Transcript Networked Nature of Society

News and Notes: Feb 9
• Watts talk reminder:
– tomorrow at noon, Annenberg School (3620 Walnut),
Room 110
– extra credit reports
• Turn in revisions of NW Construction Project, Task 1
– MK will review quickly
– deadline for Task 2 set shortly; start working!
• Description of Tuesday class experiments
• Social Network Theory, continued
Collective Human Computation in
Networks: Beyond Shortest Paths
•
Travers and Milgram, Dodds et al., Kleinberg,…:
•
What about other computations?
•
•
•
Participation on Tuesday is for course credit
Start at 12:05 sharp
You will be given a score for each experiment
•
•
$50 cash prize will be split between those with the highest total score
An experimental investigation of the Price of Anarchy:
– human networks can efficiently route messages
– using only local topology and info on target
– minimum coloring
– maximum matching
– maximum independent set
– but as long as you participate, you will receive full credit
– comparison of centralized “social optimum” and decentralized “greedy” solutions
Graph Colorings
• A coloring of an undirected graph is:
– an assignment of a color (label) to each vertex
– such that no pair connected by an edge have the same color
– chromatic number of graph G: fewest colors needed
• Example application:
– classes and exam slots
– chromatic number determines length of exam period
• Here’s a coloring demo
• Computation of chromatic numbers is hard
– (poor) approximations are possible
• Interesting fact: the four-color theorem for planar graphs
• Here is a description of our Lifester Coloring Experiment
Matchings in Graphs
• A matching of an undirected graph is:
–
–
–
–
–
a subset of the edges
such that no vertex is “touched” more than once
perfect matching: every vertex touched exactly once
perfect matchings may not always exist (e.g. N odd)
maximum matching: largest number of edges
• Can be found efficiently; here is a perfect matching demo
• Example applications:
– pairing of compatible partners
• perfect matching: nobody “left out”
– jobs and qualified workers
• perfect matching: full employment, and all jobs filled
– clients and servers
• perfect matching: all clients served, and no server idle
• Here is a description of our Lifester Matching Experiment
Cliques and Independent Sets
•
A clique in a graph G is a set of vertices:
•
Independent set:
•
•
•
Maximum clique or independent set: largest in the graph
Maximal clique or independent set: can’t grow any larger
Here is a description of our Lifester Independent Set Experiment
–
–
–
–
–
–
informal: that are all directly connected to each other
formal: whose induced subgraph is complete
all vertices in direct communication, exchange, competition, etc.
the tightest possible “social structure”
an edge is a clique of just 2 vertices
generally interested in large cliques
– set of vertices whose induced subgraph is empty (no edges)
– vertices entirely isolated from each other without help of others
The Results
The chromatic number of the Lifester network is 4...
…and the 43 class members present computed a legal 5-coloring.
The Lifester network has a maximum independent set of size 16...
… and the class computed a maximal independent set of size 13.
(mean degree of winners: 4 mean degree of losers: 5.3)
The Lifester network has a maximum matching of size 21… and the class found one.
(mean degree of score 2: 5 mean degree of others: 3.8)
Just 40 More Times and You
Can Buy a Share of Google
CHEN,CHARLENE
CHENG,ZAISHAO
FAULKNER,ELIZABETH
FRANK,WILLIAM
GROFF,MAX
JOHNNIDIS,CHRISTOPHER
LAWEE,AARON
LEIKER,MATTHEW
MUTREJA,MOHIT
RYTERBAND,JASON
SILENGO,MICHAEL
SWANSON,EDWARD
Post-experiment analysis assignment due in class Tuesday!
Social Network Theory
Networked Life
CSE 112
Spring 2005
Prof. Michael Kearns
“Natural” Networks and Universality
• Consider the many kinds of networks we have examined:
– social, technological, business, economic, content,…
• These networks tend to share certain informal properties:
•
•
•
•
•
•
–
–
–
–
–
large scale; continual growth
distributed, organic growth: vertices “decide” who to link to
interaction restricted to links
mixture of local and long-distance connections
abstract notions of distance: geographical, content, social,…
Do natural networks share more quantitative universals?
What would these “universals” be?
How can we make them precise and measure them?
How can we explain their universality?
This is the domain of social network theory
Sometimes also referred to as link analysis
Some Interesting Quantities
• Connected components:
– how many, and how large?
• Network diameter:
– maximum (worst-case) or average?
– exclude infinite distances? (disconnected components)
– the small-world phenomenon
• Clustering:
– to what extent to links tend to cluster “locally”?
– what is the balance between local and long-distance connections?
– what roles do the two types of links play?
• Degree distribution:
– what is the typical degree in the network?
– what is the overall distribution?
A “Canonical” Natural Network has…
• Few connected components:
– often only 1 or a small number independent of network size
• Small diameter:
– often a constant independent of network size (like 6)
– or perhaps growing only logarithmically with network size
– typically exclude infinite distances
• A high degree of clustering:
– considerably more so than for a random network
– in tension with small diameter
• A heavy-tailed degree distribution:
– a small but reliable number of high-degree vertices
– quantifies Gladwell’s connectors
– often of power law form
Some Models of Network Generation
• Random graphs (Erdos-Renyi models):
– gives few components and small diameter
– does not give high clustering and heavy-tailed degree distributions
– is the mathematically most well-studied and understood model
• Watts-Strogatz and related models:
– give few components, small diameter and high clustering
– does not give heavy-tailed degree distributions
• Preferential attachment:
– gives few components, small diameter and heavy-tailed distribution
– does not give high clustering
• Hierarchical networks:
– few components, small diameter, high clustering, heavy-tailed
• Affiliation networks:
– models group-actor formation
• Nothing “magic” about any of the measures or models
Approximate Roadmap
• Examine a series of models of network generation
– macroscopic properties they do and do not entail
– pros and cons of each model
• Examine some “real life” case studies
• Study some dynamics issues (e.g. navigation)
• Move into in-depth study of the web as network
Probabilistic Models of Networks
• All of the network generation models we will study are
probabilistic or statistical in nature
• They can generate networks of any size
• They often have various parameters that can be set:
– size of network generated
– average degree of a vertex
– fraction of long-distance connections
• The models generate a distribution over networks
• Statements are always statistical in nature:
– with high probability, diameter is small
– on average, degree distribution has heavy tail
• Thus, we’re going to need some basic statistics and
probability theory
Statistics and Probability Theory:
The Absolute, Bare Minimum
Essentials
Probability and Random Variables
• A random variable X is simply a variable that
probabilistically assumes values in some set
– set of possible values sometimes called the sample space S of X
– sample space may be small and simple or large and complex
• S = {Heads, Tails}, X is outcome of a coin flip
• S = {0,1,…,U.S. population size}, X is number voting democratic
• S = all networks of size N, X is generated by preferential attachment
• Behavior of X determined by its distribution (or density)
– for each value x in S, specify Pr[X = x]
– these probabilities sum to exactly 1 (mutually exclusive outcomes)
– complex sample spaces (such as large networks):
•
•
•
•
distribution often defined implicitly by simpler components
might specify the probability that each edge appears independently
this induces a probability distribution over networks
may be difficult to compute induced distribution
Some Basic Notions and Laws
• Independence:
–
–
–
–
let X and Y be random variables
independence: for any x and y, Pr[X = x & Y = y] = Pr[X=x]Pr[Y=y]
intuition: value of X does not influence value of Y, vice-versa
dependence:
• e.g. X, Y coin flips, but Y is always opposite of X
• Expected (mean) value of X:
– only makes sense for numeric random variables
– “average” value of X according to its distribution
–
–
–
–
formally, E[X] = S (Pr[X = x] X), sum is over all x in S
often denoted by m
always true: E[X + Y] = E[X] + E[Y]
true only for independent random variables: E[XY] = E[X]E[Y]
• Variance of X:
– Var(X) = E[(X – m)^2]; often denoted by s^2
– standard deviation is sqrt(Var(X)) = s
• Union bound:
– for any X, Y, Pr[X=x or Y=y] <= Pr[X=x] + Pr[Y=y]
Convergence to Expectations
• Let X1, X2,…, Xn be:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
independent random variables
with the same distribution Pr[X=x]
expectation m = E[X] and variance s^2
independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.)
essentially n repeated “trials” of the same experiment
natural to examine r.v. Z = (1/n) S Xi, where sum is over i=1,…,n
example: number of heads in a sequence of coin flips
example: degree of a vertex in the random graph model
E[Z] = E[X]; what can we say about the distribution of Z?
• Central Limit Theorem:
– as n becomes large, Z becomes normally distributed
• with expectation m and variance s^2/n
– here’s a demo
The Normal Distribution
• The normal or Gaussian density:
– applies to continuous, real-valued random variables
– characterized by mean (average) m and standard deviation s
– density at x is defined as
• (1/(s sqrt(2p))) exp(-(x-m)^2/2s^2)
• special case m = 0, s = 1: a exp(-x^2/b) for some constants a,b > 0
– peaks at x = m, then dies off exponentially rapidly
– the classic “bell-shaped curve”
• exam scores, human body temperature,
– here are some examples
– remarks:
• can control mean and standard deviation independently
• can make as “broad” as we like, but always have finite variance
The Binomial Distribution
• The binomial distribution:
– coin with Pr[heads] = p, flip n times
– probability of getting exactly k heads:
• choose(n,k) p^k (1-p)^(n-k)
– for large n and p fixed:
• approximated well by a normal with m = pn, s = sqrt(np(1-p))
• s/m  0 as n grows
• leads to strong large deviation bounds
The Poisson Distribution
• The Poisson distribution:
– like binomial, applies to variables taken on integer values > 0
– often used to model counts of events
• number of phone calls placed in a given time period
• number of times a neuron fires in a given time period
– single free parameter l
– probability of exactly x events:
• exp(-l) l^x/x!
• mean and variance are both l
• here are some examples
– binomial distribution with n large, p = l/n (l fixed)
• converges to Poisson with mean l
Heavy-tailed Distributions
• Pareto or power law distributions:
–
–
–
–
–
for variables assuming integer values > 0
probability of value x ~ 1/x^a
typically 0 < a < 2; smaller a gives heavier tail
here are some examples
sometimes also referred to as being scale-free
• For binomial, normal, and Poisson distributions the tail
probabilities approach 0 exponentially fast
• Inverse polynomial decay vs. inverse exponential decay
• What kind of phenomena does this distribution model?
• What kind of process would generate it?
Distributions vs. Data
•
•
•
•
•
•
All these distributions are idealized models
In practice, we do not see distributions, but data
Thus, there will be some largest value we observe
Also, can be difficult to “eyeball” data and choose model
So how do we distinguish between Poisson, power law, etc?
Typical procedure:
–
–
–
–
might restrict our attention to a range of values of interest
accumulate counts of observed data into equal-sized bins
look at counts on a log-log plot
note that
• power law:
– log(Pr[X = x]) = log(1/x^a) = -a log(x)
– linear, slope –a
• Normal:
– log(Pr[X = x]) = log(a exp(-x^2/b)) = log(a) – x^2/b
– non-linear, concave near mean
• Poisson:
– log(Pr[X = x]) = log(exp(-l) l^x/x!)
– also non-linear
Zipf’s Law
• Look at the frequency of English words:
– “the” is the most common, followed by “of”, “to”, etc.
– claim: frequency of the n-th most common ~ 1/n (power law, a = 1)
• General theme:
– rank events by their frequency of occurrence
– resulting distribution often is a power law!
• Other examples:
–
–
–
–
–
North America city sizes
personal income
file sizes
genus sizes (number of species)
let’s look at log-log plots of these
• People seem to dither over exact form of these
distributions (e.g. value of a), but not heavy tails
Models of Network Generation
and Their Properties
The Erdos-Renyi (ER) Model
(Random Graphs)
• A model in which all edges
– are equally probable
– appear independently
• NW size N > 1 and probability p: distribution G(N,p)
– each edge (u,v) chosen to appear with probability p
– N(N-1)/2 trials of a biased coin flip
• The usual regime of interest is when p ~ 1/N, N is large
–
–
–
–
e.g. p = 1/2N, p = 1/N, p = 2/N, p=10/N, p = log(N)/N, etc.
in expectation, each vertex will have a “small” number of neighbors
will then examine what happens when N  infinity
can thus study properties of large networks with bounded degree
–
–
–
–
draw G according to G(N,p); look at a random vertex u in G
what is Pr[deg(u) = k] for any fixed k?
Poisson distribution with mean l = p(N-1) ~ pN
Sharply concentrated; not heavy-tailed
• Degree distribution of a typical G drawn from G(N,p):
• Especially easy to generate NWs from G(N,p)
A Closely Related Model
• For any fixed m <= N(N-1)/2, define distribution G(N,m):
–
–
–
–
–
choose uniformly at random from all graphs with exactly m edges
G(N,m) is “like” G(N,p) with p = m/(N(N-1)/2) ~ 2m/N^2
this intuition can be made precise, and is correct
if m = cN then p = 2c/(N-1) ~ 2c/N
mathematically trickier than G(N,p)
Another Closely Related Model
• Graph process model:
– start with N vertices and no edges
– at each time step, add a new edge
– choose new edge randomly from among all missing edges
• Allows study of the evolution or emergence of properties:
– as the number of edges m grows in relation to N
– equivalently, as p is increased
• For all of these models:
– high probability  “almost all” large graphs of a given density
The Evolution of a Random Network
• We have a large number n of vertices
• We start randomly adding edges one at a time
• At what time t will the network:
–
–
–
–
–
have
have
have
have
have
at least one “large” connected component?
a single connected component?
“small” diameter?
a “large” clique?
a “large” chromatic number?
• How gradually or suddenly do these properties appear?
Recap
• Model G(N,p):
–
–
–
–
select each of the possible edges independently with prob. p
expected total number of edges is pN(N-1)/2
expected degree of a vertex is p(N-1)
degree will obey a Poisson distribution (not heavy-tailed)
• Model G(N,m):
– select exactly m of the N(N-1)/2 edges to appear
– all sets of m edges equally likely
• Graph process model:
– starting with no edges, just keep adding one edge at a time
– always choose next edge randomly from among all missing edges
• Threshold or tipping for (say) connectivity:
– fewer than m = m(N) edges  graph almost certainly not connected
– more than m = m(N) edges  graph almost certainly is connected
– made formal by examining limit as N  infinity
Combining and Formalizing Familiar Ideas
• Explaining universal behavior through statistical models
– our models will always generate many networks
– almost all of them will share certain properties (universals)
• Explaining tipping through incremental growth
crime rate
prob. NW connected
– we gradually add edges, or gradually increase edge probability p
– many properties will emerge very suddenly during this process
size of police force
number of edges
Monotone Network Properties
• Often interested in monotone graph properties:
– let G have the property
– add edges to G to obtain G’
– then G’ must have the property also
• Examples:
–
–
–
–
–
–
G is connected
G has diameter <= d (not exactly d)
G has a clique of size >= k (not exactly k)
G has chromatic number >= c (not exactly c)
G has a matching of size >= m
d, k, c, m may depend on NW size N (How?)
• Difficult to study emergence of non-monotone
properties as the number of edges is increased
– what would it mean?
Formalizing Tipping:
Thresholds for Monotone Properties
• Consider Erdos-Renyi G(N,m) model
– select m edges at random to include in G
• Let P be some monotone property of graphs
– P(G) = 1  G has the property
– P(G) = 0  G does not have the property
• Let m(N) be some function of NW size N
– formalize idea that property P appears “suddenly” at m(N) edges
• Say that m(N) is a threshold function for P if:
–
–
–
–
let m’(N) be any function of N
look at ratio r(N) = m’(N)/m(N) as N  infinity
if r(N)  0: probability that P(G) = 1 in G(N,m’(N)):  0
if r(N)  infinity: probability that P(G) = 1 in G(N,m’(N)):  1
• A purely structural definition of tipping
– tipping results from incremental increase in connectivity
So Which Properties Tip?
• Just about all of them!
• The following properties all have threshold functions:
–
–
–
–
having a “giant component”
being connected
having a perfect matching (N even)
having “small” diameter
• Demo: look at the following progression
– giant component  connectivity  small diameter
– in graph process model (add one new edge at a time)
– [example 1] [example 2] [example 3] [example 4] [example 5]
• With remarkable consistency (N = 50):
– giant component ~ 40 edges, connected ~ 100, small diameter ~ 180
Ever More Precise…
• Connected component of size > N/2:
– threshold function is m(N) = N/2 (or p ~ 1/N)
– note: full connectivity impossible
• Fully connected:
– threshold function is m(N) = (N/2)log(N) (or p ~ log(N)/N)
– NW remains extremely sparse: only ~ log(N) edges per vertex
• Small diameter:
– threshold is m(N) ~ N^(3/2) for diameter 2 (or p ~ 2/sqrt(N))
– fraction of possible edges still ~ 2/sqrt(N)  0
– generate very small worlds
Other Tipping Points?
• Perfect matchings
– consider only even N
– threshold function is m(N) = (N/2)log(N) (or p ~ log(N)/N)
– same as for connectivity!
• Cliques
– k-clique threshold is m(N) = (1/2)N^(2 – 2/(k-1)) (p ~ 1/N^(2/k-1))
– edges appear immediately; triangles at N/2; etc.
• Coloring
– k colors required just as k-cliques appear
Erdos-Renyi Summary
• A model in which all connections are equally likely
– each of the N(N-1)/2 edges chosen randomly & independently
• As we add edges, a precise sequence of events unfolds:
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
graph acquires a giant component
graph becomes connected
graph acquires small diameter
etc.
Many properties appear very suddenly (tipping, thresholds)
All statements are mathematically precise
But is this how natural networks form?
If not, which aspects are unrealistic?
– maybe all edges are not equally likely!
The Clustering Coefficient of a Network
• Let nbr(u) denote the set of neighbors of u in a graph
– all vertices v such that the edge (u,v) is in the graph
• The clustering coefficient of u:
–
–
–
–
let k = |nbr(u)| (i.e., number of neighbors of u)
choose(k,2): max possible # of edges between vertices in nbr(u)
c(u) = (actual # of edges between vertices in nbr(u))/choose(k,2)
0 <= c(u) <= 1; measure of cliquishness of u’s neighborhood
• Clustering coefficient of a graph:
– average of c(u) over all vertices u
k=4
choose(k,2) = 6
c(u) = 4/6 = 0.666…
Erdos-Renyi: Clustering Coefficient
• Generate a network G according to G(N,p)
• Examine a “typical” vertex u in G
– choose u at random among all vertices in G
– what do we expect c(u) to be?
•
•
•
•
Answer: exactly p!
In G(N,m), expect c(u) to be 2m/N(N-1)
Both cases: c(u) entirely determined by overall density
Baseline for comparison with “more clustered” models
– Erdos-Renyi has no bias towards clustered or local edges
Caveman and Solaria
• Erdos-Renyi:
– sharing a common neighbor makes two vertices no more likely to be
directly connected than two very “distant” vertices
– every edge appears entirely independently of existing structure
• But in many settings, the opposite is true:
– you tend to meet new friends through your old friends
– two web pages pointing to a third might share a topic
– two companies selling goods to a third are in related industries
• Watts’ Caveman world:
– overall density of edges is low
– but two vertices with a common neighbor are likely connected
• Watts’ Solaria world
– overall density of edges low; no special bias towards local edges
– “like” Erdos-Renyi
Making it (Somewhat) Precise: the a-model
• The a-model has the following parameters or “knobs”:
– N: size of the network to be generated
–
–
–
k: the average degree of a vertex in the network to be generated
p: the default probability two vertices are connected
a: adjustable parameter dictating bias towards local connections
• For any vertices u and v:
– define m(u,v) to be the number of common neighbors (so far)
• Key quantity: the propensity R(u,v) of u to connect to v
–
–
–
–
if m(u,v) >= k, R(u,v) = 1 (share too many friends not to connect)
if m(u,v) = 0, R(u,v) = p (no mutual friends  no bias to connect)
else, R(u,v) = p + (m(u,v)/k)^a (1-p)
here are some plots for different a (see Watts page 77)
• Generate NW incrementally
– using R(u,v) as the edge probability; details omitted
• Note: a = infinity is “like” Erdos-Renyi (but not exactly)
Small Worlds and Occam’s Razor
• For small a, should generate large clustering coefficients
– we “programmed” the model to do so
– Watts claims that proving precise statements is hard…
• But we do not want a new model for every little property
– Erdos-Renyi  small diameter
– a-model  high clustering coefficient
– etc.
• In the interests of Occam’s Razor, we would like to find
– a single, simple model of network generation…
– … that simultaneously captures many properties
• Watt’s small world: small diameter and high clustering
– here is a figure showing that this can be captured in the a-model
Meanwhile, Back in the Real World…
• Watts examines three real networks as case studies:
– the Kevin Bacon graph
– the Western states power grid
– the C. elegans nervous system
• For each of these networks, he:
–
–
–
–
computes its size, diameter, and clustering coefficient
compares diameter and clustering to best Erdos-Renyi approx.
shows that the best a-model approximation is better
important to be “fair” to each model by finding best fit
• Overall moral:
– if we care only about diameter and clustering, a is better than p
Case 1: Kevin Bacon Graph
• Vertices: actors and actresses
• Edge between u and v if they appeared in a film together
• Here is the data
Case 2: Western States Power Grid
• Vertices: power stations in Western U.S.
• Edges: high-voltage power transmission lines
• Here is the network and data
Case 3: C. Elegans Nervous System
• Vertices: neurons in the C. elegans worm
• Edges: axons/synapses between neurons
• Here is the network and data
Two More Examples
• M. Newman on scientific collaboration networks
– coauthorship networks in several distinct communities
– differences in degrees (papers per author)
– empirical verification of
• giant components
• small diameter (mean distance)
• high clustering coefficient
• Alberich et al. on the Marvel Universe
– purely fictional social network
– two characters linked if they appeared together in an issue
– “empirical” verification of
• heavy-tailed distribution of degrees (issues and characters)
• giant component
• rather small clustering coefficient
One More (Structural) Property…
• A properly tuned a-model can simultaneously explain
– small diameter
– high clustering coefficient
• But what about heavy-tailed degree distributions?
– a-model and simple variants will not explain this
– intuitively, no “bias” towards large degree evolves
– all vertices are created equal
• Can concoct many bad generative models to explain
– generate NW according to Erdos-Renyi, reject if tails not heavy
– describe fixed NWs with heavy tails
• all connected to v1; N/2 connected to v2; etc.
• not clear we can get a precise power law
• not modeling variation
– why would the world evolve this way?
• As always, we want a “natural” model
Preferential Attachment
• Start with (say) two vertices connected by an edge
• For i = 3 to N:
– for each 1 <= j < i, let d(j) be degree of vertex j (so far)
– let Z = S d(j) (sum of all degrees so far)
– add new vertex i with k edges back to {1,…,i-1}:
• i is connected back to j with probability d(j)/Z
• Vertices j with high degree are likely to get more links!
• “Rich get richer”
• Natural model for many processes:
– hyperlinks on the web
– new business and social contacts
– transportation networks
• Generates a power law distribution of degrees
– exponent depends on value of k
Two Out of Three Isn’t Bad…
• Preferential attachment explains
– heavy-tailed degree distributions
– small diameter (~log(N), via “hubs”)
• Will not generate high clustering coefficient
– no bias towards local connectivity, but towards hubs
• Can we simultaneously capture all three properties?
– probably, but we’ll stop here
– soon there will be a fourth property anyway…
Two Out of Three Isn’t Bad…
• Preferential attachment explains
– heavy-tailed degree distributions
– small diameter (~log(N), via “hubs”)
• Will not generate high clustering coefficient
– no bias towards local connectivity, but towards hubs
• Can we simultaneously capture all three properties?
– probably, but we’ll stop here
– soon there will be a fourth property anyway…
The Midterm
•
•
•
•
Midterm date: this Thursday, March 3
Exam handed out beginning at 12 sharp
Pencils down at 1:20 sharp
Closed-book exam: only exams and pencils
– no books, papers, notes, devices, etc.
• Exam covers everything to date:
– all assigned readings in books and papers
– all lectures, including today’s
– all assignments and experiments
• Today’s agenda:
– short lecture on search and navigation
– quick midterm review
– NW Construction Project Task 2 due at midnight
Search and Navigation
Finding Short Paths
• Milgram’s experiment, Columbia Small Worlds, a-model…
– all emphasize existence of short paths between pairs
• How do individuals find short paths
– in an incremental, next-step fashion
– using purely local information about the NW and location of target
• This is not a structural question, but an algorithmic one
– statics vs. dynamics
• Navigability may impose additional restrictions on model!
• Briefly investigate two alternatives:
– variation on the a-model
– a “social identity” model
Kleinberg’s Model
• Similar in spirit to the a-model
• Start with an n by n grid of vertices (so N = n^2)
– add local connections: all vertices within grid distance p (e.g. 2)
– add distant connections:
• q additional connections
• probability of connection at distance d: ~ 1/d^r
– so full model given by choice of p, q and r
– small r: heavy bias towards “more local” long-distance connections
– large r: approach uniformly random
• Kleinberg’s question:
– what value of r permits effective search?
• Assume parties know only:
– grid address of target
– addresses of their own direct links
• Algorithm: pass message to neighbor closest to target
Kleinberg’s Result
• Intuition:
– if r is too small (strong local bias), then “long-distance” connections
never help much; short paths may not even exist
– if r is too large (no local bias), we may quickly get close to the
target; but then we’ll have to use local links to finish
• think of a transport system with only long-haul jets or donkey carts
– effective search requires a delicate mixture of link distances
• The result (informally):
– r = 2 is the only value that permits rapid navigation (~log(N) steps)
– any other value of r will result in time ~ N^c for 0 < c <= 1
– a critical value phenomenon
• Note: locality of information crucial to this argument
– centralized algorithm may compute short paths at large r
– can recognize when “backwards” steps are beneficial
Navigation via Identity
• Watts et al.:
– we don’t navigate social networks by purely “geographic” information
– we don’t use any single criterion; recall Dodds et al. on Columbia SW
– different criteria used a different points in the chain
• Represent individuals by a vector of attributes
–
–
–
–
profession, religion, hobbies, education, background, etc…
attribute values have distances between them (tree-structured)
distance between individuals: minimum distance in any attribute
all jobs
only need one thing in common to be close!
• Algorithm:
– given attribute vector of target
CS
– forward message to neighbor closest to target
scientists
chemistry
• Permits fast navigation under broad conditions
– not as sensitive as Kleinberg’s model
athletes
tennis
baseball
Next Up: The Web as Network