Contagion, Tipping and Navigation in Networks Networked Life CSE 112 Spring 2007 Prof. Michael Kearns.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Routing in Poisson small-world networks A. J. Ganesh Microsoft Research, Cambridge Joint work with Moez Draief.
Advertisements

Contagion, Tipping and Networks Networked Life CSE 112 Spring 2004 Prof. Michael Kearns.
The Strength of Weak Ties
Milgram-Routing in Social Networks
Navigation in Networks Networked Life NETS 112 Fall 2013 Prof. Michael Kearns.
Analysis and Modeling of Social Networks Foudalis Ilias.
P2P Topologies Centralized Ring Hierarchical Decentralized Hybrid.
Overarching Goal: Understand that computer models require the merging of mathematics and science. 1.Understand how computational reasoning can be infused.
Social Networks 101 P ROF. J ASON H ARTLINE AND P ROF. N ICOLE I MMORLICA.
Models of Network Formation Networked Life NETS 112 Fall 2013 Prof. Michael Kearns.
The Tipping Point ~Malcolm Gladwell How To Start a Revolution Dalyce Armstrong, Barinder Atwal, Derek Campbell, Brad Vandenberg & Christian Watson.
Information Networks Small World Networks Lecture 5.
Advanced Topics in Data Mining Special focus: Social Networks.
Identity and search in social networks Presented by Pooja Deodhar Duncan J. Watts, Peter Sheridan Dodds and M. E. J. Newman.
Company LOGO 1 Identity and Search in Social Networks D.J.Watts, P.S. Dodds, M.E.J. Newman Maryam Fazel-Zarandi.
Small Worlds Presented by Geetha Akula For the Faculty of Department of Computer Science, CALSTATE LA. On 8 th June 07.
Contagion, Tipping and Navigation in Networks Networked Life CIS 112 Spring 2009 Prof. Michael Kearns.
Long Tails and Navigation Networked Life CSE 112 Spring 2007 Prof. Michael Kearns.
Long Tails and Navigation Networked Life CIS 112 Spring 2009 Prof. Michael Kearns.
Peer-to-Peer and Grid Computing Exercise Session 3 (TUD Student Use Only) ‏
“The Tipping Point” and the Networked Nature of Society Michael Kearns Computer and Information Science Penn Reading Project 2004.
CS Lecture 6 Generative Graph Models Part II.
Advanced Topics in Data Mining Special focus: Social Networks.
Contagion and Tipping in Networks Networked Life CSE 112 Spring 2006 Prof. Michael Kearns.
Agenda: Tuesday, Jan 25 Reports from the Field: –Friendster, Love and Money : Monday NY Times (Katy Keenan)Friendster, Love and Money –That’s Soooo High.
Graphs and Topology Yao Zhao. Background of Graph A graph is a pair G =(V,E) –Undirected graph and directed graph –Weighted graph and unweighted graph.
1 Algorithms for Large Data Sets Ziv Bar-Yossef Lecture 7 May 14, 2006
Models of Influence in Online Social Networks
Graph Coloring Update Best Times by Graph Buenos Aires Toronto Tehran Moscow Tokyo Taipei Santiago Madrid.
Contagion, Tipping and Navigation in Networks Networked Life MKSE 112 Fall 2012 Prof. Michael Kearns.
Contagion in Networks Networked Life NETS 112 Fall 2013 Prof. Michael Kearns.
Section 8 – Ec1818 Jeremy Barofsky March 31 st and April 1 st, 2010.
Small World Problem Christopher McCarty. Small World Phenomenon You meet someone, seemingly randomly, who has a connection to someone you know – Person.
Small-world networks. What is it? Everyone talks about the small world phenomenon, but truly what is it? There are three landmark papers: Stanley Milgram.
Today’s topics Strength of Weak Ties Next Topic Acknowledgements
Online Social Networks and Media
Peter Sheridan Dodds Roby Muhamad Duncan J. Watts Columbia University An Experimental Study of Search in Global Social Networks.
Lecture 10: Network models CS 765: Complex Networks Slides are modified from Networks: Theory and Application by Lada Adamic.
Most of contents are provided by the website Network Models TJTSD66: Advanced Topics in Social Media (Social.
What Is A Network? (and why do we care?). An Introduction to Network Theory | Kyle Findlay | SAMRA 2010 | 2 “A collection of objects (nodes) connected.
How Do “Real” Networks Look?
Performance Evaluation Lecture 1: Complex Networks Giovanni Neglia INRIA – EPI Maestro 10 December 2012.
Analyzing Networks. Milgram’s Experiments “Six degrees of Separation” Milgram’s letters to various recruits in Nebraska who were asked to forward the.
Navigation in Networks, Revisited Networked Life MKSE 112 Fall 2012 Prof. Michael Kearns.
Topics In Social Computing (67810) Module 1 Introduction & The Structure of Social Networks.
Contagion in Networks Networked Life NETS 112 Fall 2015 Prof. Michael Kearns.
Connectivity and the Small World
Navigation in Networks
Lecture 1: Complex Networks
Structural Properties of Networks: Introduction
Identity and Search in Social Networks
Navigation in Networks
How Do “Real” Networks Look?
Networked Life NETS 112 Fall 2018 Prof. Michael Kearns
How Do “Real” Networks Look?
How Do “Real” Networks Look?
Models of Network Formation
Models of Network Formation
Navigation in Networks
Networked Life NETS 112 Fall 2017 Prof. Michael Kearns
Models of Network Formation
How Do “Real” Networks Look?
Networked Life NETS 112 Fall 2014 Prof. Michael Kearns
Networked Life NETS 112 Fall 2016 Prof. Michael Kearns
Models of Network Formation
The flow could be seen as a network, to develop this network as the underlying mechanism of the marketplace of ideas we can use the idea of.
Navigation and Propagation in Networks
Advanced Topics in Data Mining Special focus: Social Networks
Networked Life NETS 112 Fall 2019 Prof. Michael Kearns
Presentation transcript:

Contagion, Tipping and Navigation in Networks Networked Life CSE 112 Spring 2007 Prof. Michael Kearns

Gladwell, page 7: “The Tipping Point is the biography of the idea… that the best way to understand the emergence of fashion trends, the ebb and flow of crime waves, or the rise in teen smoking… is to think of them as epidemics. Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread just like viruses do…” …on networks.

Gladwell Tipping Examples Hush Puppies: –almost dead in 1994; > 10x sales increase by ’96 –no advertising or marketing budget –claim: “viral” fashion spread from NY teens to designers –must be certain connectivity and individuals NYC Crime: –1992: > 2K murders; < 770 five years later –standard socio-economic explanations: police performance, decline of crack, improved economy, aging… –but these all changed incrementally –alternative: small forces provoked anti-crime “virus” Technology tipping: fax machines, , cell phones “Tipping” origins: 1970’s “white flight”

Key Characteristics of Tipping (according to Gladwell) Contagion: –“viral” spread of disease, ideas, knowledge, etc. –spread is determined by network structure –network structure will influence outcomes who gets “infected”, infection rate, number infected Amplification of the incremental: –small changes can have large, dramatic effects network topology, infectiousness, individual behavior Sudden, not gradual change: –phase transitions and non-linear phenomena How can we formalize some of these ideas?

size of police force crime rate linear size of police force crime rate linear size of police force crime rate size of police force crime rate nonlinear, gradual decay nonlinear, tipping Rates of Growth and Decay

Gladwell’s Three Sources of Tipping The Law of the Few (Messengers): –Connectors, Mavens and Salesman –Hubs and Authorities The Stickiness Factor (Message): –The “infectiousness” of the “message” itself –Still largely treated as a crude property of transmission The Power of Context: –global influences affecting messenger behavior

“Epidemos” Forest fire simulation:Forest fire simulation –grid of forest and vacant cells –fire always spreads to adjacent four cells “perfect” stickiness or infectiousness –connectivity parameter: probability of forest –fire will spread to connected component of source –tip when forest ~ 0.6 –clean mathematical formalization (e.g. fraction burned) Viral spread simulation:Viral spread simulation –population on a grid network, each with four neighbors –stickiness parameter: probability of passing disease –connectivity parameter: probability of rewiring local connections to random long-distance –no long distance connections: tip at stickiness ~ 0.3 –at rewiring = 0.5, often tip at stickiness ~ 0.2

“Mathematizing” the Forest Fire Start with a regular 2-dimensional grid network –this represents a complete forest Delete each vertex (and its edges) with probability p (independently) –this represents random “clear-cutting” or natural fire breaks Choose a random remaining vertex v –this is my campsite Q: What is the expected size of v’s connected component? –this is how much of the forest is going to burn

“Mathematizing” the Epidemic Start with a regular 2-dimensional grid network –this represents a dense population with “local” connections (neighbors) Rewire each edge with probability p to a random destination –this represents “long-distance” connections (chance meetings) Choose a random remaining vertex v –this is an infection; spreads probabilistically to each of v’s neighbors Fraction killed more complex: –depends on both size and structure of v’s connected component Important theme: –mixing regular, local structure with random, long-distance connections

Some Remarks on the Demos Connectivity patterns were either local or random –will eventually formalize this model –what about other/more realistic structure? Tipping was inherently a statistical phenomenon –probabilistic nature of connectivity patterns –probabilistic nature of disease spread –model likely properties of a large set of possible outcomes –can model either inherent randomness or variability Formalizing tipping in the forest fire demo: –might let grid size N  infinity, look at fixed values of p –is there a threshold value q: p > q  expected fraction burned < 1/10 p 9/10

Small Worlds and the Law of the Few Gladwell’s “Law of the Few”: –a “small” number of “highly” connected vertices (  heavy tails) –inordinate importance for global connectivity (  small diameter) Travers & Milgram 1969: classic early social network study –destination: a Boston stockbroker; lived in Sharon, MA –sources: Nebraska stockowners; Nebraska and Boston “randoms” –forward letter to a first-name acquaintance “closer” to target –target information provided: name, address, occupation, firm, college, wife’s name and hometown navigational value? Basic findings: –64 of 296 chains reached the target –average length of completed chains: 5.2 interaction of chain length and navigational difficulties –main approach routes: home (6.1) and work (4.6) –Boston sources (4.4) faster than Nebraska (5.5) –no advantage for Nebraska stockowners

The Connectors to the Target T & M found that many of the completed chains passed through a very small number of penultimate individualsT & M –Mr. G, Sharon merchant: 16/64 chains –Mr. D and Mr. P: 10 and 5 chains Connectors are individuals with extremely high degree –why should connectors exist? –how common are they? –how do they get that way? (see Gladwell for anecdotes) Connectors can be viewed as the “hubs” of social traffic Note: no reason target must be a connector for small worlds Two ways of getting small worlds (low diameter): –truly random connection pattern  dense network –a small number of well-placed connectors in a sparse network

Small Worlds: A Modern Experiment The Columbia Small Worlds Project:Columbia Small Worlds Project –considerably larger subject pool, uses –subject of Dodds et al. assigned paper Basic methodology: –18 targets from 13 countries –on-line registration of initial participants, all tracking electronic –99K registered, 24K initiated chains, 384 reached targets Some findings: –< 5% of messages through any penultimate individual –large “friend degree” rarely (< 10%) cited –Dodds et al:  no evidence of connectors! (but could be that connectors are not cited for this reason…) –interesting analysis of reasons for forwardingreasons for forwarding –interesting analysis of navigation method vs. chain lengthnavigation method vs. chain length

The Strength of Weak Ties Not all links are of equal importance Granovetter 1974: study of job searches –56% found current job via a personal connection –of these, 16.7% saw their contact “often” –the rest saw their contact “occasionally” or “rarely” Your “closest” contacts might not be the most useful –similar backgrounds and experience –they may not know much more than you do –connectors derive power from a large fraction of weak ties Further evidence in Dodds et al. paper T&M, Granovetter, Gladwell: multiple “spaces” & “distances” –geographic, professional, social, recreational, political,… –we can reason about general principles without precise measurement

The Magic Number 150 Social channel capacity –correlation between neocortex size and group size –Dunbar’s equation: neocortex ratio  group size Clear implications for many kinds of social networks Again, a topological constraint on typical degree From primates to military units to Gore-Tex

A Mathematical Digression If there’s a “Magic Number 150” (degree bound)… …and we want networks with small diameter… … then there may be constraints on the mere existence of certain NWs –let  be the largest degree allowed why? e.g. because there is a limit to how many friends you can have –suppose we are interested in NWs with (worst-case) diameter D (or less) why? because many have claimed that D is often small –let N(  D) = size of the largest possible NW obeying  and D Exact form of N( ,D) is notoriously elusive –but known that it is between (  /2)^D and 2  ^D So, for example, if N ~ 300M (U.S. population): –to be certain NW exists, solve N < (  /2)^D –if  4.5 –if D 52 –so these literatures are consistent… (whew!) More generally: multiple structural properties may be competing

Next up: Network Science.