We study dynamics of opinion formation in a network of coupled agents. As the network evolves to a steady state, opinions of agents within the same community converge faster than those of other agents. This framework allows us to study how network topology and network flow, which mediates the transfer of opinions between agents, both affect the formation of communities. In traditional models of opinion dynamics, agents are coupled via conservative flows, which result in one-to-one opinion transfer. However, social interactions are often non-conservative, resulting in one-to-many transfer of opinions. We study opinion formation in networks using one-to-one and one-to-many interactions and show that they lead to different community structure within the same network.
Several researchers have explicitly studied how flows impact the measurement of network structure. Borgatti @cite_10 proposed that node's centrality reflects its participation in the flow taking place on the network, with different flows leading to different notions of centrality. However, he did not directly address the relationship between flows and network's community structure, though according to his arguments centrality is tied to group cohesiveness in networks @cite_20 . @cite_8 proposed an integrated representation of the structure and dynamics of a network by embedding dynamic flows into edge weights of the adjacency matrix. While their framework is general and flexible enough to model the flows studied in this paper, they did not use it to find and compare community structure identified by different flows. @cite_6 showed that introducing memory into a random walk in order to avoid nodes the walker has visited in the past, induces a different community structure on a network than an ordinary random walk. This paper builds on these works by demonstrating that details of the microscopic dynamics governing flows affect the composition of cohesive groups, or communities, discovered within real-world social networks.
@cite_10 @cite_6 @cite_20 @cite_8
2041757699 2124209874 2127405101 2127387319
A complex network can be modeled as a graph representing the ''who knows who'' relationship. In the context of graph theory for social networks, the notion of centrality is used to assess the relative importance of nodes in a given network topology. For example, in a network composed of large dense clusters connected through only a few links, the nodes involved in those links are particularly critical as far as the network survivability is concerned. This may also impact any application running on top of it. Such information can be exploited for various topological maintenance issues to prevent congestion and disruption. This can also be used offline to identify the most important actors in large social interaction graphs. Several forms of centrality have been proposed so far. Yet, they suffer from imperfections: initially designed for small social graphs, they are either of limited use (degree centrality), either incompatible in a distributed setting (e.g. random walk betweenness centrality). In this paper we introduce a novel form of centrality: the second order centrality which can be computed in a distributed manner. This provides locally each node with a value reflecting its relative criticity and relies on a random walk visiting the network in an unbiased fashion. To this end, each node records the time elapsed between visits of that random walk (called return time in the sequel) and computes the standard deviation (or second order moment) of such return times. The key point is that central nodes see regularly the random walk compared to other topology nodes. Both through theoretical analysis and simulation, we show that the standard deviation can be used to accurately identify critical nodes as well as to globally characterize graphs topology in a distributed way. We finally compare our proposal to well-known centralities to assess its competitivity. Many real-world networks are so large that we must simplify their structure before we can extract useful information about the systems they represent. As the tools for doing these simplifications proliferate within the network literature, researchers would benefit from some guidelines about which of the so-called community detection algorithms are most appropriate for the structures they are studying and the questions they are asking. Here we show that different methods highlight different aspects of a network's structure and that the the sort of information that we seek to extract about the system must guide us in our decision. For example, many community detection algorithms, including the popular modularity maximization approach, infer module assignments from an underlying model of the network formation process. However, we are not always as interested in how a system's network structure was formed, as we are in how a network's extant structure influences the system's behavior. To see how structure influences current behavior, we will recognize that links in a network induce movement across the network and result in system-wide interdependence. In doing so, we explicitly acknowledge that most networks carry flow. To highlight and simplify the network structure with respect to this flow, we use the map equation. We present an intuitive derivation of this flow-based and information-theoretic method and provide an interactive on-line application that anyone can use to explore the mechanics of the map equation. The differences between the map equation and the modularity maximization approach are not merely conceptual. Because the map equation attends to patterns of flow on the network and the modularity maximization approach does not, the two methods can yield dramatically different results for some network structures. To illustrate this and build our understanding of each method, we partition several sample networks. We also describe an algorithm and provide source code to efficiently decompose large weighted and directed networks based on the map equation. The concept of centrality is often invoked in social network analysis, and diverse indices have been proposed to measure it. This paper develops a unified framework for the measurement of centrality. All measures of centrality assess a node's involvement in the walk structure of a network. Measures vary along four key dimensions: type of nodal involvement assessed, type of walk considered, property of walk assessed, and choice of summary measure. If we cross-classify measures by type of nodal involvement (radial versus medial) and property of walk assessed (volume versus length), we obtain a four-fold polychotomization with one cell empty which mirrors Freeman's 1979 categorization. At a more substantive level, measures of centrality summarize a node's involvement in or contribution to the cohesiveness of the network. Radial measures in particular are reductions of pair-wise proximities cohesion to attributes of nodes or actors. The usefulness and interpretability of radial measures depend on the fit of the cohesion matrix to the one-dimensional model. In network terms, a network that is fit by a one-dimensional model has a core-periphery structure in which all nodes revolve more or less closely around a single core. This in turn implies that the network does not contain distinct cohesive subgroups. Thus, centrality is shown to be intimately connected with the cohesive subgroup structure of a network. Centrality measures, or at least popular interpretations of these measures, make implicit assumptions about the manner in which traffic flows through a network. For example, some measures count only geodesic paths, apparently assuming that whatever flows through the network only moves along the shortest possible paths. This paper lays out a typology of network flows based on two dimensions of variation, namely the kinds of trajectories that traffic may follow (geodesics, paths, trails, or walks) and the method of spread (broadcast, serial replication, or transfer). Measures of centrality are then matched to the kinds of flows that they are appropriate for. Simulations are used to examine the relationship between type of flow and the differential importance of nodes with respect to key measurements such as speed of reception of traffic and frequency of receiving traffic. It is shown that the off-the-shelf formulas for centrality measures are fully applicable only for the specific flow processes they are designed for, and that when they are applied to other flow processes they get the “wrong” answer. It is noted that the most commonly used centrality measures are not appropriate for most of the flows we are routinely interested in. A key claim made in this paper is that centrality measures can be regarded as generating expected values for certain kinds of node outcomes (such as speed and frequency of reception) given implicit models of how traffic flows, and that this provides a new and useful way of thinking about centrality. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.