International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security

International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security (국제컴퓨터통신보호논문지학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Hierarchy in Signed Networks

  • Jamal Maktoubian (International School of Information Management(ISIM), University of Mysore)
  • Received : 2024.09.05
  • Published : 2024.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The concept of social stratification and hierarchy among human dates back to the origin of human race. Presently, the growing reputation of social networks has given us with an opportunity to analyze these well-studied phenomena over different networks at different scales. Generally, a social network could be defined as a collection of actors and their interactions. In this work, we concern ourselves with a particular type of social networks, known as trust networks. In this type of networks, there is an explicit show of trust (positive interaction) or distrust (negative interaction) among the actors. In other words, an actor can designate others as friends or foes. Trust networks are typically modeled as signed networks. A signed network is a directed graph in which the edges carry an edge weight of +1 (indicating trust) or -1 (indicating distrust). Examples of signed networks include the Slashdot Zoo network, the Epinions network and the Wikipedia adminship election network. In a social network, actors tend to connect with each other on the basis of their perceived social hierarchy. The emergence of such a hierarchy within a social community shows the manner in which authority manifests in the community. In the case of signed networks, the concept of social hierarchy can be interpreted as the emergence of a tree-like structure comprising of actors in a top-down fashion in the order of their ranks, describing a specific parent-child relationship, viz. child trusts parent. However, owing to the presence of positive as well as negative interactions in signed networks, deriving such "trust hierarchies" is a non-trivial challenge. We argue that traditional notions (of unsigned networks) are insufficient to derive hierarchies that are latent within signed networks In order to build hierarchies in signed networks, we look at two interpretations of trust namely presence of trust (or "good") and lack of distrust (or "not bad"). In order to develop a hierarchy signifying both trust and distrust effectively, the above interpretations are combined together for calculating the overall trustworthiness (termed as deserve) of actors. The actors are then arranged in a hierarchical fashion based on these aggregate deserve values, according to the following hypothesis: actor v is assigned as a child of actor u if: (i) v trusts u, and (ii) u has a higher deserve value than v. We describe this hypothesis with additional qualifiers in this thesis.

Keywords

References

  1. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. science, 323(5916), 892-895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821
  2. Sparrow, M. K. (1991). The application of network analysis to criminal intelligence: An assessment of the prospects. Social networks, 13(3), 251-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(91)90008-H
  3. Hodder, I., & Mol, A. (2016). Network analysis and entanglement. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(4), 1066-1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9259-6
  4. Wang, J., Zuo, X., & He, Y. (2010). Graph-based network analysis of resting-state functional MRI. Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 4.
  5. Jorgensen, S. E., Patten, B. C., & Straskraba, M. (1992). Ecosystems emerging: toward an ecology of complex systems in a complex future. Ecological Modelling, 62(1-3), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(92)90080-X
  6. O'Malley, A. J., & Onnela, J. P. (2014). Topics in social network analysis and network science. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.0067.
  7. Kaur, H., & He, J. S. (2017). Blocking negative influential node set in social networks: from host perspective. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, 28(4).
  8. Li, Y., Chen, W., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Z. L. (2013, February). Influence diffusion dynamics and influence maximization in social networks with friend and foe relationships. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining (pp. 657-666). ACM.
  9. Kunegis, J. (2013, May). Konect: the koblenz network collection. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1343-1350). ACM.
  10. Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G., & Deneubourg, J. L. (1999). Dominance orders in animal societies: the self-organization hypothesis revisited. Bulletin of mathematical biology, 61(4), 727-757. https://doi.org/10.1006/bulm.1999.0108
  11. Nagy, M., Akos, Z., Biro, D., & Vicsek, T. (2010). Hierarchical group dynamics in pigeon flocks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1010.5394.
  12. Leblebici, H., & Whetten, D. A. (1984). The concept of horizontal hierarchy and the organization of interorganizational networks: A comparative analysis. Social Networks, 6(1), 31-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(84)90003-0
  13. Ravasz, E., & Barabasi, A. L. (2003). Hierarchical organization in complex networks. Physical Review E, 67(2), 026112.
  14. Dorogovtsev, S. N., Goltsev, A. V., & Mendes, J. F. F. (2002). Pseudofractal scale-free web. Physical review E, 65(6), 066122.
  15. Rowe, R., Creamer, G., Hershkop, S., & Stolfo, S. J. (2007, August). Automated social hierarchy detection through email network analysis. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp. 109-117). ACM.
  16. Mones, E., Vicsek, L., & Vicsek, T. (2012). Hierarchy measure for complex networks. PloS one, 7(3), e33799.
  17. Liben-Nowell, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2007). The link-prediction problem for social networks. journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1019-1031. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20591
  18. Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009, April). Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 211-220). ACM.
  19. Helic, D., & Strohmaier, M. (2011, October). Building directories for social tagging systems. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 525-534). ACM.
  20. Maiya, A. S., & Berger-Wolf, T. Y. (2009, August). Inferring the maximum likelihood hierarchy in social networks. In Computational Science and Engineering, 2009. CSE'09. International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp. 245-250). IEEE.
  21. Gupte, M., Shankar, P., Li, J., Muthukrishnan, S., & Iftode, L. (2011, March). Finding hierarchy in directed online social networks. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web (pp. 557-566). ACM.
  22. Zafeiris, A., & Vicsek, T. (2017). Why we live in hierarchies: a quantitative treatise. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01744.
  23. Seshadhri, C., Kolda, T. G., & Pinar, A. (2012). Community structure and scale-free collections of Erdos-Renyi graphs. Physical Review E, 85(5), 056109.
  24. Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 99(12), 7821-7826. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122653799
  25. Travers, J., & Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Phychology Today, 1, 61-67.
  26. Barabasi, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. science, 286(5439), 509-512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509
  27. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of'small-world'networks. nature, 393(6684), 440.
  28. Leskovec, J., Huttenlocher, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010, April). Signed networks in social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1361-1370). ACM.