Locality and Attachedness-based Temporal Social Network Growth Dynamics Analysis A case study on evolving nanotechnology scientific networks

The rapid advancement of nanotechnology research and development during the past decade presents an excellent opportunity for a scientometric study because it can provide insights on the dynamic growth of the fast evolving social networks associated with this exciting field. In this paper we conduct a case study on nanotechnology in order to discover the dynamics that govern the growth process of rapidly advancing scientific collaboration networks. This paper starts with the definition of temporal social networks and demonstrates that the nanotechnology collaboration network, in resemblance of other real-world social networks, exhibits a set of intriguing static and dynamic topological properties. Inspired by the observations that in collaboration networks new connections tend to be augmented between nodes in proximity, we explore the locality factor and the attachedness factor in growing networks. In particular, 2 Haizheng Zhang et al. we develop two distance-based computational network growth schemes, namely DG and DDG. The DG model considers only locality element while the DDG is a hybrid model that factors into both locality and attachedness elements. The simulation results of these models indicate that both clustering coefficient rates and the average shortest distance are closely related to the edge densification rates. In addition, the hybrid DDG model exhibits higher clustering coefficient values and decreasing average shortest distance when the edge densification rate is fixed, which implies that combining locality and attachedness can better characterize the growing process of the nanotechnology community. Based on the simulation results we conclude that social network evolution is related to both attachedness and locality factors.

[1]  Daniel B. Horn,et al.  Six degrees of jonathan grudin: a social network analysis of the evolution and impact of CSCW research , 2004, CSCW.

[2]  Gueorgi Kossinets,et al.  Empirical Analysis of an Evolving Social Network , 2006, Science.

[3]  Jesse A. Stump,et al.  The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature , 2006 .

[4]  M E J Newman,et al.  Identity and Search in Social Networks , 2002, Science.

[5]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[6]  Eli Upfal,et al.  The Web as a graph , 2000, PODS.

[7]  Qi Xuan,et al.  A local-world network model based on inter-node correlation degree , 2007 .

[8]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations , 2001, cond-mat/0104162.

[9]  A. Vázquez Knowing a network by walking on it: emergence of scaling , 2000, cond-mat/0006132.

[10]  Yehuda Koren,et al.  Measuring and extracting proximity in networks , 2006, KDD '06.

[11]  Steven A. Morris,et al.  Manifestation of research teams in journal literature: A growth model of papers, authors, collaboration, coauthorship, weak ties, and Lotka's law , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Emergence of a small world from local interactions: modeling acquaintance networks. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[13]  M Girvan,et al.  Structure of growing social networks. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[14]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations , 2005, KDD '05.

[15]  M. Newman Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs, Second Edition , 2001, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics.

[17]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[18]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration Network Structure and Team Performance , 2005, Science.

[19]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  S. Redner,et al.  Organization of growing random networks. , 2000, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The link-prediction problem for social networks , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Hierarchical Organization of Modularity in Metabolic Networks , 2002, Science.

[23]  J. Hopcroft,et al.  Are randomly grown graphs really random? , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[24]  J. Jost,et al.  Evolving networks with distance preferences. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[25]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[26]  Ravi Kumar,et al.  Structure and evolution of online social networks , 2006, KDD '06.