Performance Bounds of Decentralized Search in Expert Networks for Query Answering

Expert networks are formed by a group of expert-professionals with different specialties to collaboratively resolve specific queries posted to the network. In such networks, when a query reaches an expert who does not have sufficient expertise, this query needs to be routed to other experts for further processing until it is completely solved; therefore, query answering efficiency is sensitive to the underlying query routing mechanism being used. Among all possible query routing mechanisms, decentralized search, operating purely on each expert’s local information without any knowledge of network global structure, represents the most basic and scalable routing mechanism, which is applicable to any network scenarios even in dynamic networks. However, there is still a lack of fundamental understanding of the efficiency of decentralized search in expert networks. In this regard, we investigate decentralized search by quantifying its performance under a variety of network settings. Our key findings reveal the existence of network conditions, under which decentralized search can achieve significantly short query routing paths (i.e., between O(log n) and O(log2 n) hops, n: total number of experts in the network). Based on such theoretical foundation, we further study how the unique properties of decentralized search in expert networks are related to the anecdotal small-world phenomenon. In addition, we demonstrate that decentralized search is robust against estimation errors introduced by misinterpreting the required expertise levels. The developed performance bounds, confirmed by real datasets, are able to assist in predicting network performance and designing complex expert networks.

[1]  Stanley Milgram,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem , 1969 .

[2]  Mathias Niepert,et al.  Learning Graph Representations with Embedding Propagation , 2017, NIPS.

[3]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Task routing for prediction tasks , 2012, AAMAS.

[4]  John Guare,et al.  Six Degrees of Separation: A Play , 1990 .

[5]  Xiao Huang,et al.  Label Informed Attributed Network Embedding , 2017, WSDM.

[6]  Xu Chen,et al.  Bridge Text and Knowledge by Learning Multi-Prototype Entity Mention Embedding , 2017, ACL.

[7]  Rui Zhang,et al.  Incorporating Knowledge Graph Embeddings into Topic Modeling , 2017, AAAI.

[8]  Yang Li,et al.  Analyzing expert behaviors in collaborative networks , 2014, KDD.

[9]  Minlie Huang,et al.  SSP: Semantic Space Projection for Knowledge Graph Embedding with Text Descriptions , 2016, AAAI.

[10]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Search in Power-Law Networks , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[11]  Max Welling,et al.  Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks , 2016, ICLR.

[12]  Juan-Zi Li,et al.  Text-Enhanced Representation Learning for Knowledge Graph , 2016, IJCAI.

[13]  Li Guo,et al.  SSE: Semantically Smooth Embedding for Knowledge Graphs , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[14]  Sharon L. Milgram,et al.  The Small World Problem , 1967 .

[15]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  The Diameter of a Cycle Plus a Random Matching , 1988, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[16]  A. Ganesh,et al.  Efficient routeing in Poisson small-world networks , 2006, Journal of Applied Probability.

[17]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Query incentive networks , 2005, 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'05).

[18]  Martin Dietzfelbinger,et al.  Tight Lower Bounds for Greedy Routing in Higher-Dimensional Small-World Grids , 2013, SODA.

[19]  Zhiyuan Liu,et al.  Representation Learning of Knowledge Graphs with Hierarchical Types , 2016, IJCAI.

[20]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[21]  Yang Liu,et al.  subgraph2vec: Learning Distributed Representations of Rooted Sub-graphs from Large Graphs , 2016, ArXiv.

[22]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs , 2017, NIPS.

[23]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Formal models for expert finding in enterprise corpora , 2006, SIGIR.

[24]  Kevin Zhou.  Navigation in a small world , 2017 .

[25]  Djoerd Hiemstra,et al.  Modeling multi-step relevance propagation for expert finding , 2008, CIKM '08.

[26]  Fernand Gobet,et al.  Measuring Chess Experts' Single-Use Sequence Knowledge: An Archival Study of Departure from ‘Theoretical’ Openings , 2011, PloS one.

[27]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Convex Optimization , 2004, Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook.

[28]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  The diameter of random regular graphs , 1982, Comb..

[29]  S. Milgram,et al.  Acquaintance Networks Between Racial Groups: Application of the Small World Method. , 1970 .

[30]  Wen-Jing Hsu,et al.  Optimal Routing in a Small-World Network , 2005, Sixth International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing Applications and Technologies (PDCAT'05).

[31]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  node2vec: Scalable Feature Learning for Networks , 2016, KDD.

[32]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  metapath2vec: Scalable Representation Learning for Heterogeneous Networks , 2017, KDD.

[33]  Mathias Niepert,et al.  Learning Convolutional Neural Networks for Graphs , 2016, ICML.

[34]  Yi Chen,et al.  Efficient ticket routing by resolution sequence mining , 2008, KDD.

[35]  Arindam Banerjee,et al.  A Social Query Model for Decentralized Search , 2008 .

[36]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The small-world phenomenon: an algorithmic perspective , 2000, STOC '00.

[37]  Louise E. Moser,et al.  Generative models for ticket resolution in expert networks , 2010, KDD.

[38]  Richard S. Zemel,et al.  Gated Graph Sequence Neural Networks , 2015, ICLR.

[39]  Ruslan Salakhutdinov,et al.  Revisiting Semi-Supervised Learning with Graph Embeddings , 2016, ICML.