1 / 28

Analysis of Fusing Online and Co-presence Social Networks

Juan (Susan) Pan , Daniel Boston, and Cristian Borcea Department of Computer Science New Jersey Institute of Technology. Analysis of Fusing Online and Co-presence Social Networks. Pervasive social applications. Location-aware social apps. Traditional social apps. Socially-aware a pps

jessie
Download Presentation

Analysis of Fusing Online and Co-presence Social Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Juan (Susan) Pan, Daniel Boston, and CristianBorcea Department of Computer Science New Jersey Institute of Technology Analysis of Fusing Online and Co-presence Social Networks

  2. Pervasivesocial applications • Location-aware social apps • Traditional social apps • Socially-aware apps • BUBBLE Rap • Use social knowledge to improve packet forwarding in delayed tolerant networks • Tribler • Use social knowledge to reduce peer-to-peer communication overhead

  3. Social information collection • Declared by users • Implicitly, through online social networks • Explicitly, through surveys • Extracted from user online interactions • Extracted from user mobility traces • Location traces • Co-presence traces (e.g., using Bluetooth)

  4. Social information representation • Multiple social graphs (e.g., Facebook and co-presence) • Vertices -> users • Edges -> social ties • Online social networks (OSN) provide relatively stable social graph • Many connections are weak • Example: actors have millions of “friends” • Not all social contacts use OSN apps • Co-presence social network (CSN) identifies social ties grounded on real-world interactions • Hard to differentiate social connections from passers-by

  5. Research questions • Do OSN and CSN just reinforce each other or capture different types of social ties? • Can a fused network take advantage of the strengths of both? • How can we quantify the benefits of this fusion? • Can we measure the contribution of each source network to the fused network?

  6. Outline • Motivation • Data collection • Social graph representation • Analysis of global network parameters • Analysis of local network parameters • Conclusions

  7. Study participants • One month of CSN data and Facebook data for the same set of 104 students • Volunteers • Received compensation • Belong to various departments at NJIT

  8. A B C Bluetooth based co-presence data INTERNET

  9. Co-presence statistics

  10. Facebook data • Subjects gave us permission to collect data • Friends, wall writings, comments, photo tags • Online interaction is wall writing, comment or photo tag • Count number of interactions between user pairs

  11. Outline • Motivation • Data collection • Social graph representation • Analysis of global network parameters • Analysis of local network parameters • Conclusions

  12. Weighted social graphs are more accurate • OSN:Weightonline= number of interactions • CSN:Weightco-presence = 0.5 хWeightduration+ 0.5 хWeightfrequency • How to make OSN and CSN weights comparable? • Need weight normalization • OSN: Weightonline[1,40] • CSN • Weightduration= (Duration/MAXduration)*40 [1,40] • Weightfrequency= (Frequency/MAXfrequency)*40 [1,40]

  13. CSN noise reduction • How to remove edgesdue to passers-by in CSN? • Very short and infrequent co-presence does not indicate the presence of a social tie • Find duration & frequency thresholds for adding a CSN edge • Increase thresholds until Edit distance between CSN and OSN stabilizes • Edit distance: number of edge additions/deletions to transform one graph into the other • Keep OSN unchanged because Facebook friendship confirmations validate social ties

  14. Threshold selection Total meeting duration threshold α= 160 minutes per month Total meeting frequency threshold β= 3 times per month

  15. Resulting social graphs Online Social Network Co-presence Social Network Fused Network (51 shared edges)

  16. Outline • Motivation • Data collection • Social graph representation • Analysis of global network parameters • Degree, connectivity, centrality, cohesiveness • Analysis of local network parameters • Conclusions

  17. Degreedistribution 3 nodes are social butterflies • OSN degree follows proximately power law distribution • CSN degree does not resemble as strong power-law distribution as OSN’s • Due to meeting with familiar strangers • Consequently, similar result observed for fused network • Most nodes have high degree in either CSN or OSN, but not both • 3 nodes have high degree in both CSN and OSN • Increased average degree means people meet different sets of contacts in the two source networks

  18. Connectivity CSN contributes 27% more edges than OSN • Compared to OSN, CSN has 55% more connected people • Almost all people connected in fused network • Average weighted shortest path reduced in fused network • Stronger social connectivity: reason to leverage it in social apps

  19. OSN CSN Betweenness centrality and cluster coefficient • CSN has much longer average shortest path than OSN • Hence, average betweenness is high • In fused network, average shortest path is low, but betweenness is highest • Social centrality is improved • Average edge weight shows that people interact more in real life than online • Highly socially active person online is not necessarily highly socially active in real life • Thus, smaller values in fused network • OSN has higher cohesiveness • People become friends when sharing common friends • OSN contributes more to fused

  20. Outline • Motivation • Data collection • Social graph representation • Analysis of global network parameters • Analysis of local network parameters • Node, edge, community • Conclusions

  21. Similarity of node degree and edge weight • Calculate Euclidean distance of the degree vector (104 nodes) and shared edge weight vector (51 edges) • Similarity is inverse of distance • CSN more similar to fused network

  22. Computation of community similarity • How to quantify community similarity across networks? • Few communities are the same • Better to quantify community overlapping • Compute k-clique overlapping clusters on the three networks separately • Use community overlapping matrix to compute distance between networks (inverse of similarity)

  23. Community similarity • Fused network has larger average size community than OSN and CSN (fused=6.1, CSN=4.9, OSN=5.2) • CSN is closer to the fused network for weaker communities (k=3,4) • OSN is closer to fused network for stronger communities(k=5) • OSN contributes stronger social communities than CSN

  24. Conclusions • CSN and OSN represent two different classes of social engagement • Applications may benefit from fused network that merges CSN and OSN • CSN increases the fused network connectivity and communication strength • OSN strengthens the community structure and lowers the average path length of fused network • Typical example is friend-of-friend apps

  25. Mobius project • Decentralized two-tier infrastructure for mobile social computing • P2P tier • Collects on-line social information • Manages social state • Runs user-deployed services to support mobile apps • Dynamically adapts to geo-social context • Energy-efficiency, scalability, reliability • Mobile tier • Runs mobile applications • Collects geo-social information from phones Application scenario: community multimedia sharing system

  26. Acknowledgment: NSF Grant CNS-0831753 http://www.cs.njit.edu/~borcea/mobius/ Thank you!

  27. Related work • Kostakos[2010] • The networks are very sparse • Co-presence social ties are based on only one meeting • Does not consider user interaction (edge weight) • There is no proper noise reduction • Eagle[2009], Cranshaw[2010] • Focused on using co-presence data to predict friendship • Mtibaa[2008] • Concluding that the two graphs are similar • Conference over a single day • These results cannot be broadened

  28. Power Law distribution • Node degrees in real-world large scale social networks often follow a power law distribution • few nodes with many degrees and many others with few degrees

More Related