Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Jürgens diata12-communities

1.352 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Presentation from the 2012 twitter workshop #diata12 at U of Düsseldorf, Germany

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung, Technologie

Jürgens diata12-communities

  1. 1. Identifying Communities onTwitter: Time, Topics & Clusters Pascal Jürgens (@pascal) Dept. of Communication, U of Mainz, Germany 1
  2. 2. OverviewOverviewRelevance / Why it’s interestingThe Basic Idea / Why it worksLimitations / When it worksAlgorithms / How it worksEvaluations / How to tell whether it works 2
  3. 3. What Science are we in,anyways?“The antireductionist catch-phrase, “the whole is more than thesum of its parts,” takes on increasing significance as newsciences such as chaos, systems biology, evolutionaryeconomics, and network theory move beyond reductionism toexplain how complex behavior can arise from large collectionsof simpler components.”Mitchell, 2009 — Complexity: A Guided Tour 3
  4. 4. What Science are we in,anyways? Interdisciplinary territory with distinct influences 20th century Sociology — small-scale social network analysis Econometrics — time-series analysis, predictions & forecasting Mass Communication — media effects Theoretical Physics — abstract, high-level descriptions of networks; large-scale network analysis (Why is this even here?) 4
  5. 5. What is Community Detection?“Communities are groups of vertices which probably share commonproperties and/or play similar roles within the graph.”Fortunato & Castellano 2009 — Community Structure in Graphs in theEncyclopedia of Complexity and Systems ScienceAn exploratory method for partitioning a network into smaller pieces.In many ways it is comparable to cluster analysis. 5
  6. 6. (Caveat Emptor) CD is a complex, fairly new set of statistical methods for exploratively building groups from data So why not use simpler, better-known methods such as clustering? By all means, use simple methods! (but they do something different) 6
  7. 7. Relevance Networks are a fundamental structure of the world There are global properties of networks (diameter &c.) There are properties of nodes (centrality &c.) However — Networks are almost never homogenous! There is a structure hidden within the whole 7
  8. 8. Group A Group BGroup C 8
  9. 9. Applications Identify separate groups within relevant population for further description Captures “public sphere” better than aggregates such as #hashtags (Users who share a #tag might have nothing in common) Investigate relationship of communities (mesoscopic graph) In general: more accurate, delivers more details 9
  10. 10. Terminology Graph: A network, consisting of nodes (or vertices) such as twitter users - with degree = number of connections links (or edges) such as relationships via @-messages with weight = intensity of links Partition: one way to split a network into a set of communities (k-) Clique: a set of k completely connected nodes 10
  11. 11. The Basic Idea Communities: Local structures within a network that differ in their structure from the surroundings A good starting point: communities are better connected among themselves than with other communities Opens up two obvious methods: Add links between close nodes until some condition is met Remove links between distant nodes until some condition is met 11
  12. 12. possible Partitions 12
  13. 13. The Edge BetweennessAlgorithm (Girvan / Newman) Edge betweenness: the number of shortest paths between any two nodes that go through one edge High EB: the link is very important to fast information flow Low EB: the link can easily be replaced by using another way The algorithm simply eliminates the links with the highest EB step by step An optimal cut can be selected from the sequence of partitions 13
  14. 14. small network example 14
  15. 15. small network example — edge betweenness cluster 15
  16. 16. Limitations — Technical The number of potential ways to divide a network grows super- exponentially with the number of nodes (!) Two critical performance parameters of algorithms: runtime (“Big- O”-notation) and memory Networks up to 100s of nodes and/or edges — usually OK Networks up to 10 000s of nodes and/or edges — buy a lot of memory (8GB upwards) and prepare to wait Bigger networks: Ask a computer scientist 16
  17. 17. Limitations — Methodological Quality of partitions — algorithms don’t guarantee best results Instability of partitions — algorithms can be non-deterministic and very sensitive to small changes Evaluation / Comparison of partitions is near-impossible Sometimes result is not one best but a whole set of partitions Nodes can only belong to one community (!) 17
  18. 18. large network example — edge betweenness cluster 18
  19. 19. Notable Algorithms The Edge Betweenness Algorithm (Girvan / Newman) Markov Cluster Algorithm (MCL, van Dongen, this one is in gephi) Clique Percolation (CPM, Palla et al.) Information theoretical Algorithm (Roswall & Bergstrom, does hierarchies and works with communities of very different sizes) 19
  20. 20. A Word about MCL Marked as experimental in gephi and hard to use (clustering panel needs to be open before loading dataset), but the only clustering algorithm available Based on probability of link use - simulates flow through the network Often sub-stellar results Connection probabilities seem an odd predictor for empirical connection habits DEMO 20
  21. 21. Clique Percolation One among several new algorithms that address shortcomings Intuitive mechanism Nodes can be in several communities! Works rather well for dense networks! 21
  22. 22. Clique Percolation Idea: Find k-cliques in the network Try to “move” the cliques until they reach a bottleneck that they can’t fit through All the nodes covered by this “trail” are assigned to a community Rather easy to implement in software (igraph) plus free implementation available (CFinder, cfinder.org) DEMO 22
  23. 23. Clique Percolation by Example 23
  24. 24. Evaluation Exploratory methods are notoriously difficult to assess (beyond rule-of-thumb judgements). Two ways allow rigorous examination: Comparison of two partitions Comparison of a partition agains a baseline model (zero model) Effectively unfeasible for non-mathematicians: Pick a good algorithm and treat results with care 24
  25. 25. What about user attributes? What happens when we use empirical attributes to group users? Example of the German General Election 2009: Measured party affiliation (wahlgetwitter hashtag +/- convention) Turns out, users don’t cluster by party affiliation But careful: this approach means measuring with two loose ends Clustering baseline needs to be really, really solid 25
  26. 26. Takeaway Community detection used to be hard but is pretty usable now Think about the design and scope of a collected network beforehand! (timeframe, directed, size/scope etc.) Watch the outliers (Justin Bieber will sink your analysis) Choose an algorithm that uses directed & weighted links, is understandable, robust and one that produces meaningful, simple results! 26
  27. 27. Thanks! 27
  28. 28. Literature Fortunato, Santo and Castellano, Claudio (2009): Community Structure in Graphs. In: Meyers, Robert A. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Springer. Lancichinetti, Andrea and Fortunato, Santo: Community detection algorithms: a comparative analysis. Phys. Review E. Mitchell, Melanie (2009): Complexity: A Guided Tour Palla, Gergely; Barabási, Albert-László and Vicsek, Tamás (): Quantifying social group evolution 28