Advertisement

Evolving Social Networks Analysis via Tensor Decompositions: From Global Event Detection Towards Local Pattern Discovery and Specification

  • Sofia FernandesEmail author
  • Hadi Fanaee-T
  • João Gama
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11828)

Abstract

Existing approaches for detecting anomalous events in time-evolving networks usually focus on detecting events involving the majority of the nodes, which affect the overall structure of the network. Since events involving just a small subset of nodes usually do not affect the overall structure of the network, they are more difficult to spot. In this context, tensor decomposition based methods usually beat other techniques in detecting global events, but fail at spotting localized event patterns. We tackle this problem by replacing the batch decomposition with a sliding window decomposition, which is further mined in an unsupervised way using statistical tools. Via experimental results in one synthetic and four real-world networks, we show the potential of the proposed method in the detection and specification of local events.

Keywords

Time-evolving social networks Tensor decomposition Event detection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is financed by National Funds through the Portuguese funding agency, FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia within project: UID/EEA/50014/2019. Sofia Fernandes also acknowledges the support of FCT via the PhD grant PD/BD/114189/2016. The authors also acknowledge the SocioPatterns collaboration for making the dataset (in [8]) available.

References

  1. 1.
    Akoglu, L., Tong, H., Koutra, D.: Graph based anomaly detection and description: a survey. Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 29(3), 626–688 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berlingerio, M., Koutra, D., Eliassi-Rad, T., Faloutsos, C.: Network similarity via multiple social theories. In: 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp. 1439–1440. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chi, E.C., Kolda, T.G.: On tensors, sparsity, and nonnegative factorizations. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 33(4), 1272–1299 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Costa, P.: Online Network Analysis of Stock Markets. Master’s thesis, University of Porto (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dawson, R.: How significant is a boxplot outlier? J. Stat. Educ. 19(2) (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Desmier, E., Plantevit, M., Robardet, C., Boulicaut, J.-F.: Cohesive co-evolution patterns in dynamic attributed graphs. In: Ganascia, J.-G., Lenca, P., Petit, J.-M. (eds.) DS 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7569, pp. 110–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33492-4_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fanaee-T, H., Gama, J.: Event detection from traffic tensors: a hybrid model. Neurocomputing 203, 22–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Isella, L., Stehlé, J., Barrat, A., Cattuto, C., Pinton, J.F., Van den Broeck, W.: What’s in a crowd? Analysis of face-to-face behavioral networks. J. Theor. Biol. 271(1), 166–180 (2011). http://www.sociopatterns.org/datasets/infectious-sociopatterns-dynamic-contact-networks/MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kapsabelis, K.M., Dickinson, P.J., Dogancay, K.: Investigation of graph edit distance cost functions for detection of network anomalies. ANZIAM J. 48, 436–449 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kolda, T.G., Bader, B.W.: Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM Rev. 51(3), 455–500 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koutra, D., Papalexakis, E.E., Faloutsos, C.: TensorSplat: spotting latent anomalies in time. In: Proceedings of the 2012 16th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, PCI 2012, pp. 144–149. IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michalski, R., Palus, S., Kazienko, P.: Matching organizational structure and social network extracted from email communication. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2011. LNBIP, vol. 87, pp. 197–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21863-7_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papalexakis, E., Pelechrinis, K., Faloutsos, C.: Spotting misbehaviors in location-based social networks using tensors. In: Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 23rd International Conference On World Wide Web Companion, pp. 551–552. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Priebe, C.E., Conroy, J.M., Marchette, D.J., Park, Y.: Scan statistics on Enron graphs. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 11(3), 229–247 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ranshous, S., Shen, S., Koutra, D., Harenberg, S., Faloutsos, C., Samatova, N.F.: Anomaly detection in dynamic networks: a survey. Wiley Interdisc. Rev.: Comput. Stat. 7(3), 223–247 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rayana, S., Akoglu, L.: An ensemble approach for event detection and characterization in dynamic graphs. In: ACM SIGKDD ODD Workshop (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rayana, S., Akoglu, L.: Less is more: building selective anomaly ensembles. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data (TKDD) 10(4), 42 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIAAD - INESC TECUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations