Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2835776.2835830acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Wiggins: Detecting Valuable Information in Dynamic Networks Using Limited Resources

Published: 08 February 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Detecting new information and events in a dynamic network by probing individual nodes has many practical applications: discovering new webpages, analyzing influence properties in network, and detecting failure propagation in electronic circuits or infections in public drinkable water systems. In practice, it is infeasible for anyone but the owner of the network (if existent) to monitor all nodes at all times. In this work we study the constrained setting when the observer can only probe a small set of nodes at each time step to check whether new pieces of information (items) have reached those nodes.
We formally define the problem through an infinite time generating process that places new items in subsets of nodes according to an unknown probability distribution. Items have an exponentially decaying novelty, modeling their decreasing value. The observer uses a probing schedule (i.e., a probability distribution over the set of nodes) to choose, at each time step, a small set of nodes to check for new items. The goal is to compute a schedule that minimizes the average novelty of undetected items. We present an algorithm, WIGGINS, to compute the optimal schedule through convex optimization, and then show how it can be adapted when the parameters of the problem must be learned or change over time. We also present a scalable variant of WIGGINS for the MapReduce framework. The results of our experimental evaluation on real social networks demonstrate the practicality of our approach.

References

[1]
M. Agumbe Suresh, R. Stoleru, R. Denton, E. Zechman, and B. Shihada. Towards optimal event detection and localization in acyclic flow networks. ICDCN'12, 2012.
[2]
S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004.
[3]
L. Bright, A. Gal, and L. Raschid. Adaptive pull-based policies for wide area data delivery. ACM TODS, 31(2):631--671, 2006.
[4]
M. Cataldi, L. Di Caro, and C. Schifanella. Emerging topic detection on Twitter based on temporal and social terms evaluation. MDMKDD'10, 2010.
[5]
W. Chen, Y. Wang, and S. Yang. Efficient influence maximization in social networks. KDD'09, 2009.
[6]
W. Chen, C. Wang, and Y. Wang. Scalable influence maximization for prevalent viral marketing in large-scale social networks. KDD'10, 2010.
[7]
N. A. Christakis and J. H. Fowler. Social network sensors for early detection of contagious outbreaks. PLoS ONE, 5(9):e12948, 2010.
[8]
A. Dasgupta, A. Ghosh, R. Kumar, C. Olston, S. Pandey, and A. Tomkins. The discoverability of the web. WWW'07, 2007.
[9]
J. Dean and S. Ghemawat. MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. CACM, 51(1): 107--113, 2008.
[10]
A. Delaney. The Growing Role of News in Trading Automation, Oct. 2009. http://www. machinereadablenews.com/images/dl/Machine_ Readable_News_and_Algorithmic_Trading.pdf.
[11]
D. Golovin, M. Faulkner, and A. Krause. Online distributed sensor selection. IPSN'10, 2010.
[12]
G. H. Hardy. Divergent series, volume 334. Am. Math. Soc., 1991.
[13]
W. Hart and R. Murray. Review of sensor placement strategies for contamination warning systems in drinking water distribution systems. J. Water Resources Planning and Manag., 136(6):611--619, 2010.
[14]
B. Hope. How computers trawl a sea of data for stock picks. The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 1st 2015.
[15]
R. Horincar, B. Amann, and T. Artières. Online refresh strategies for content based feed aggregation. World Wide Web, 1--35, 2014.
[16]
K. Jung, W. Heo, and W. Chen. IRIE: Scalable and robust influence maximization in social networks. arXiv:1111.4795, 2011.
[17]
D. Kempe, J. Kleinberg, and E. Tardos. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. KDD'03, 2003.
[18]
D. Kempe, J. Kleinberg, and E. Tardos. Influential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks. ICALP'05, 2005.
[19]
A. Krause and C. Guestrin. Submodularity and its applications in optimized information gathering. ACM TIST, 2(4):32:1--32:20, 2011.
[20]
A. Krause, J. Leskovec, C. Guestrin, J. VanBriesen, and C. Faloutsos. Efficient sensor placement optimization for securing large water distribution networks. J. Water Resources Planning and Manag., 134(6):516--526, 2008.
[21]
A. Krause, R. Rajagopal, A. Gupta, and C. Guestrin. Simultaneous placement and scheduling of sensors. IPSN'09, 2009.
[22]
A. Krause, C. Guestrin, A. Gupta, and J. Kleinberg. Robust sensor placements at informative and communication-efficient locations. ACM TSN, 7(4): 31:1--31:33, 2011.
[23]
C. J. Kuhlman, G. Tuli, S. Swarup, M. V. Marathe, and S. S. Ravi. Blocking simple and complex contagion by edge removal. ICDM'13, 2013.
[24]
N. L. Latar. The robot journalist in the age of social physics: The end of human journalism? In The New World of Transitioned Media, 65--80. Springer, 2015.
[25]
J. Leskovec, A. Krause, C. Guestrin, C. Faloutsos, J. M. VanBriesen, and N. S. Glance. Cost-effective outbreak detection in networks. KDD'07, 2007.
[26]
A. Li and L. Tang. The complexity and approximability of minimum contamination problems. TAMC'11, 2001.
[27]
M. Mathioudakis and N. Koudas. Twittermonitor: Trend detection over the Twitter stream. SIGMOD'10, 2010.
[28]
W. McKinney. Structured Data Challenges in Finance and Statistics, 2011. http://www.slideshare.net/wesm/ structured-data-challenges-in-finance-and-statistics.
[29]
M. Mitzenmacher and E. Upfal. Probability and Computing: Randomized Algorithms and Probabilistic Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[30]
M. Oita and P. Senellart. Deriving dynamics of web pages: A survey. TWAW'11, 2011.
[31]
A. Ostfeld et al. The battle of the water sensor networks (BWSN): A design challenge for engineers and algorithms. J. Water Resources Planning and Manag., 134(6):556--568, 2008.
[32]
K. C. Sia, J. Cho, and H.-K. Cho. Efficient monitoring algorithm for fast news alerts. Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 19(7): 950--961, 2007.
[33]
Y. Tang, X. Xiao, and Y. Shi. Influence maximization: Near-optimal time complexity meets practical efficiency. arXiv:1404.0900, 2014.
[34]
J. L. Wolf, M. S. Squillante, P. Yu, J. Sethuraman, and L. Ozsen. Optimal crawling strategies for web search engines. WWW'02, 2002.

Index Terms

  1. Wiggins: Detecting Valuable Information in Dynamic Networks Using Limited Resources

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WSDM '16: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
      February 2016
      746 pages
      ISBN:9781450337168
      DOI:10.1145/2835776
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 08 February 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. information diffusion
      2. rumor catching
      3. social networks

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Funding Sources

      • NSF

      Conference

      WSDM 2016
      WSDM 2016: Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
      February 22 - 25, 2016
      California, San Francisco, USA

      Acceptance Rates

      WSDM '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 67 of 368 submissions, 18%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 498 of 2,863 submissions, 17%

      Upcoming Conference

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 318
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)32
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15
      Reflects downloads up to 22 Nov 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Login options

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media