Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
175 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Defensive Alliances in Signed Networks (2309.06801v2)

Published 13 Sep 2023 in cs.CC, cs.AI, and cs.SI

Abstract: The analysis of (social) networks and multi-agent systems is a central theme in Artificial Intelligence. Some line of research deals with finding groups of agents that could work together to achieve a certain goal. To this end, different notions of so-called clusters or communities have been introduced in the literature of graphs and networks. Among these, defensive alliance is a kind of quantitative group structure. However, all studies on the alliance so for have ignored one aspect that is central to the formation of alliances on a very intuitive level, assuming that the agents are preconditioned concerning their attitude towards other agents: they prefer to be in some group (alliance) together with the agents they like, so that they are happy to help each other towards their common aim, possibly then working against the agents outside of their group that they dislike. Signed networks were introduced in the psychology literature to model liking and disliking between agents, generalizing graphs in a natural way. Hence, we propose the novel notion of a defensive alliance in the context of signed networks. We then investigate several natural algorithmic questions related to this notion. These, and also combinatorial findings, connect our notion to that of correlation clustering, which is a well-established idea of finding groups of agents within a signed network. Also, we introduce a new structural parameter for signed graphs, signed neighborhood diversity snd, and exhibit a parameterized algorithm that finds a smallest defensive alliance in a signed graph.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (79)
  1. Fixed parameter algorithms for dominating set and related problems on planar graphs. Algorithmica, 33:461–493.
  2. Amrollahi, A. (2021). A conceptual tool to eliminate filter bubbles in social networks. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 25.
  3. Correlation clustering. Machine Learning, 56(1-3):89–113.
  4. Science vs conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PloS one, 10(2):e0118093.
  5. Defensive alliances in graphs of bounded treewidth. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 251:334–339.
  6. Bodlaender, H. L. (1999). A note on domino treewidth. Discrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Sience, 3(4):141–150.
  7. Domino treewidth. Journal of Algorithms, 24(1):94–123.
  8. The enemy of my friend is easy to remember: Balance as a compression heuristic. Advances in Group Processes, 33:1–31.
  9. Finding all cliques of an undirected graph (algorithm 457). Communications of the ACM, 16(9):575–576.
  10. K-balance partitioning: An exact method with applications to generalized structural balance and other psychological contexts. Psychological Methods, 15(2):145–157.
  11. On dense subgraphs in signed network streams. In 16th International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM, pages 51–60. IEEE.
  12. Structural balance: a generalization of Heider’s theory. The Psychological Review, 63(5):277–293.
  13. Cesati, M. (2003). The Turing way to parameterized complexity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 67:654–685.
  14. Improved upper bounds for vertex cover. Theoretical Computer Science, 411(40–42):3736–3756.
  15. Chen, S. (2023). How social media can solve the problem of “filter bubbles” under the NewMedia algorithm recommendation mechanism the example of Tik Tok. In Proceedings of the 2023 2nd International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities and Arts (SSHA 2023), pages 1284–1288. Atlantis Press.
  16. Finding gangs in war from signed networks. In 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD, pages 1505––1514. Association for Computing Machinery.
  17. Balance theory, unit relations, and attribution: The underlying integrity of Heiderian theory. Review of General Psychology, 11(1):12–30.
  18. SPONGE: A generalized eigenproblem for clustering signed networks. In Chaudhuri, K. and Sugiyama, M., editors, The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS, volume 89 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1088–1098. PMLR.
  19. Regularized spectral methods for clustering signed networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22:264:1–264:79.
  20. Parameterized Algorithms. Springer.
  21. On a simple hard variant of not-all-equal 3-SAT. Theoretical Computer Science, 815:147–152.
  22. Davis, J. A. (1967). Clustering and structural balance in graphs. Human Relations, 20:181–187.
  23. Balance and the grouping schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(1):1–7.
  24. The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3):554–559.
  25. Some results on tree decomposition of graphs. Journal of Graph Theory, 20(4):481–499.
  26. Structural balance and signed international relations. Journal of Social Structure, 16(1):1–49.
  27. Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World. Cambridge University Press.
  28. Enciso, R. I. (2009). Alliances in Graphs: Parameterized Algorithms and on Partitioning Series-Parallel Graphs. PhD thesis, College of Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA.
  29. Listing all maximal cliques in large sparse real-world graphs. ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics, 18.
  30. Offensive alliances in signed graphs. Technical Report 2312.11960, Arxiv, Cornell University.
  31. Fernau, H. (2018). Extremal kernelization: A commemorative paper. In Brankovic, L., Ryan, J., and Smyth, W. F., editors, Combinatorial Algorithms, IWOCA 2017, volume 10765 of LNCS, pages 24–36. Springer.
  32. Alliances in graphs: a complexity-theoretic study. In Leeuwen, J., Italiano, G. F., Hoek, W., Meinel, C., Sack, H., Plášil, F., and Bieliková, M., editors, SOFSEM 2007, Proceedings Vol. II, pages 61–70. Institute of Computer Science ASCR, Prague.
  33. A survey on alliances and related parameters in graphs. Electronic Journal of Graph Theory and Applications, 2(1):70–86.
  34. A note on defensive alliances in graphs. Bulletin of the Institute of Combinatorics and its Applications, 38:37–41.
  35. Gabow, H. N. (1982). An efficient reduction technique for degree-constrained subgraph and bidirected network flow problems. Technical Report CU-CS-252-82, University of Colorado at Boulder, Department of Computer Science, USA.
  36. Gabow, H. N. (1983). An efficient reduction technique for degree-constrained subgraph and bidirected network flow problems. In Johnson, D. S., Fagin, R., Fredman, M. L., Harel, D., Karp, R. M., Lynch, N. A., Papadimitriou, C. H., Rivest, R. L., Ruzzo, W. L., and Seiferas, J. I., editors, Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC, pages 448–456. Association for Computing Machinery.
  37. Parameterized complexity of defensive and offensive alliances in graphs. In Goswami, D. and Hoang, T. A., editors, Distributed Computing and Internet Technology - 17th International Conference, ICDCIT, volume 12582 of LNCS, pages 175–187. Springer.
  38. On detecting maximal quasi antagonistic communities in signed graphs. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 30:99–146.
  39. Propagation of trust and distrust. In Feldman, S. I., Uretsky, M., Najork, M., and Wills, C. E., editors, Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW., pages 403–412. ACM.
  40. Structural Models in Anthropology, chapter 3. Signed Graphs. Cambridge University Press.
  41. Detecting k𝑘kitalic_k-balanced trusted cliques in signed social networks. IEEE Internet Computing, 18(2):24–31.
  42. Harary, F. (1953–54). On the notion of balance of a signed graph. Michigan Mathematical Journal, 2:143–146.
  43. Harary, F. (1961). A structural analysis of the situation in the Middle East in 1956. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 5(2):167–178.
  44. Structures of Domination in Graphs, volume 66 of Developments in Mathematics. Springer.
  45. The balance of power in international history: Theory and reality. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17(1):33–61.
  46. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology, 21:107–12.
  47. Hiller, T. (2017). Friends and enemies: A model of signed network formation. Theoretical Economics, 12(3):1057–1087.
  48. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63(4):512–530.
  49. The algorithmic complexity of alliances in graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 68(137–150).
  50. Social media polarization and echo chambers in the context of COVID-19: Case study. JMIRx Med, 2(3):e29570.
  51. Instability of defensive alliances in the predator-prey model on complex networks. Physical Review E, 72(4):041906.
  52. Alliances in graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 48:157–177.
  53. The slashdot zoo: Mining a social network with negative edges. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW, pages 741––750. Association for Computing Machinery.
  54. Signed clique search in signed networks: Concepts and algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 33(2):710–727.
  55. Clustering signed networks with the geometric mean of Laplacians. In Lee, D. D., Sugiyama, M., von Luxburg, U., Guyon, I., and Garnett, R., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS, pages 4421–4429.
  56. Spectral clustering of signed graphs via matrix power means. In Chaudhuri, K. and Salakhutdinov, R., editors, Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4526–4536. PMLR.
  57. An extension of Heiderian balance theory for quantified data. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15:147–165.
  58. Global defensive k-alliances in directed graphs: combinatorial and computational issues. RAIRO Operations Research, 54(4):1027–1040.
  59. Alliances in graphs: Parameters, properties and applications—a survey. AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics, 15(2):115–154.
  60. Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society. Nature, 435:814–818.
  61. Computing communities in large networks using random walks. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 10(2):191–218.
  62. Read, K. E. (1954). Cultures of the central highlands, new guinea. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 10(1):1–43.
  63. Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: a literature review. Technical report, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
  64. The ’incel’ phenomenon in the digital era–how echo chambers have fueled the incel movement. In Amadae, S. M., editor, Computational Transformation of the Public Sphere: Theories and Cases, pages 195–210. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki.
  65. Schaefer, T. J. (1978). The complexity of satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium Theory of Computing, STOC, pages 216–226. ACM.
  66. Alliance-based clustering scheme for group key management in mobile ad hoc networks. The Journal of Supercomputing, 61(3):481–501.
  67. Shafique, K. H. (2004). Partitioning a graph in alliances and its application to data clustering. Phd thesis, School of Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA.
  68. Recommending positive links in signed social networks by optimizing a generalized AUC. In Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, pages 290–296. AAAI Press.
  69. The community-search problem and how to plan a successful cocktail party. In Rao, B., Krishnapuram, B., Tomkins, A., and Yang, Q., editors, Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD, pages 939–948. Association for Computing Machinery.
  70. Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3):150–160.
  71. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo Chambers: Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. Princeton University Press.
  72. Defensive alliances in spatial models of cyclical population interactions. Physical Review E, 64(4):042902.
  73. A survey of signed network mining in social media. ACM Computing Surveys, 49(3):42:1–42:37.
  74. Discovering conflicting groups in signed networks. In Larochelle, H., Ranzato, M. A., Hadsell, R., Balcan, M., and Lin, H., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS.
  75. Exact community recovery over signed graphs. In Camps-Valls, G., Ruiz, F. J. R., and Valera, I., editors, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS, volume 151 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 9686–9710. PMLR.
  76. Community mining from signed social networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 19(10):1333–1348.
  77. Predicting positive and negative links in signed social networks by transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW, pages 1477–1488. Association for Computing Machinery.
  78. A survey on alliances in graphs: defensive alliances. Utilitas Mathematica, 105:141–172.
  79. Attitude similarity and interpersonal liking: A dominance of positive over negative attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 100:104281.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now