Yuxiao Dong
Jian Xu
ABSTRACT
A widely recognized organizing principle of networks is structural homophily, which suggests that people with more common neighbors are more likely to connect with each other. However, what influence the diverse structures embedded in common neighbors have on link formation is much less well-understood. To explore this problem, we begin by characterizing the structural diversity of common neighborhoods. Using a collection of 120 large-scale networks, we demonstrate that the impact of the common neighborhood diversity on link existence can vary substantially across networks. We find that its positive effect on Facebook and negative effect on LinkedIn suggest different underlying networking needs in these networks. We also discover striking cases where diversity violates the principle of homophily---that is, where fewer mutual connections may lead to a higher tendency to link with each other. We then leverage structural diversity to develop a common neighborhood signature (CNS), which we apply to a large set of networks to uncover unique network superfamilies not discoverable by conventional methods. Our findings shed light on the pursuit to understand the ways in which network structures are organized and formed, pointing to potential advancement in designing graph generation models and recommender systems.
- Lada A. Adamic and Eytan Adar 2001. Friends and Neighbors on the Web. SOCIAL NETWORKS Vol. 25 (2001), 211--230. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Nicomachean Ethics1162a Aristotle and VIII Book 1934. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19, translated by H. Rackham. (1934).Google Scholar
- Lars Backstrom and Jon M. Kleinberg 2014. Romantic Partnerships and the Dispersion of social ties: a netwrok analysis of relationship status on Facebook. In CSCW '14. 831--841. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Albert-Laszlo Barabasi and Reka Albert 1999. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science, Vol. 286, 5439 (1999), 509--512. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carlo Vittorio Cannistraci, Gregorio Alanis-Lobato, and Timothy Ravasi 2013. From link-prediction in brain connectomes and protein interactomes to the local-community-paradigm in complex networks. Scientific reports Vol. 3 (2013). Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yuxiao Dong, Yang Yang, Jie Tang, Yang Yang, and Nitesh V. Chawla 2014. Inferring User Demographics and Social Strategies in Mobile Social Networks KDD'14. ACM, 15--24.Google Scholar
- Yuxiao Dong, Jing Zhang, Jie Tang, Nitesh V. Chawla, and Bai Wang 2015. CoupledLP: Link Prediction in Coupled Networks. In KDD '15. ACM, 199--208. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Easley and Jon Kleinberg 2010. Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarCross Ref
- P ErdHos and A Rényi 1959. On random graphs I. Publ. Math. Debrecen Vol. 6 (1959), 290--297.Google Scholar
- Péter L. Erdös, István Miklós, and Zoltán Toroczkai 2016. New classes of degree sequences with fast mixing swap Markov chain sampling. CoRR Vol. abs/1601.08224 (2016). showURL%http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.08224Google Scholar
- Michalis Faloutsos, Petros Faloutsos, and Christos Faloutsos. 1999. On power-law relationships of the Internet topology SIGCOMM'99. 251--262.Google Scholar
- Zhanpeng Fang, Xinyu Zhou, Jie Tang, Wei Shao, A.C.M. Fong, Longjun Sun, Ying Ding, Ling Zhou, and Jarder Luo 2014. Modeling Paying Behavior in Game Social Networks. CIKM '14. 411--420.Google Scholar
- Mark Granovetter. 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology (1985).Google Scholar
- Mark Granovetter. 1992. Problems of explanation in economic sociology. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action Vol. 25 (1992), 56.Google Scholar
- Emily M. Jin, Michelle Girvan, and M. E. J. Newman. 2001. Structure of growing social networks. Phys. Rev. E Vol. 64 (2001), 046132. Issue 4.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Xiangnan Kong and Philip S Yu 2010. Semi-supervised feature selection for graph classification KDD '12. 793--802. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ravi Kumar, Jasmine Novak, and Andrew Tomkins. 2006. Structure and Evolution of Online Social Networks. KDD '06. ACM, 611--617. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jérôme Kunegis. 2013. Konect: the koblenz network collection. In WWW'13 companion. 1343--1350. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. F. Lazarsfeld and R. K. Merton 1954. Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. Freedom and control in modern society, New York: Van Nostrand (1954), 8--66.Google Scholar
- Jure Leskovec, Lars Backstrom, Ravi Kumar, and Andrew Tomkins 2008. Microscopic evolution of social networks. In KDD '08. 462--470. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jure Leskovec, Deepayan Chakrabarti, Jon Kleinberg, Christos Faloutsos, and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2010. Kronecker graphs: An approach to modeling networks. JMLR, Vol. 11, Feb (2010), 985--1042.Google Scholar
- Jure Leskovec, Jon Kleinberg, and Christos Faloutsos. 2005. Graphs over Time: Densification Laws, Shrinking Diameters and Possible Explanations KDD '05. 177--187. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jure Leskovec, Kevin J Lang, Anirban Dasgupta, and Michael W Mahoney 2008. Statistical properties of community structure in large social and information networks WWW '08. ACM, 695--704.Google Scholar
- David Liben-Nowell and Jon M. Kleinberg 2007. The link-prediction problem for social networks. JASIST, Vol. 58, 7 (2007), 1019--1031. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hao Ma 2014. On measuring social friend interest similarities in recommender systems SIGIR '14. ACM, 465--474.Google Scholar
- Peter V Marsden and Karen E Campbell 1984. Measuring tie strength. Social forces, Vol. 63, 2 (1984), 482--501. Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, and J.M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology (2001), 415--444. Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Milo, S. Itzkovitz, N. Kashtan, R. Levitt, S. Shen-Orr, I. Ayzenshtat, M. Sheffer, and U. Alon. 2004. Superfamilies of evolved and designed networks. Science, Vol. 303, 5663 (March 2004), 1538--1542. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alan Mislove, Massimiliano Marcon, Krishna P. Gummadi, Peter Druschel, and Bobby Bhattacharjee. 2007. Measurement and Analysis of Online Social Networks IMC'07. 29--42.Google Scholar
- Mark E. J. Newman. 2001. Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 64, 2 (2001), 025102. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark E. J. Newman. 2006. Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. Phys. Rev. E Vol. 74 (2006), 036104. Issue 3.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark E. J. Newman, Steven H Strogatz, and Duncan J Watts. 2001. Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 64, 2 (2001), 026118. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ali Pinar, C. Seshadhri, and V. Vishal 2017. ESCAPE: Efficiently Counting All 5-Vertex Subgraphs WWW '17. 1431--1440.Google Scholar
- Pablo Robles, Sebastian Moreno, and Jennifer Neville. 2016. Sampling of Attributed Networks from Hierarchical Generative Models KDD '16. ACM, 1155--1164.Google Scholar
- Ryan A. Rossi and Nesreen K. Ahmed 2015. The Network Data Repository with Interactive Graph Analytics and Visualization AAAI' 15. 4292--4293. showURL%http://networkrepository.comGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Rok Sosic and Jure Leskovec 2015. Large Scale Network Analytics with SNAP. In WWW '15 Companion. ACM, 1537--1538. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Limin Yao, Juanzi Li, Li Zhang, and Zhong Su 2008. ArnetMiner: Extraction and Mining of Academic Social Networks KDD '08. 990--998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johan Ugander, Lars Backstrom, and Jon Kleinberg. 2013. Subgraph Frequencies: Mapping the Empirical and Extremal Geography of Large Graph Collections WWW '13. 1307--1318. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johan Ugander, Lars Backstrom, Cameron Marlow, and Jon Kleinberg 2012. Structural diversity in social contagion. PNAS, Vol. 109, 16 (2012), 5962--5966. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julian R Ullmann. 1976. An algorithm for subgraph isomorphism. J. ACM Vol. 23, 1 (1976), 31--42.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brian Uzzi. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative science quarterly (1997), 35--67. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joe H Ward Jr. 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American statistical association, Vol. 58, 301 (1963), 236--244. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Duncan J. Watts and Steven H. Strogatz Jun 1998. Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature ( Jun 1998), 440--442.Google Scholar
- Rongjing Xiang, Jennifer Neville, and Monica Rogati. 2010. Modeling relationship strength in online social networks WWW '10. 981--990.Google Scholar
- R. Zafarani and H. Liu 2009. Social Computing Data Repository at ASU. (2009). showURL%http://socialcomputing.asu.eduendthebibliographyGoogle Scholar
Index Terms
- Structural Diversity and Homophily: A Study Across More Than One Hundred Big Networks
Recommendations
Friendship prediction and homophily in social media
Social media have attracted considerable attention because their open-ended nature allows users to create lightweight semantic scaffolding to organize and share content. To date, the interplay of the social and topical components of social media has ...
LaFT-tree: perceiving the expansion trace of one's circle of friends in online social networks
WSDM '13: Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data miningMany patterns have been discovered to explain and analyze how people make friends. Among them is the triadic closure, supported by the principle of the transitivity of friendship, which means for an individual the friends of her friend are more likely to ...
Combating homophily through design
CSCW '13: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work companionSocial networking has allowed us to be in constant contact with friends from many different backgrounds, yet we are unaware of many of our friends' perspectives and opinions. Networks are highly homophilous, meaning that people tend to associate with ...
Comments