Identification of Subgroups in a Directed Social Network Using Edge Betweenness and Random Walks

  • K. SathiyakumariEmail author
  • M. S. Vijaya
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 77)


Social networks have obtained masses hobby recently, largely because of the success of online social networking Web sites and media sharing sites. In such networks, rigorous and complex interactions occur among several unique entities, leading to huge information networks with first rate commercial enterprise ability. Network detection is an unmanaged getting to know challenge that determines the community groups based on common  place hobbies, career, modules, and their hierarchical agency, the usage of the records encoded in the graph topology. Locating groups from social network is a tough mission because of its topology and overlapping of various communities. In this research, edge betweenness modularity and random walks is used for detecting groups in networks with node attributes. The twitter data of the famous cricket player is used here and network of friends and followers is analyzed using two algorithms based on edge betweenness and random walks. Also the strength of extracted communities is evaluated using on modularity score and the experiment results confirmed that the cricket player’s network is dense.


Edge betweenness Random walks Modularity Community detection Social network 


  1. 1.
    Coscia, M., Rossetti, G., Giannotti, F., Pedreschi, D.: Demon: a local-first discovery method for overlapping communities. In: KDD ’12 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Girvan, M., Newman, M.: Community structure in social and biological networks. In: PNAS (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang, J., Leskovec, J.: Overlapping community detection at scale: a non-negative factorization approach. In: WSDM ’13 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blei, D.M., Ng, A., Jordan, M.: Latent Dirichlet allocation. MLR 3, 993–1022 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson, S.: Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika 32(3), 241–254 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fortunato, S.: Community detection in graphs. Phys. Rep. 486(3–5), 75–174 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xie, J., Kelley, S., Szymanski, B.K.: Overlapping community detection in networks: the state of the art and comparative study. ACM Comput. Surv. (2013). doi: Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barbieri, N., Bonchi, F., Manco, G.: Cascade-based community detection. In: WSDM’13, February 4–8, Rome, Italy (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xie, J., Kelley, S., Szymanski, B.K.: Overlapping community detection in networks: the state of the art and comparative study. ACM Comput. Surv (2013). doi: Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gregory, S.: Finding overlapping communities in networks by label propagation. New J. Phys. 12(10), 103018 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Padrol-Sureda, A., Perarnau-Llobet, G., Pfeie, J., Munes-Mulero, V.: Overlapping community search for social networks. In: ICDE (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evans, T.S., Lambiotte, R.: Line graphs, link partitions, and overlapping communities. Phys. Rev. E 80, 016105 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahn, Y.-Y., Bagrow, J.P., Lehmann, S.: Link communities reveal multiscale complexity in networks. Nature 466(7307), 761–764 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, Y., Jeong, H.: The map equation for link communities. Phys. Rev. E 84, 026110 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hughes, A.L., Palen, L.: Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. Int. J. Emerg. Manag. 6(3–4), 248–260 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diakopoulos, N.A., Shamma, D.A.: Characterizing debate performance via aggregated twitter sentiment. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘10), pp. 1195–1198 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., Moon, S.: What is twitter, a social network or news media? In: Proceedings of the 19th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW ‘10), pp. 591–600 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schaeffer, S.E.: Graph clustering. Comput. Sci. Rev. 1(1), 27–64 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Girvan, M., Newman, M.E.J.: Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 7821–7826 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freeman, L.C.: A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness. Sociometry 40, 35–41 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anthonisse, J.M.: The rush in a directed graph. Technical Report BN9/71, Stichting Mathematicsh Centrum, Amsterdam (1971)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Newman, M.E.J.: Scientific collaboration networks: II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Phys. Rev. E 64, 016132 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brandes, U.: A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. J. Math. Sociol. 25, 163–177 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newman, M.E.J., Girvan, M.: Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Preprint cond-mat/0308217 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Newman, M.E.J., Girvan, M.: Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E 69, 026113 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PSGR Krishnammal College for WomenCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations