1 / 25

Measuring Behavioral Trust in Social Networks

Measuring Behavioral Trust in Social Networks. Sibel Adali , et al. IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics. Presented by: Liang Zhao. Northern Virginia Center. Outline. Introduction Behavior Trust Twitter data Experiment Results Conclusion.

susan
Download Presentation

Measuring Behavioral Trust in Social Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Measuring Behavioral Trust in Social Networks SibelAdali, et al. IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics Presented by: Liang Zhao Northern Virginia Center

  2. Outline • Introduction • Behavior Trust • Twitter data • Experiment Results • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Trust vs. Social Network • Evaluate Trust in Social Network • Assumptions • Purpose of this paper

  4. Trust vs. Social Network • Trust → Social Network (SN) • Forms coalitions • Identifies influential nodes in SN • Depicts the flow of information • Social Network → Trust • Communities induce greater trust • Information flow enhances trust

  5. Evaluate Trust in Social Network • Our own predisposition to trust. • Relationship with others. • Our opinions towards others. Whether we trust others?

  6. Assumptions • Does not consider semantic information. • Only consider social ties • Trust is a social tie between a trustor and trustee. • Social ties can be observed by communication behaviors. • Degree of Trust can change. Behavior Trust: Measure of trust is based on social behavior. Social behaviors can conversely enhance or reduce the trust.

  7. Purpose of this paper • Measure trust based on the communi-cation behavior of the actors in SN. • Input: • Communication Stream of Social Network: • {<sender, receiver, time>,…,<sender, receiver, time>} • Output: • Behavior trust graph • Nodes: actors in SN, e.g., . • Edges’ weights: strength of trust, e.g., .

  8. Behavior Trust • Conversations & Propagations • Conversations behavior based • Conversations grouping • Conversation Trust Computation • Propagation behavior based • Propagation Trust • Potential Propagations Counting • Propagation Trust Computation

  9. Conversations & Propagations • This paper considers two kinds of behavior: • Conversations: Two nodes converse means they are more likely to trust each other. • Propagations: Apropagates info from B indicates A trust B. directed undirected

  10. Conversations grouping • The set of messages exchanged between A and B is: . • Average time between messages is: • Rule: two consecutive messages , are in the same conversation if .

  11. Conversation Trust Computation • Rules: • Longer Conversations imply more trust. • More Conversations imply more trust. • Balanced participation between two actors imply more trust. • Trust (namely Edge’s weight in trust graph): Entropy function: : the fraction sent by one actor; the fraction sent by the other actor.

  12. Propagation Trust • Given communication statistics alone, we cannot definitely determine which messages from B are propagations from A. • So we turn to counting “potential propagations”. details ?

  13. Potential Propagations Counting • Potential Propagations must satisfy the following constraint: • Matching “incoming to B” messages with “outgoing from B” messages: No cross

  14. Propagation Trust Computation • Notations: • the number of propagations by B. • the number of potential propagations. • the number of messages A sent to B. • Strategy 1: • Strategy 2: The fraction of A’s messages worthy to be propagated by B. The fraction of B’s energy spent on propagating A’ messages.

  15. Twitter Data • Data Volume: • 2M users (1.9M senders). • 230K tweets per day. • Data format: • (sender, receiver, time). • Ground Truth Label of Trust: retweeting • Directed • Broadcast

  16. Experiment • Compute Conversation & Propagation Graphs. • Overlaps between Conversation & Propagation Graphs. • Validate Conversation & Propagation Graphs using retweets.

  17. Computing Conversation & Propagation Graphs • Data: • 15M Directed tweets for conversation graph. • 34M broadcast tweets for propagation graph. • Settings:

  18. Computing Conversation & Propagation Graphs (continued) • To achieve comparison between conversation and propagation graphs: treat the undirected edge as two directed ones.

  19. Overlaps between Conversation & Propagation Graphs • Cluster these two graphs based on the weighted edges to discover communities: • Overlaps evaluation: Random set of clusters with same size distribution; repeat 1000 times.

  20. Graph validation using retweets. • Assumption: • A retweet is a propagation. • When a user propagates information from some other user, there must be some element of trust between them. • indicates directed trust: . • Directed retweet is more determinative than broadcast retweet in indicating trust.

  21. Graph validation using retweets (contd.) • Conversational Trust Graph Validation: • Nodes: 20% are also presented in retweets graph. • Edges: as follows. : Random graph, which consists of randomly selected nodes. The edges are communications between the nodes. : Prominence graph, which consists of most active nodes. The edges are communications between the nodes.

  22. Graph validation using retweets (contd.) • Propagation Trust Graph Validation: • Nodes: 20% are also presented in retweets graph. • Edges: as follows.

  23. Conclusion • Method advantages: • Propose a measurable behavior trust metric. • Does not need semantic information. • Can be applied to dynamic network. • The proposed metric reasonably correlate with retweets. • Can be applied to general social networks other than Twitter. • Good scalability due to low computational cost on statistical communication data.

  24. Future Works • Verify the potentially casual relationship between conversation and propagation behavior. • The intersection of conversation and propagation graphs would be a more stringent measure of trust. • Improve the purity of trust measurement by considering semantics of messages. • Trust should be dependent on context (e.g., we trust a doctor in medical science, but not necessarily in finance analysis. • Improve the trust measurement by considering the quality and value of messages.

  25. Thank you

More Related