Revealing evolutions in dynamical networks

The description of large temporal graphs requires effective methods giving an appropriate mesoscopic partition. Many approaches exist today to detect communities in static graphs. However, many networks are intrinsically dynamical, and need a dynamic mesoscale description, as interpreting them as static networks would cause loss of important information. For example, dynamic processes such as the emergence of new scientific disciplines, their fusion, split or death need a mesoscopic description of the evolving network of scientific articles. There are two straightforward approaches to describe an evolving network using methods developed for static networks. The first finds the community structure of the aggregated network; however, this approach discards most temporal information, and may lead to inappropriate descriptions, as very different dynamic data can give rise to the identical static graphs. The opposite approach closely follows the evolutions and builds networks for successive time slices by selecting the relevant nodes and edges, the mesoscopic structure of each of these slices is found independently and the structures are connected to obtain a temporal description. By using an optimal structural description at each time slice, this method avoids the inertia of the aggregated approach. The inherent fuzziness of the communities leads to noise and artifacts. Here, we present an approach that distinguishes real trends and noise in the mesoscopic description of data using the continuity of social evolutions. To be follow the dynamics, we compute partitions for each time slice, but to avoid transients generated by noise, we modify the community description at time t using the structures found at times t-1 and t+1. We show the relevance of our method on the analysis of a scientific network showing the birth of a new subfield, wavelet analysis.

[1]  Martin Rosvall,et al.  Modelling sequences and temporal networks with dynamic community structures , 2015, Nature Communications.

[2]  Leto Peel,et al.  Detecting Change Points in the Large-Scale Structure of Evolving Networks , 2014, AAAI.

[3]  Jean-Philippe Cointet,et al.  Phylomemetic Patterns in Science Evolution—The Rise and Fall of Scientific Fields , 2013, PloS one.

[4]  Vikas Kawadia,et al.  Sequential detection of temporal communities by estrangement confinement , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[5]  Jukka-Pekka Onnela,et al.  Community Structure in Time-Dependent, Multiscale, and Multiplex Networks , 2009, Science.

[6]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Quantifying social group evolution , 2007, Nature.

[7]  Tanya Y. Berger-Wolf,et al.  A framework for analysis of dynamic social networks , 2006, KDD '06.

[8]  François Claveau,et al.  Macrodynamics of Economics: A Bibliometric History , 2016 .

[9]  Ciro Cattuto,et al.  Revealing latent factors of temporal networks for mesoscale intervention in epidemic spread , 2015, ArXiv.

[10]  Aaron Clauset,et al.  A unified view of generative models for networks: models, methods, opportunities, and challenges , 2014, ArXiv.

[11]  M. M. Kessler Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers , 1963 .

[12]  P. Jaccard,et al.  Etude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et des Jura , 1901 .

[13]  Benjamin H. Good,et al.  Performance of modularity maximization in practical contexts. , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[14]  Petter Holme,et al.  Modern temporal network theory: a colloquium , 2015, The European Physical Journal B.

[15]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Mapping Change in Large Networks , 2008, PloS one.

[16]  A. D. Medus,et al.  Community Detection in Networks , 2010, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos.