Jure Leskovec (Stanford), Daniel Huttenlocher and Jon Kleinberg (Cornell)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 8 Flashcards.
Advertisements

Learning on the Test Data: Leveraging “Unseen” Features Ben Taskar Ming FaiWong Daphne Koller.
Viral Marketing – Learning Influence Probabilities.
Psychometric Aspects of Linking Tests to the CEF Norman Verhelst National Institute for Educational Measurement (Cito) Arnhem – The Netherlands.
RL for Large State Spaces: Value Function Approximation
Leting Wu Xiaowei Ying, Xintao Wu Aidong Lu and Zhi-Hua Zhou PAKDD 2011 Spectral Analysis of k-balanced Signed Graphs 1.
Λ14 Διαδικτυακά Κοινωνικά Δίκτυα και Μέσα Positive and Negative Relationships Chapter 5, from D. Easley and J. Kleinberg book.
Λ14 Διαδικτυακά Κοινωνικά Δίκτυα και Μέσα Strong and Weak Ties Chapter 3, from D. Easley and J. Kleinberg book.
Jure Leskovec, CMU Lars Backstrom, Cornell Ravi Kumar, Yahoo! Research Andrew Tomkins, Yahoo! Research.
J. Leskovec, D. Huttenlocher, J. Kleinberg Paper Review by Rachel Katz S IGNED N ETWORKS IN S OCIAL M EDIA.
Selected Topics in Data Networking
Propagation of Trust and Distrust Antti Sorjamaa Propagation of Trust and Distrust R. Guha, R. Kumar, P. Raghavan and A. Tomkins New York, 2004 Antti Sorjamaa.
Guha et al (WWW 2004). Growing economic motivation to spread information & DISINFORMATION. Open standards and low barrier to publication on the Web. Unscrupulous.
1 Yuxiao Dong *$, Jie Tang $, Sen Wu $, Jilei Tian # Nitesh V. Chawla *, Jinghai Rao #, Huanhuan Cao # Link Prediction and Recommendation across Multiple.
Directional triadic closure and edge deletion mechanism induce asymmetry in directed edge properties.
Partitioning Social Networks for Time-dependent Queries Berenice Carrasco, Yi Lu and Joana M. F. da Trindade - University of Illinois - EuroSys11 – Workshop.
INFERRING NETWORKS OF DIFFUSION AND INFLUENCE Presented by Alicia Frame Paper by Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez, Jure Leskovec, and Andreas Kraus.
Statistical Relational Learning for Link Prediction Alexandrin Popescul and Lyle H. Unger Presented by Ron Bjarnason 11 November 2003.
Social Data Daniel Huttenlocher Dean of Computing and Information Science Cornell University.
Web Projections Learning from Contextual Subgraphs of the Web Jure Leskovec, CMU Susan Dumais, MSR Eric Horvitz, MSR.
Network Measures Social Media Mining. 2 Measures and Metrics 2 Social Media Mining Network Measures Klout.
To Trust of Not To Trust? Predicting Online Trusts using Trust Antecedent Framework Viet-An Nguyen 1, Ee-Peng Lim 1, Aixin Sun 2, Jing Jiang 1, Hwee-Hoon.
Modeling Relationship Strength in Online Social Networks Rongjing Xiang: Purdue University Jennifer Neville: Purdue University Monica Rogati: LinkedIn.
Jure Leskovec Stanford University. Large on-line applications with hundreds of millions of users The Web is my “laboratory” for understanding the pulse.
Popularity versus Similarity in Growing Networks Fragiskos Papadopoulos Cyprus University of Technology M. Kitsak, M. Á. Serrano, M. Boguñá, and Dmitri.
Using Transactional Information to Predict Link Strength in Online Social Networks Indika Kahanda and Jennifer Neville Purdue University.
Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab Network Denoising in Social Media Huiji Gao, Xufei Wang, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu Data Mining and Machine Learning.
Data Analysis in YouTube. Introduction Social network + a video sharing media – Potential environment to propagate an influence. Friendship network and.
Web Science Course Lecture: Social Networks - * Dr. Stefan Siersdorfer 1 * Figures from Easley and Kleinberg 2010 (
Page 1 Ming Ji Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
To Blog or Not to Blog: Characterizing and Predicting Retention in Community Blogs Imrul Kayes 1, Xiang Zuo 1, Da Wang 2, Jacob Chakareski 3 1 University.
Predicting Positive and Negative Links in Online Social Networks
The Database and Info. Systems Lab. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign User Profiling in Ego-network: Co-profiling Attributes and Relationships.
Λ14 Διαδικτυακά Κοινωνικά Δίκτυα και Μέσα Networks and Surrounding Contexts Chapter 4, from D. Easley and J. Kleinberg book.
Today Ensemble Methods. Recap of the course. Classifier Fusion
Exploiting Context Analysis for Combining Multiple Entity Resolution Systems -Ramu Bandaru Zhaoqi Chen Dmitri V.kalashnikov Sharad Mehrotra.
Information Sharing in Social Media Xiao Wei in collaboration with Lada Adamic & NETSI Group School of information, University of Michigan MURI 07.
Graph-based Text Classification: Learn from Your Neighbors Ralitsa Angelova , Gerhard Weikum : Max Planck Institute for Informatics Stuhlsatzenhausweg.
Evaluating Risk Adjustment Models Andy Bindman MD Department of Medicine, Epidemiology and Biostatistics.
Link Prediction Topics in Data Mining Fall 2015 Bruno Ribeiro
Classification (slides adapted from Rob Schapire) Eran Segal Weizmann Institute.
Measuring Behavioral Trust in Social Networks
CS 590 Term Project Epidemic model on Facebook
By Lars Backstrom, Jon Kleinberg Presented by: Marina Simakov
Supervised Random Walks: Predicting and Recommending Links in Social Networks Lars Backstrom (Facebook) & Jure Leskovec (Stanford) Proc. of WSDM 2011 Present.
Online Social Networks and Media Absorbing random walks Label Propagation Opinion Formation.
Predicting Winning Price In Real Time Bidding With Censored Data Tejaswini Veena Sambamurthy Weicong Chen.
Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities Authors: Justin Cheng, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizily, Jure Leskovec Presented by: Ananya Subburathinam.
Social Networks Strong and Weak Ties
Exploiting Input Features for Controlling Tunable Approximate Programs Sherry Zhou Department of electronic engineering Tsinghua University.
Link Prediction Class Data Mining Technology for Business and Society
Three Facets of Online Political Networks: Communities, Antagonisms, and Controversial Issues presented by Mert Ozer.
Negative Link Prediction and Its Applications in Online Political Networks Mehmet Yigit Yildirim Mert Ozer Hasan Davulcu.
Learning Deep Generative Models by Ruslan Salakhutdinov
Effects of User Similarity in Social Media Ashton Anderson Jure Leskovec Daniel Huttenlocher Jon Kleinberg Stanford University Cornell University Avia.
Romantic Partnerships and the Dispersion of Social Ties: A Network Analysis of Relationship Status on Facebook By: Lars Backstrom - Facebook Inc, Jon Kleinberg.
Link Prediction Seminar Social Media Mining University UC3M
Predicting Positive and Negative Links in Online Social Networks
Edge Weight Prediction in Weighted Signed Networks
Networks with Signed Edges
Learning Emoji Embeddings Using Emoji Co-Occurrence Network Graph
The Structure of Information Networks
+ – If we look at any two people in the group in isolation,
Jinhong Jung, Woojung Jin, Lee Sael, U Kang, ICDM ‘16
Clustering Coefficients
Emotions in Social Networks: Distributions, Patterns, and Models
CS 594: Empirical Methods in HCC Social Network Analysis in HCI
Networks with Signed Edges
Practical Applications Using igraph in R Roger Stanton
Learning and Memorization
Presentation transcript:

Jure Leskovec (Stanford), Daniel Huttenlocher and Jon Kleinberg (Cornell)

 Rich social structure in online computing applications  Such structures are modeled by networks  Most social network analyses view links as positive  Friends  Fans  Followers  But generally links can convey either friendship or antagonism 2

 Our plan  Study social interactions on the Web that have positive and negative relationships  Questions  How do edge signs and network structure interact?  Approach  Edge sign prediction problem  Given a network and signs on all but one edge, predict the missing sign  Applications  Friend recommendation for social media  Easier to predict whether you know someone vs. to predict what you think of them ? – – – – – – –

 Each link A  B is explicitly tagged with a sign:  Epinions: Trust/Distrust  Does A trust B’s product reviews? (only positive links are visible)  Wikipedia: Support/Oppose  Does A support B to become Wikipedia administrator?  Slashdot: Friend/Foe  Does A like B’s comments?  Other examples:  World of Warcraft [Szell et al. 2010] – – – – – – – 4

 Edge signs can be predicted with ~90% accuracy using only the local network structure  No need for global trust-propagation mechanisms  Data oriented justification of classical theories from social psychology  Our models align with theories of Balance and Status  Near perfect generalization:  Same underlying mechanism of signed edge creation  Can train on “how people vote” and predict trust as well as the model trained on trust itself 5

Machine Learning formulation:  Predict sign of edge (u,v)  Class label:  +1: positive edge  -1: negative edge  Learning method:  Logistic regression  Evaluation:  Accuracy and ROC curves  Dataset:  Original: 80% +edges  Balanced: 50% +edges  Features for learning:  Next slide 6 u u v v + + ? – – – – – – –

For each edge (u,v) create features:  Triad counts (16):  Counts of signed triads edge u  v takes part in  Node degree (7 features):  Signed degree:  d + out (u), d - out (u), d + in (v), d - in (v)  Total degree:  d out (u), d in (v)  Embeddedness of edge (u,v) 7 u v

 Error rates:  Epinions: 6.5%  Slashdot: 6.6%  Wikipedia: 19%  Signs can be modeled from local network structure alone  Trust propagation model of [Guha et al. ‘04] has 14% error on Epinions  Triad features perform less well for less embedded edges  Wikipedia is harder to model:  Votes are publicly visible 8 Epin Slash Wiki

 Our goal is not just to predict signs but also to derive insights into usage of signed edges  Logistic regression learns a weight b i for each feature x i :  Connection to theories from social psychology:  Structural balance  Theory of status which both give predictions on the sign of the edge (u,v) based on the triad it is embedded into 9 uv +-

Consider edges as undirected  Start with intuition [Heider ’46]:  Friend of my friend is my friend  Enemy of enemy is my friend  Enemy of friend is my enemy  Look at connected triples of nodes that are consistent with this logic:

 Status theory [Davis-Leinhardt ‘68, Guha et al. ’04, Leskovec et al. ‘10]  Link u  v means: v has higher status than u  Link u  v means: v has lower status than u  Based on signs/directions of links from/to node x make a prediction  Status and balance can make different predictions: 11 + – uv x - - uv x + + Balance: + Status: – LogReg: – Balance: + Status: – LogReg: – Balance: + Status: – LogReg: – Balance: + Status: – LogReg: – uv x - + Balance: – Status: – LogReg: – Balance: – Status: – LogReg: –

 Both theories agree well with learned models  Further observations:  Backward-backward triads have smaller weights than forward and mixed direction triads  Balance is in better agreement with Epinions and Slashdot while Status is with Wikipedia  Balance consistently disagrees with “enemy of my enemy is my friend” 13 v v x x u u

 Balance based and learned coefficients: 14 Feature Balance theory EpinSlashdotWiki const Model if signs would be created purely based on Balance theory

 Status based and learned coefficients: 15 Feature Status theory EpinSlashdotWiki const u < x < v u > x > v u v u > x < v v v x x u u + + Triads where u > x > v Triads where u > x > v v v x x u u v v x x u u v v x x u u + + – – – – Model if signs would be created purely based on Status theory

 Deterministic models compare well to Learned models  Epinions and Slashdot:  More embedded edges are easier to predict  Wikipedia:  Status outperforms balance  Learned balance performs nearly as well as the full model 16 Epin Slash Wiki

 Do people use these very different linking systems by obeying the same principles?  How generalizable are the results across the datasets?  Train on row “dataset”, predict on “column”  Almost perfect generalization of the models even though networks come from very different applications 17

 Suppose we are only interested in predicting whether there is a trust edge or no edge  Does knowing negative edges help? ? – – – – – – – + + ? Vs. YES!

 Both theories make predictions about the global structure of the network  Structural balance – Factions  Put nodes into groups such that the number of in group “+” and between group “-” edges is maximized  Status theory – Global Status  Flip direction and sign of negative edges  Assign each node a unique status value so that most edges point from low to high

 Fraction of edges of the network that satisfy Balance and Status?  Observations:  No evidence for global balance beyond the random baselines  Real data is 80% consistent vs. 80% consistency under random baseline  Evidence for global status beyond the random baselines  Real data is 80% consistent, but 50% consistency under random baseline 20

 Signed networks provide insight into how social computing systems are used:  Status vs. Balance  Sign of relationship can be reliably predicted from the local network context  ~90% accuracy sign of the edge  More evidence that networks are globally organized based on status  People use signed edges consistently regardless of particular application  Near perfect generalization of models across datasets  Negative information helps in predicting positive edges 21

22Jure Leskovec

 Heuristic predictors for (u,v):  Balance: Chose sign that makes majority of the triads balanced  Status: Predict in based on status  (v)=d + in (u)+d - out (u)-d + out (v)-d - in (v)  Out-sign of v: majority sign  In-sign of u: majority sign  Observations:  Triadic models do better with increasing embeddedness 23