data had greater influence on node measure values. These measures were, in turn, used for node ranking and their selection for seeding.
All concepts were applied to experimental verification on five real datasets. The results revealed that temporal approach is always better than static and the higher granularity in the temporal social network while seeding, the more finally influenced nodes. Additionally, outdegree measure with exponential forgetting typically outperformed other time-dependent structural measures, if used for seed candidate ranking.
KeywordsSocial Networks Complex Networks Spread of Influence Seeding Strategies Seed Ranking Node Selection Temporal Networks Temporal Complex Networks Temporal Granularity Network Measures
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bergmann, B. and Gerhard H., “Improvements of general multiple test procedures for redundant systems of hypotheses,” Multiple Hypothesenprfung/Multiple Hypotheses Testing, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 100–115, 1988.Google Scholar
- 2.Chen, W. and Yuan, Y. and Zhang, L., “Scalable influence maximization in social networks under the linear threshold model,” in Proc. of 2010 IEEE 10th International Conference on Data Mining, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 88–97, 2010.Google Scholar
- 3.Choudhury, M. and Sundaram, H. and John, A. and Seligmann, D.D., “Social Synchrony: Predicting Mimicry of User Actions in Online Social Media,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Science and Engineering, pp. 151–158, 2009.Google Scholar
- 5.Csardi, G. and Nepusz, T., “The igraph software package for complex network research,” InterJournal, vol. Complex Systems, 2006.Google Scholar
- 6.Even-Dar, E. and Shapira, A., “A note on maximizing the spread of influence in social networks,” Network (Deng, X. and Graham, F. eds.), 111, 4, ch. 27, pp. 281–286, 2007.Google Scholar
- 10.Gomez-Rodriguez, M. and Leskovec, J. and Krause, A., “Inferring Networks of Diffusion and Influence,” in Proc. of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining KDD 10, 5, 4, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 1019–1028, 2010.Google Scholar
- 13.Goyal, A. and Lu, W. and Lakshmanan, L.V.S. “SIMPATH: An Efficient Algorithm for Influence Maximization under the Linear Threshold Model,” in Proc. of 11th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 211–220, 2011.Google Scholar
- 15.Holm, S., “A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure,” Scandinavian journal of statistics, pp. 65–70, 1969.Google Scholar
- 16.Holme, P. and Saramäki, J., “Temporal networks,” Physics reports (Deng, X. and Graham, F. eds.), 519, 3, pp. 97–125, 2012.Google Scholar
- 17.Jankowski, J. and Michalski, R. and Kazienko, P., “Compensatory Seeding in Networks with Varying Availability of Nodes,” in Proc. of 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining ASONAM 2013, pp. 1242–1249, 2013.Google Scholar
- 19.Karsai, M. and Kivelä, M. and Pan, R.K. and Kaski, K. and Kertész, J. and Barabási, A-L. and Saramäki, J., “Small but slow world: How network topology and burstiness slow down spreading,” Physical Review E, 83, 2, 2011.Google Scholar
- 21.Kempe, D. and Kleinberg, J. and Tardos, E., “Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network,” in Proc. of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining - KDD 2003, ACM Press, pp. 137–146, 2003.Google Scholar
- 22.Klimt, B. and Yang, Y., “The enron corpus: A new dataset for email classification research,” in Proc. of ECML 2004 - European Conference on Machine learning, Springer, pp. 217–226, 2004.Google Scholar
- 23.Kossinets, G. and Watts, D.J., “Empirical analysis of an evolving social network,” Science (Deng, X. and Graham, F. eds.), 311, 5757, pp. 88–90, 2006.Google Scholar
- 24.Król, D., “On Modelling Social Propagation Phenomenon,” LNCS, 8398, Springer Verlag, pp. 227–236, 2014.Google Scholar
- 26.Masuda, N. and Holme, P., “Predicting and controlling infectious disease epidemics using temporal networks,” F1000prime reports, 5, 2013.Google Scholar
- 27.Mathioudakis, M. and Bonchi, F. and Castillo, C. and Gionis, A. and Ukkonen, A., “Sparsification of influence networks,” in Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, ACM Press, pp. 529–537, 2011.Google Scholar
- 28.Michalski, R. and Bródka, P. and Kazienko, P. and Juszczyszyn, K., “Quantifying social network dynamics,” in Proc. of the 4th Conference on Computational Aspects of Social Networks (CASoN), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 69–74, 2012.Google Scholar
- 29.Michalski, R. and Kazienko, P. and Jankowski, J., “Convince a Dozen More and Succeed–The Influence in Multi-layered Social Networks,” in Proc. of the International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems (SITIS 2013), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 499–505, 2013.Google Scholar
- 31.Moon, J.W. and Moser, L., “On cliques in graphs,” Israel journal of Mathematics, pp. 23–28, 1965.Google Scholar
- 32.Nemenyi, P., “Distribution-free multiple comparisons,” Dissemination at Princeton University, 1963.Google Scholar
- 34.Palla, G, and Barabsi, A-L. and Vicsek, T., “Quantifying social group evolution,” Nature, 2007.Google Scholar
- 35.Prell, C., Social network analysis: History, theory and methodology, Sage Publications Limited, 2011.Google Scholar
- 36.R Development Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2011.Google Scholar
- 37.Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of innovations, Simon and Schuster, 2010.Google Scholar
- 38.Saito, K. and Nakano, R. and Kimura, M. and Lovrek, I. and Howlett, R. and Jain, L., “Prediction of Information Diffusion Probabilities for Independent Cascade Model,” in KnowledgeBased Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems (Lovrek, I. and Howlett, R.J. and Jain, L. eds.), Springer Verlag, pp. 67–75, 2008.Google Scholar
- 41.Viswanath, B. and Mislove, A. and Cha, M. and Gummadi, K.P., “On the Evolution of User Interaction in Facebook,” in Proc. Workshop on Online Social Networks, Springer, pp. 37–42, 2009.Google Scholar