skip to main content
10.1145/3543873.3587698acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On Cohesively Polarized Communities in Signed Networks

Published:30 April 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Locating and characterizing polarization is one of the most important issues to enable a healthier web ecosystem. Finding groups of nodes that form strongly stable agreements and participate in collective conflicts with other groups is an important problem in this context. Previous works approach this problem by finding balanced subgraphs, in which the polarity measure is optimized, that result in large subgraphs without a clear notion of agreement or conflict. In real-world signed networks, balanced subgraphs are often not polarized as in the case of a subgraph with only positive edges. To remedy this issue, we leverage the notion of cohesion — we find pairs of cohesively polarized communities where each node in a community is positively connected to nodes in the same community and negatively connected to nodes in the other community. To capture the cohesion along with the polarization, we define a new measure, dichotomy. We leverage the balanced triangles, which model the cohesion and polarization at the same time, to design a heuristic that results in good seedbeds for polarized communities in real-world signed networks. Then, we introduce the electron decomposition which finds cohesively polarized communities with high dichotomy score. In an extensive experimental evaluation, we show that our method finds cohesively polarized communities and outperforms the state-of-the-art methods with respect to several measures. Moreover, our algorithm is more efficient than the existing methods and practical for large-scale networks.

References

  1. 2021. Center for Computational Research, University at Buffalo. http://hdl.handle.net/10477/79221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin, Alain Barrat, and Alessandro Vespignani. 2006. Large scale networks fingerprinting and visualization using the k-core decomposition. In NIPS. 41–50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert Angel, Nick Koudas, Nikos Sarkas, and Divesh Srivastava. 2012. Dense subgraph maintenance under streaming edge weight updates for real-time story identification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.0060 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Samin Aref, Ly Dinh, Rezvaneh Rezapour, and Jana Diesner. 2020. Multilevel structural evaluation of signed directed social networks based on balance theory. Scientific Reports 10, 1 (2020), 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Samin Aref and Mark C Wilson. 2018. Measuring partial balance in signed networks. Journal of Complex Networks 6, 4 (2018), 566–595.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Delia Baldassarri and Peter Bearman. 2007. Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review 72, 5 (2007), 784–811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Nikhil Bansal, Avrim Blum, and Shuchi Chawla. 2004. Correlation clustering. Machine Learning 56, 1 (2004), 89–113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Phillip Bonacich and Philip Lu. 2012. Introduction to mathematical sociology. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Francesco Bonchi, Edoardo Galimberti, Aristides Gionis, Bruno Ordozgoiti, and Giancarlo Ruffo. 2019. Discovering polarized communities in signed networks. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 961–970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jennifer Brundidge. 2010. Encountering "difference" in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication 60, 4 (2010), 680–700.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Jose Cadena, Anil Kumar Vullikanti, and Charu C Aggarwal. 2016. On dense subgraphs in signed network streams. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 51–60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Dorwin Cartwright and Frank Harary. 1956. Structural balance: a generalization of Heider’s theory.Psychological review 63, 5 (1956), 277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Moses Charikar. 2000. Greedy approximation algorithms for finding dense components in a graph. In International Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization. Springer, 84–95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Zi Chen, Long Yuan, Xuemin Lin, Lu Qin, and Jianye Yang. 2020. Efficient Maximal Balanced Clique Enumeration in Signed Networks. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 339–349.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Lingyang Chu, Zhefeng Wang, Jian Pei, Jiannan Wang, Zijin Zhao, and Enhong Chen. 2016. Finding gangs in war from signed networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 1505–1514.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jonathan Cohen. 2008. Trusses: Cohesive subgraphs for social network analysis. National Security Agency Technical Report 16, 3.1 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Tom Coleman, James Saunderson, and Anthony Wirth. 2008. A local-search 2-approximation for 2-correlation-clustering. In European Symposium on Algorithms. Springer, 308–319.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Patrick Doreian and Andrej Mrvar. 2019. Structural balance and signed international relations. Journal of Social Structure 16, 1 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Joan-Maria Esteban and Debraj Ray. 1994. On the measurement of polarization. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1994), 819–851.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Yixiang Fang, Kaiqiang Yu, Reynold Cheng, Laks VS Lakshmanan, and Xuemin Lin. 2019. Efficient algorithms for densest subgraph discovery. PVLDB 12, 11 (2019), 1719–1732.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rosa Figueiredo and Yuri Frota. 2013. An improved Branch-and-cut code for the maximum balanced subgraph of a signed graph. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4345 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosa Figueiredo and Yuri Frota. 2014. The maximum balanced subgraph of a signed graph: Applications and solution approaches. European Journal of Operational Research 236, 2 (2014), 473–487.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Eugene Fratkin, Brian T Naughton, Douglas L Brutlag, and Serafim Batzoglou. 2006. MotifCut: regulatory motifs finding with maximum density subgraphs. Bioinformatics 22, 14 (2006), e150–e157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Jie Gao, Fei Hao, Geyong Min, and Zhipeng Cai. 2021. Maximal Multipolarized Cliques Search in Signed Networks. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2227–2231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2017. Reducing controversy by connecting opposing views. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 81–90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2018. Quantifying controversy on social media. ACM Transactions on Social Computing 1, 1 (2018), 1–27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. David Gibson, Ravi Kumar, and Andrew Tomkins. 2005. Discovering large dense subgraphs in massive graphs. In Proceedings of the 31st international conference on Very large data bases. Citeseer, 721–732.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Aristides Gionis and Charalampos E. Tsourakakis. 2015. Dense Subgraph Discovery: Tutorial. In KDD. 2313–2314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramanthan Guha, Ravi Kumar, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Andrew Tomkins. 2004. Propagation of trust and distrust. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web. 403–412.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Frank Harary. 1953. On the notion of balance of a signed graph.Michigan Mathematical Journal 2, 2 (1953), 143–146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Fritz Heider. 1946. Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology 21, 1 (1946), 107–112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Xin Huang, Hong Cheng, Lu Qin, Wentao Tian, and Jeffrey Xu Yu. 2014. Querying K-truss Community in Large and Dynamic Graphs. In SIGMOD. 1311–1322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Xin Huang, Wei Lu, and Laks V.S. Lakshmanan. 2016. Truss Decomposition of Probabilistic Graphs: Semantics and Algorithms. In SIGMOD. 77–90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Alec Kirkley, George T Cantwell, and MEJ Newman. 2019. Balance in signed networks. Physical Review E 99, 1 (2019), 012320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Srijan Kumar, William L Hamilton, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. 2018. Community interaction and conflict on the web. In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference. 933–943.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jérôme Kunegis. 2013. KONECT: The Koblenz Network Collection(WWW Companion). 1343–1350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Mirko Lai, Viviana Patti, Giancarlo Ruffo, and Paolo Rosso. 2018. Stance evolution and twitter interactions in an italian political debate. In International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems. Springer, 15–27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. V. E. Lee, N. Ruan, R. Jin, and C. Aggarwal. 2010. A Survey of Algorithms for Dense Subgraph Discovery. In Managing and Mining Graph Data. Vol. 40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jure Leskovec, Daniel Huttenlocher, and Jon Kleinberg. 2010. Signed networks in social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1361–1370.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Jure Leskovec and Andrej Krevl. 2014. SNAP Datasets: Stanford Large Network Dataset Collection. http://snap.stanford.edu/data.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Ronghua Li, Qiangqiang Dai, Lu Qin, Guoren Wang, Xiaokui Xiao, Jeffrey Xu Yu, and Shaojie Qiao. 2019. Signed Clique Search in Signed Networks: Concepts and Algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Q. Vera Liao and Wai-Tat Fu. 2014. Can You Hear Me Now? Mitigating the Echo Chamber Effect by Source Position Indicators. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (CSCW ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531711Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Q Vera Liao and Wai-Tat Fu. 2014. Expert voices in echo chambers: effects of source expertise indicators on exposure to diverse opinions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2745–2754.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Yelena Mejova, Amy X Zhang, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Carlos Castillo. 2014. Controversy and sentiment in online news. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.8152 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Alfredo Jose Morales, Javier Borondo, Juan Carlos Losada, and Rosa M Benito. 2015. Measuring political polarization: Twitter shows the two sides of Venezuela. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 25, 3 (2015), 033114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Bruno Ordozgoiti, Antonis Matakos, and Aristides Gionis. 2020. Finding large balanced subgraphs in signed networks. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 1378–1388.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Ahmet Erdem Sariyuce. 2021. Motif-driven Dense Subgraph Discovery in Directed and Labeled Networks. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 379–390.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Ahmet Erdem Sariyuce and Ali Pinar. 2016. Fast Hierarchy Construction for Dense Subgraphs. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 10, 3 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. A. Erdem Sarıyüce, C. Seshadhri, A. Pınar, and Ü. V. Çatalyürek. 2015. Finding the Hierarchy of Dense Subgraphs Using Nucleus Decompositions. In WWW (Florence, Italy). 927–937.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Renjie Sun, Qiuyu Zhu, Chen Chen, Xiaoyang Wang, Ying Zhang, and Xun Wang. 2020. Discovering cliques in signed networks based on balance theory. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications. 666–674.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. C. Tsourakakis, F. Bonchi, A. Gionis, F. Gullo, and M. Tsiarli. 2013. Denser Than the Densest Subgraph: Extracting Optimal Quasi-cliques with Quality Guarantees(KDD ’13).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Ruo-Chun Tzeng, Bruno Ordozgoiti, and Aristides Gionis. 2020. Discovering conflicting groups in signed networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. VG Vinod Vydiswaran, ChengXiang Zhai, Dan Roth, and Peter Pirolli. 2015. Overcoming bias to learn about controversial topics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 8 (2015), 1655–1672.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Yanping Wu, Renjie Sun, Chen Chen, Xiaoyang Wang, and Qiuyu Zhu. 2020. Maximum Signed (k, r)-Truss Identification in Signed Networks. In Proc. of the 29th ACM International Conf. on Information & Knowledge Management. 3337–3340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Han Xiao, Bruno Ordozgoiti, and Aristides Gionis. 2020. Searching for polarization in signed graphs: a local spectral approach. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 362–372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Jun Zhao, Renjie Sun, Qiuyu Zhu, Xiaoyang Wang, and Chen Chen. 2020. Community Identification in Signed Networks: A K-Truss Based Model. In Proc. of the 29th ACM International Conf. on Information & Knowledge Management. 2321–2324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    WWW '23 Companion: Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023
    April 2023
    1567 pages
    ISBN:9781450394192
    DOI:10.1145/3543873

    Copyright © 2023 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 30 April 2023

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

    Upcoming Conference

    WWW '24
    The ACM Web Conference 2024
    May 13 - 17, 2024
    Singapore , Singapore
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)124
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format