Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.
-
Upload
vincent-traag -
Category
Science
-
view
85 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.
![Page 1: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Exponential Ranking: Taking into
account negative links.
V.A. Traag1, Y.E. Nesterov2, P. Van Dooren1
1Department of Applied MathematicsUniversite Catholique de Louvain
2COREUniversite Catholique de Louvain
27 October 2010
![Page 2: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Negative links?
Negative links underrated
• Negative links (negative weight) often disregarded
• Hostility instead of friendliness
• Vote against, instead of vote in favor
• Distrust instead of trust
• Important for understanding networks
Empirical networks
• International Relations (Conflict vs. Alliances)
• Citation Networks (Disapproving vs. Approving)
• Social networks (Dislike vs. Like)
• Trust networks (Distrust vs. Trust)
![Page 3: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Ranking with negative links
Analysis of empirical networks
• Centrality (popularity) of nodes
• Study roles of nodes
• Aids analysis of negative links
Trust
• Which node is trustworthy?
• Including distrust could improve trust mechanisms
• How to deal with cyclic distrust?
• What is the enemy of my enemy?
![Page 4: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Iterative formulation
Iterative steps
1 Assign each node a reputation ki
2 Let nodes vote for reputation of others
3 Assign new reputation based on weighted votes
4 Repeat (1)-(3) until reputations converge
![Page 5: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Iterative formulation
Iterative steps
1 Assign each node a reputation ki
2 Let nodes vote for reputation of others
3 Assign new reputation based on weighted votes
4 Repeat (1)-(3) until reputations converge
Starting reputation
• Start with some reputation for each node (say ki = 1)
• Unique fixed point, so starting reputation has no effect
![Page 6: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Iterative formulation
Iterative steps
1 Assign each node a reputation ki
2 Let nodes vote for reputation of others
3 Assign new reputation based on weighted votes
4 Repeat (1)-(3) until reputations converge
New reputation
• Select node with highest ‘real’ reputation as judge
• ‘Real’ reputation = observed reputation + random error
• Standard deviation of random error proportional to µ
![Page 7: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Iterative formulation
Iterative steps
1 Assign each node a reputation ki
2 Let nodes vote for reputation of others
3 Assign new reputation based on weighted votes
4 Repeat (1)-(3) until reputations converge
Trust probability
• The probability to be chosen as judge is pi = exp ki/µP
j exp kj/µ
• Votes of judge i are Aij
• Expected new reputation is ki =∑
j pjAji
![Page 8: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Iterative formulation
Iterative steps
1 Assign each node a reputation ki
2 Let nodes vote for reputation of others
3 Assign new reputation based on weighted votes
4 Repeat (1)-(3) until reputations converge
Dual iterative formulations
• In terms of trust probabilities: p(t + 1) = expATp(t)/µ‖ expATp(t)/µ‖1
• In terms of reputation: k(t + 1) = AT exp k(t)/µ‖ exp k(t)/µ‖1
![Page 9: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Iterative formulation
Iterative steps
1 Assign each node a reputation ki
2 Let nodes vote for reputation of others
3 Assign new reputation based on weighted votes
4 Repeat (1)-(3) until reputations converge
Variance determining convergence
• Sufficiently large µ, convergence to unique point
• For smaller µ, convergence is not guaranteed
• In the limit of µ → 0, cycles will emerge
![Page 10: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Example
c
a
b
d e
Example cycles for µ = 0
Reputations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7a 1.00 0.40 0.67 0.50 0.67 0.50 0.67b 1.00 0.40 0.33 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.33c 1.00 0.40 0.67 0.50 0.67 0.50 0.67d 1.00 0.20 - - - - -e 1.00 0.20 - - - - -
![Page 11: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Example
c
a
b
d e
Example convergence for µ = 1
Reputations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7a 1.00 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22b 1.00 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21c 1.00 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22d 1.00 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17e 1.00 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
![Page 12: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Preliminary tests
Generate test network
1 Generate random network (n = 1100)
ER graphs Each link with probability p = 0.01SF graphs Network generated through BA model with m = 3
2 Divide network in Good and Bad agents (ratio 10 : 1)
3 Assign sign to each link between Good and Bad agents
G B
G + −
B + −
Faithful
G B
G + −
B + +
Semi-deceptive
G B
G + −
B − +
Deceptive
4 Perturb: flip sign of link with probability 0 < q < 1/2
Prediction and measure
![Page 13: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Preliminary tests
Generate test network
1 Generate random network (n = 1100)
2 Divide network in Good and Bad agents (ratio 10 : 1)
3 Assign sign to each link between Good and Bad agents
4 Perturb: flip sign of link with probability 0 < q < 1/2
Prediction and measure
1 Predict Good/Bad agents (reputation k ≥ 0 or k < 0)
Exponential Ranking Method suggested herePageRank+ Apply PageRank on positive links
+ 1 step of (dis)trust (pos. and neg.)Degree Weighted degree
2 Succes: Fraction of correctly predicted Bad agents (100 runs)
![Page 14: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Results
Faithful results
Erdos-Renyı
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
q
CP
Exponential RankingDegreePageRank+
Scale-Free
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
q
CP
Exponential RankingDegreePageRank+
![Page 15: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Results
Semi-deceptive results
Erdos-Renyı
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
q
CP
Exponential RankingDegreePageRank+
Scale-Free
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
q
CP
Exponential RankingDegreePageRank+
![Page 16: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Results
Deceptive results
Erdos-Renyı
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
q
CP
Exponential RankingDegreePageRank+
Scale-Free
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
q
CP
Exponential RankingDegreePageRank+
![Page 17: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Debate example
• Debate in opinion pages of Dutch newspapers 1990–2005
• Authors refer to each other to express (dis)agreement
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.040
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5x 10
−3
PageRank
Exp
onen
tial R
ank
Data from Justus Uitermark, Erasmus University Rotterdam
![Page 18: Exponential Ranking: Taking into account negative links.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022080211/55844318d8b42afc4e8b4576/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Conclusions
Method & Convergence
• New ranking method taking into account negative links
• Converges relatively quickly to unique point
Performance & Application
• Seems to perform well for trust systems, detecting ‘bad’ nodes
• Further testing is required
• Might have applications as research tool in various networks
Questions?