skip to main content
research-article
Free Access

A Survey on the Role of Centrality as Seed Nodes for Information Propagation in Large Scale Network

Published:20 August 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

From the popular concept of six-degree separation, social networks are generally analyzed in the perspective of small world networks where centrality of nodes play a pivotal role in information propagation. However, working with a large dataset of a scale-free network (which follows power law) may be different due to the nature of the social graph. Moreover, the derivation of centrality may be difficult due to the computational complexity of identifying centrality measures. This study provides a comprehensive and extensive review and comparison of seven centrality measures (clustering coefficients, Node degree, K-core, Betweenness, Closeness, Eigenvector, PageRank) using four information propagation methods (Breadth First Search, Random Walk, Susceptible-Infected-Removed, Forest Fire). Five benchmark similarity measures (Tanimoto, Hamming, Dice, Sorensen, Jaccard) have been used to measure the similarity between the seed nodes identified using the centrality measures with actual source seeds derived through Google's LargeStar-SmallStar algorithm on Twitter Stream Data. MapReduce has been utilized for identifying the seed nodes based on centrality measures and for information propagation simulation. It is observed that most of the centrality measures perform well compared to the actual source in the initial stage but are saturated after a certain level of influence maximization in terms of both affected nodes and propagation level.

References

  1. Albert-László Barabási and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 5439 (Oct. 1999), 509–512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, and D. Hwang. 2006. Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Physics Reports 424, 4–5 (Feb. 2006), 175–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Ulrik Brandes. 2008. On variants of shortest-path betweenness centrality and their generic computation. Social Networks 30, 2 (May 2008), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.11.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Sung-Hyuk Cha. 2007. Comprehensive survey on distance/similarity measures between probability density functions. International Journal of Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 1, 4 (Oct. 2007), 300–307. https://doi.org/10.1.1.154.8446Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Wei Chen and Shang-Hua Teng. 2017. Interplay between social influence and network centrality: A comparative study on Shapley centrality and single-node-influence centrality. In Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference (WWW'17). ACM, New York, NY, 967–976. https://doi.org/10.1145/3038912.3052608Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. W. Chen, C. Wang, and Y. Wang. 2010. Scalable influence maximization for prevalent viral marketing in large-scale social networks. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'10). ACM, New York, NY, 1029–1038. https://doi.org/10.1145/1835804.1835934Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Luciano da Fontoura Costa, Osvaldo N. Oliveira Jr., Gonzalo Travieso, Francisco Aparecido Rodrigues, Paulino Ribeiro Villas Boas, Lucas Antiqueira, Matheus Palhares Viana, and Luis Enrique Correa Rocha.2011. Analyzing and modeling real-world phenomena with complex networks: A survey of applications. Advances in Physics 60, 3 (June 2011), 329–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2011.572452Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Paramita Dey and Sarbani Roy. 2016. Social network analysis. In Advanced Methods for Complex Network Analysis, Natarajan Meghanathan (Ed.). IGI, Hershey, PA, 237–265. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9964-9.ch010Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. I. P. Erdos and A. Renyi.1959. On random graphs. Mathematicae 6, 1 (March 1959), 290–297. http://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs224w-readings/erdos59random.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Guilherme Ferraz de Arruda, Andre Luiz Barbieri, Pablo Martin Rodriguez, Francisco A. Rodrigues, Yamir Moreno, and Luciano da Fontoura Costa. 2014. Role of centrality for the identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Physical Review E 90, 3 (Sept. 2014), 032812. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.032812Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Wayne Goddard and Ortrud R. Oellermann. 2010. Distance in graphs. In Structural Analysis of Complex Networks, M. Dehmer (Ed.). Springer, Boston, MA, 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-4789-6_3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Giovanna Miritello, Esteban Moro, and Rubén Lara. 2010. The dynamical strength of social ties in information spreading. Physics Review E 83, 4 (April 2010), 045102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.83.045102Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Felipe Grando and Luis C. Lamb. 2018. Computing vertex centrality measures in massive real networks with a neural learning model. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN'18). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2018.8489690Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. F. Grando, D. Noble, and L. C. Lamb. 2016. An analysis of centrality measures for complex and social networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM'16). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/GLOCOM.2016.7841580Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. R. Grassi, F. Calderoni, M. Bianchi, and A. Torriero. 2019. Betweenness to assess leaders in criminal networks: New evidence using the dual projection approach. Social Networks 56 (Jan. 2019), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2018.08.001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. D. Guzman, R. F. Deckro, M. J. Robbins, J. F. Morris, and N. A. Ballester. 2014. An analytical comparison of social network measures. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 1, 1 (March 2014), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2014.2307451Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. B. Holthoefer and Y. Moreno. 2012. Absence of influential spreaders in rumor dynamics. Physical Review E 85 (Feb. 2012), 026116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.85.026116PMID: 22463288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuad Jamour, Spiros Skiadopoulos, and Panos Kalnis. 2018. Parallel algorithm for incremental betweenness centrality on large graphs. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 29, 3 (March 2018), 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2017.2763951Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Saehan Jo, Jaemin Yoo, and U. Kang. 2018. Fast and scalable distributed loopy belief propagation on real-world graphs. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM'18). ACM, New York, NY, 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159652.3159722Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. David Kempe, Jon Kleinberg, and Eva Tardos. 2003. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'03). ACM, New York, NY, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1145/956750.956769Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Haewoon Kwak, Changhyun Lee, Hosung Park, and Sue Moon. 2010. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW'10). ACM, New York, NY, 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772751Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lejun Zhang, Hongjie Li, Chunhai Zhao, and Xiaoying Lei. 2017. Social network information propagation model based on individual behavior. China Communications 14, 7 (Aug. 2017), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/CC.2017.8010980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. J. Leskovec, L. A. Adamic, and B. A. Huberman. 2007. The dynamics of viral marketing. ACM Transactions on the Web 1, 1 (May 2007), 016128. https://doi.org/10.1145/1232722.1232727Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hui Li. 2018. Centrality analysis of online social network big data. In Proceedings of the IEEE 3rd International Conference on Big Data Analysis (ICBDA'18). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBDA.2018.8367648Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Matei Zaharia, Mosharaf Chowdhury, Michael J. Franklin, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. 2010. Spark: Cluster computing with working sets. In Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Conference on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing (HotCloud'10). ACM, New York, NY, 10. https://doi.org/10.5555/1863103.1863113Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. Mendoza, B. Poblete, and C. Castillo. 2010. Twitter under crisis: Can we trust what we get? In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Communications Conference (SOMA'10). ACM, New York, NY, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1145/1964858.1964869Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Felipe Neves, Victor Ströele, and Fernanda Campos. 2019. Information diffusion in social networks: A recommendation model in the educational context. In Proceedings of XV Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems (SBSI'19). ACM, New York, NY, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330204.3330234Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. E. Newman. 2002. Spread of epidemic disease on networks. Physical review E 66, 1 (July 2002), 016128. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.66.016128Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry Winograd. 1999. The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. Technical Report. Stanford InfoLab.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Paramita Dey, Agneet Chaterjee, and Sarbani Roy. 2019. Influence maximization in online social network using different centrality measures as seed node of information propagation. Sadhana 44, 205 (Sept. 2019), Article 205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-019-1189-7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Paramita Dey, Saikat pyne, and Sarbani Roy. 2017. Information spreading in online social networks: A case study on twitter network. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHoc'17). ACM, New York, NY, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3084041.3084071Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Agnieszka Rusinowska, Rudolf Berghammer, Harrie De Swart, and Michel Grabisch. 2011. Social networks: Prestige, centrality, and influence. In Proceedings of International Conference on Relational and Algebraic Methods in Computer Science (RAMICS'11). 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21070-9_2Invited Paper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jimeng Sun and Jie Tang. 2011. A survey of models and algorithms for social influence analysis. In Social Network Data Analytics, C. Aggarwal (Ed.). Springer-Verlag, Boston, MA, 177–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8462-3_7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. R. M. Tripathy, A. Bagchi, and S. Mehta. 2010. A study of rumor control strategies on social networks. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'10). ACM, New York, NY, 1817–1820. https://doi.org/10.1145/1871437.1871737Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. M. P. Viana, J. L. Batista, and L. D. F. Costa. 2012. Effective number of accessed nodes in complex networks. Physical Review E 85, 036105 (Mar. 2012), 036105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.85.036105Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Michela Del Vicario, Fabiana Zollo, Guido Caldarelli, Antonio Scala, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2017. Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks 50, 1 (July 2017), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.02.002Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Duncan J. Watts and Steven H. Strogatz. 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393 (June 1998), 440–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/30918Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Q. Yao, R. Shi, C. Zhou, P. Wang, and L. Guo. 2015. Topic-aware social influence minimization. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW'15). ACM, New York, NY, 139–140. https://doi.org/10.1145/2740908.2742767Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Kan Chen Bak Per and Chao Tang. 1990. A forest-fire model and some thoughts on turbulence. Physics Letters A 147, 5–6 (1990), 297–300. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(90)90451-SGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Survey on the Role of Centrality as Seed Nodes for Information Propagation in Large Scale Network

          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

          Full Access

          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
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!