Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining

2018 Edition
| Editors: Reda Alhajj, Jon Rokne

Creating a Space for Collective Problem-Solving

  • Kshanti A. Greene
  • Joe M. Kniss
  • Steven S. Garcia
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7131-2_102001



Random variable

A variable whose value may vary due to random behavior and hence is assigned a stochastic value

Graphical model

A graph composed of nodes and edges, in which the nodes are typically random variables and an edge represents a direct dependency between two nodes


The abstract structure of a graphical model, e.g., the configuration of the nodes and edges

Conditional probability

The value of a random variable is dependent or conditioned on the value of one or more other random variables

Conditional independence

Knowledge of the value of a random variable can make other variables independent of each other, depending on the graph topology


The numerical values associated with a graphical model. In most cases, this is a prior probability or a conditional probability

Problem graph

A graphical model that contains node...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.



Some of the described research is funded by DARPA grant #D11PC20150. Thanks to Pietro Michelucci at Strategic Analysis, Inc. for helping to make this work possible. Also thanks to Thomas Young at Social Logic Institute for his contributions to the project.


  1. Angel E, Shreiner D (2012) Interactive computer graphics: a top-down approach using OpenGL, 6th edn. Pearson Education, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Atherton JS (2010) Learning and teaching; assimilation and accommodation. www.actforlibraries.org/piagets-theories-of-assimilation-accommodation-and-child-development/. Accessed June 3 2017
  3. Buntine (1996) A guide to literature on learning probabilistic networks from data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 8(2):195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corkill D (1991) Blackboard systems. AI Expert 6(9):40–47Google Scholar
  5. Coupe VM, van der Gaag LC (1998) Practicable sensitivity analysis of Bayesian belief networks. In: Prague stochastics 98, Union of Czech Mathematicians and Physicists, pp 81–86Google Scholar
  6. Crane R (2010)–2012 Conversations with Riley Crane (MIT Media Lab), consultantGoogle Scholar
  7. de Berg M, Cheong O, van Kreveld M, Overmars M (2008) Computational geometry: algorithms and applications, 3rd edn. TELOS, Santa ClarazbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedman, Getoor, Koller and Pfeffer (1999) Learning probabilistic relational Models. In: IJCAI 16: 1300–1309Google Scholar
  10. Geiger D, Verma T, Pearl J (1990) Identifying independence in Bayesian networks. Networks 20:507–533MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gershenson JK (2007) Pugh evaluation; NASA ESMD capstone designGoogle Scholar
  12. Greene K (2010) Collective belief models for representing consensus and divergence in communities of Bayesian decision-makers. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  13. Greene K and Young T (2017) Method to display a graph containing nodes and edges in a two-dimensional grid, approved US patent application #15/206,241Google Scholar
  14. Greene K, Kniss J, Luger G (2010) Representing diversity in communities of Bayesian decision-makers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on social computing, social intelligence and networking symposium, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  15. Heuer, R (1999) Psychology of intelligence analysis, Central Intelligence AgencyGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard R, Matheson J (eds) (1984) Readings on the principles and applications of decision analysis, vol 2. Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, pp 6–16Google Scholar
  17. Jensen F (1996) An introduction to bayesian networks. Springer, SecaucusGoogle Scholar
  18. Kindermann R, Snell JL (1980) Markov random fields and their applications. American Mathematical Society, ProvidencezbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koller D, Milch B (2001) Multi-agent influence diagrams for representing and solving games. In: IJCAI, Seattle, pp 1027–1036Google Scholar
  20. Langley P, Rogers S (2005) An extended theory of human problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, StresaGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee DT, Preparata FP (1984) Computational geometry: a survey. IEEE Trans Comput c-33:1072–1101MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matzkevich I, Abramson B (1992) The topological fusion of Bayes nets. In: Proceedings of the 8th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, StanfordzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milch B (2000) Probabilistic models for agents beliefs and decisions. In: Proceedings of the 16th UAI, Stanford. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 389–396Google Scholar
  24. Muller-Prothmann T (2006) Leveraging knowledge communication for innovation. PhD thesis, FU BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy (2001) Learning Bayes net structure from sparse data sets. Technical report, UC BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  26. Murphy K (1998) A brief introduction to graphical models and bayesian networks. http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Bayes/bnintro.html. Accessed 11 Nov 2012
  27. Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Rourke J (1988) Computational geometry. Ann Rev Comput Sci 3:389–411MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufman, San FranciscozbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearl, Verma (1991) A theory of inferred causation. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, 441–452Google Scholar
  31. Pennock DM, Wellman MP (1999) Graphical representations of consensus belief. In: Proceedings of the 15th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  32. Polya G (1945) How to solve it. Princeton University Press, PrincetonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Prim RC (November 1957) Shortest connection networks and some generalizations. Bell Syst Tech J 36(6):1389–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ritchey T (2007) Wicked problems: structuring social messes with morphological analysis. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  35. Shachter RD (1986) Evaluating influence diagrams. Oper Res 34(6):871–882.  https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.34.6.871MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shamos ME (1978) Computational geometry. Yale UniversityGoogle Scholar
  37. Shultz TR, Buckingham D, Schmidt WC, Mareschal D (1995) Modeling cognitive development with a generative connectionist algorithm. In: Simon TJ, Halford GS (eds) Developing cognitive competence: new approaches to process modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  38. Stoer M, Wagner F (1997) A simple min-cut algorithm. J ACM 44(4):585–591MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sueur C, Deneubourg JL, Petit O (2012) From social network (centralized vs. decentralized) to collective decision-making (unshared vs. shared consensus). PLoS One 7(2). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3290558/. Accessed 11 Nov 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Szwarcberg M (2012) Revisiting clientelism: a network analysis of problem-solving networks in Argentina. Soc Netw 34(2):230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kshanti A. Greene
    • 1
    • 3
  • Joe M. Kniss
    • 2
  • Steven S. Garcia
    • 2
  1. 1.Wily Desert LabsGardinerUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.Management Sciences IncAlbuquerqueUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Mick J Ridley
    • 1
  • Richard Chbeir
    • 2
  1. 1.University of BradfordBradfordUK
  2. 2.Laboratoire LIUPPAUniversity of Pau and Adour CountriesAngletFrance