Embed
Email

Acquisition of Social Network Structure

Document Sample
Acquisition of Social Network Structure
Shared by: pptfiles
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
3
posted:
10/22/2011
language:
English
pages:
90
Acquisition of Social Network

Structure

Jason J. Jones

Edge

Link

Connection









Graph Node

Network Vertex

?

Hassan Ghul

Al-Qaeda Courier

(Captured)

“part of this network of haters that we're dismantling ”









Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti

Bin Laden Courier

(Deceased)



Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq

(Deceased)



Osama Bin Laden

Al-Qaeda Founder

(Deceased)

• How do we learn the structure of graphs?



• How are graph structures represented in

the mind?

• Social networks  Graphs



• Graphs are Grammars are Markov Chains

Hypotheses

1. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it resembles a true

human social network rather than an arbitrary

network.

2. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it is framed as a social

network as opposed to the same network

framed in some other manner (e.g. a computer

or transport network.)

3. Some forms of representation of the network

will lead to faster acquisition than others.

Hypotheses

1. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it resembles a true

human social network rather than an arbitrary

network.

2. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it is framed as a social

network as opposed to the same network

framed in some other manner (e.g. a computer

or transport network.)

3. Some forms of representation of the network

will lead to faster acquisition than others.

Hypotheses

1. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it resembles a true

human social network rather than an arbitrary

network.

2. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it is framed as a social

network as opposed to the same network

framed in some other manner (e.g. a computer

or transport network.)

3. Some forms of representation of the network

will lead to faster acquisition than others.

Experiment 1

• 112 subjects



• 2 (Graph, within) x 2 (Training, between)



• 2AFC classification test trials



• Interleaved training and test trials

Manipulation: Graph Type

• Observable human social networks are

scale-free.

– Email Networks

• Ebel, H., Mielsch, L.I., Bornholdt, S. (2002)

– File-Sharing Networks

• Wang, F., Moreno, Y., & Sun, Y. (2006)

– Sex Networks

• Liljeros, F., Edling, C. R., Amaral, L. A. N., Stanley,

H. E., & Åberg, Y. (2001)

Manipulation: Graph Type

• Random Graph • Scale-Free Graph

– Erdős & Rényi (ER) – Barabási–Albert (BA)

Manipulation: Graph Type

For to all those who have, more will be

given, and they will have an abundance;

but from those who have nothing, even

what they have will be taken away.

Matthew 25:29

Manipulation Check

Manipulation: Training

• Edge Training • Network Walk

75

70

Accuracy





Random

65 Graph

60 Scale-Free

Graph

55

50

Edge Walk

Training

75

70

Accuracy





Random

65 Graph

60 Scale-Free

Graph

55

50

Edge Walk

Training

0.5





0.45

Error Rate









Edge

Walk

0.4

Power (Edge)

Power (Walk)

0.35 -0.061

y = 0.3888x

y = 0.4064x-0.0712

0.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial (bins of 8)

0.5





0.45

Error Rate









Random

Scale-Free

0.4

Power (Random)

Power (Scale-Free)

0.35 -0.0621

y = 0.4184x

-0.0708

y = 0.3769x

0.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial (bins of 8)

Conclusions

1. Subjects acquire

scale-free graph

structure more 75

quickly than random 70









Accuracy

Random

graph structure. 65 Graph

60 Scale-Free

Graph

55

2. The difference 50



between edge Edge Walk

Training

training and walk

training is small or

non-existent.

Hypotheses

1. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it resembles a true

human social network rather than an arbitrary

network.

2. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it is framed as a social

network as opposed to the same network

framed in some other manner (e.g. a computer

or transport network.)

3. Some forms of representation of the network

will lead to faster acquisition than others.

Experiment 2

• 102 subjects



• 2 (Graph, within) x 3 (Frame, between)



• Frame

– Social Network

– Transport Network

– Computer Network

Manipulation: Graph Type

• Random Graph • Scale-Free Graph

– Erdős & Rényi (ER) – Barabási–Albert (BA)

All Edges Training

Feedback at Test Trial

75



70

Accuracy





Random

65

Graph

60 Scale-Free

Graph

55



50

Social Transport Computer



Surface Description

75



70

Accuracy





Random

65

Graph

60 Scale-Free

Graph

55



50

Social Transport Computer



Surface Description

0.5

Random

0.45 Scale-Free

Power (Random)

Error Rate









Power (Scale-Free)

0.4

-0.0711

y = 0.4625x

0.35 -0.0933

y = 0.4247x



0.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial (bins of 8)

0.5

Social

Transport

0.45 Computer

Error Rate









Power (Social)

Power (Transport)

0.4

Power (Computer)

-0.129

y = 0.4404x

0.35

y = 0.4449x-0.1004

-0.0242

y = 0.4469x

0.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial (bins of 8)

Conclusions

1. Subjects acquire scale-free

graph structure more quickly

than random graph

structure. (Replicated) 75



70

2. Subjects were slower to









Accuracy

Random

65

acquire the structure of a Graph

Scale-Free

computer network than a 60

Graph

social or transport network. 55



50

Social Transport Computer

3. Performance for computer

Surface Description

networks was so poor, it

diminished the size of the

graph effect.

Experiment 2a

• The same list of names used for social,

transport and network frames.



• 177 subjects



• 2 (Graph, within) x 3 (Frame, between)



• Frame

– Social Network

– Transport Network

– Computer Network

Experiment 2a

Adrasmon Asahan Abiko Alchevsk

Buston Burmeso Bando Bibrka

Chkalovsk Cilacap Chiba Chasiv

Dushanbe Demak Daito Debaltseve

Farkhor Elelim Ena Enerhodar

Ghafurov Fef Fujiidera Fastiv

Hisor Gunung Gamagori Hadiach

Isfara Ilaga Habikino Ichnia

Jomi Jepara Ibaraki Kaharlyk

Khujand Keerom Joso Ladyzhyn

Mastchoh Lotu Kadoma Makiivka

Nurak Mappi Matsubara Nadvirna

Panjakent Nias Nagareyama Obukhiv

Qayroqqum Oksibil Obu Pavlohrad

Rumi Puncak Ryugasaki Radekhiv

Sharora Rantau Saijo Saky

Tursunzoda Sugapa Tahara Talne

Vose Tegal Urayasu Uhniv

Yovon Wonogir Wajima Valky

Zafarobod Yalimo Yachimata Yahotyn

75



70

Accuracy





Random

65

Graph

60 Scale-Free

Graph

55



50

Social Transport Computer



Surface Description

Conclusions

1. The poorer

performance and

interaction in the 75



Computer condition 70



was not replicated.







Accuracy

Random

65

Graph

60 Scale-Free

Graph

55

2. Those effects were 50

probably due to the Social Transport Computer



Surface Description

stimuli sets used in

the previous

experiment.

Hypotheses

1. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it resembles a true

human social network rather than an arbitrary

network.

2. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it is framed as a social

network as opposed to the same network

framed in some other manner (e.g. a computer

or transport network.)

3. Some forms of representation of the network

will lead to faster acquisition than others.

Training Style

Experiment 1 Experiment 2

(All Edges Train)





Edge Train Walk Train Social Transport Computer









Random Random

Graph Graph







Scale- Scale-

Free Free

Graph Graph

75



70

Accuracy





Random

65

Graph

60 Scale-Free

Graph

55



50

Edge Walk All Edges



Training

75



70

Accuracy





Random

65

Graph

60 Scale-Free

Graph

55



50

Edge Walk All Edges



Training

Conclusions

1. Variations in training

methods seem to

have little effect on 75





graph acquisition. 70









Accuracy

Random

65

Graph

60 Scale-Free

Graph

55



50

Edge Walk All Edges



Training

Stakes Experiment

• 135 subjects



• 3 (Graph, within) x 3 (Stakes, between)



• Stakes

– Class

– Class + You

– Survival + You

Dense

Random

Dense

Scale-Free

Caveman

Class

Class + You

Survival + You

75



70

Accuracy







65 Random

Caveman

60

Scale-Free

55



50

Class Class + Survival +

You You



Stakes

75



70

Accuracy







65 Random

Caveman

60

Scale-Free

55



50

Class Class + Survival +

You You



Stakes

Dense Dense

> Caveman >

Scale-Free p < .001 p = 0.13 Random









Class Survival

Class n.s. n.s.

+ You + You

Conclusions

1. Scale-free graphs

are consistently the

easiest to learn. 75



70









Accuracy

65 Random

Caveman

2. Acquisition does not 60

Scale-Free

55

seem to be 50



obviously affected Class Class +

You

Survival +

You





by framing. Stakes

Egocentric Bias

75



70

Accuracy







65 Not You

60 Is You

55



50

Class Class + Survival +

You You



Stakes

Conclusions

1. Subjects acquire

personally relevant

information more 75



70

readily.







Accuracy

65 Not You

60 Is You

55

2. Graph learning can 50



be directed so that it Class Class +

You

Survival +

You





is node-specific. Stakes

Network Centrality

Centrality

Popularity Position Effect – Scale Free



0.9

Accuracy



0.8



0.7



0.6



0.5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

0.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Degree of Test Nodes (Mean)

Popularity Position Effect – Scale Free



0.8

Accuracy





0.7



0.6



0.5

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4



Eigenvector Centrality of

Test Nodes (Mean)

Popularity Position Effect – Random



0.9

Accuracy



0.8



0.7



0.6



0.5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

0.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Degree of Test Nodes (Mean)

Popularity Position Effect – Random



0.8

Accuracy





0.7



0.6



0.5

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4



Eigenvector Centrality of

Test Nodes (Mean)

Conclusions

1. The connection

patterns of low-

centrality and high- 0.8









Accuracy

centrality nodes are 0.7



acquired more 0.6



readily nodes of 0.5

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

average centrality. Eigenvector Centrality of

Test Nodes (Mean)

What makes a graph easier to

learn?

What makes a graph easier to

learn?

What makes a graph easier to

learn?

Graph Entropy

• Consensus has not

yet formed regarding

how to quantify the

entropy or information

content of a graph.

Graph Entropy







• Network Entropy

Based on Topology

Configuration and Its

Computation to

Random Networks

B.H. Wang, W.X.

Wang and T. Zhou

Graph Entropy







• Information Theory of

Complex Networks:

On Evolution and

Architectural

Constraints

R.V. Sole and S.

Valverde (2004)

Graph Entropy

• Gini Coefficient



• 0 = Perfectly equal

division of edges



• 1 = Top 1 node has

all edges

Prediction

1. Graph structures in which all nodes

have equal degree should be especially

difficult to acquire.

Watts Small World Experiment

• 63 subjects



• 2 (Graph, within) x 2 (Training, within)



• Graph

– Ring Lattice

– Watts-Strogatz Small World

• Training

– Diagram

– Edges

Ring

Lattice

Watts-

Strogatz

Rewiring

Training









Diagram Edge

75

70 Ring Lattice

Accuracy







65

60 Watts-

Strogatz

55 Rewiring

50

Diagram Edge

Training

0.5

Ring

0.45

Watts

0.4 Power (Ring)

Error Rate









Power (Watts)

0.35

y = 0.4059x-0.0922

0.3

y = 0.4059x-0.149

0.25



0.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Trial (bins of 8)

0.5

Diagram

0.45

Edge

0.4 Power (Diagram)

Error Rate









Power (Edge)

0.35

y = 0.4361x-0.1167

0.3 y = 0.3752x-0.1226

0.25



0.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Trial (bins of 8)

Conclusions

1. The structure of a

regular ring lattice is

easier to acquire 75

than a rewired 70 Ring Lattice









Accuracy

small-world lattice. 65

60 Watts-

Strogatz

55 Rewiring

2. At least in this 50



instance, a diagram Diagram Edge

Training

promotes faster

acquisition.

Hypotheses

1. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it resembles a true

human social network rather than an arbitrary

network.

2. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it is framed as a social

network as opposed to the same network

framed in some other manner (e.g. a computer

or transport network.)

3. Some forms of representation of the network

will lead to faster acquisition than others.

Hypotheses

1. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it resembles a true

human social network rather than an arbitrary

network.

2. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it is framed as a social

network as opposed to the same network

framed in some other manner (e.g. a computer

or transport network.)

3. Some forms of representation of the network

will lead to faster acquisition than others.

Hypotheses

1. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it resembles a true

human social network rather than an arbitrary

network.

2. Human subjects will acquire a network’s

structure more quickly if it is framed as a social

network as opposed to the same network

framed in some other manner (e.g. a computer

or transport network.)

3. Some forms of representation of the network

will lead to faster acquisition than others.

New Experiments Running

1. Training out yes bias



2. Facebook predictors of learning rate



3. Simultaneous networks

70





65

Accuracy









V1 Female

60

V1 Male



55





50

V2 Female V2 Male

70





65

Yes Bias









V1 Female

60

V1 Male



55





50

V2 Female V2 Male


Shared by: pptfiles
Other docs by pptfiles
FRONT OFFICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT_1_
Views: 21  |  Downloads: 0
Fracture Management
Views: 8  |  Downloads: 0
Forest Management
Views: 11  |  Downloads: 0
Forest Biosecurity and Risk Management
Views: 8  |  Downloads: 0
Related docs
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!