Generalized friendship paradox in complex networks: The case of scientific collaboration

The friendship paradox states that your friends have on average more friends than you have. Does the paradox “hold” for other individual characteristics like income or happiness? To address this question, we generalize the friendship paradox for arbitrary node characteristics in complex networks. By analyzing two coauthorship networks of Physical Review journals and Google Scholar profiles, we find that the generalized friendship paradox (GFP) holds at the individual and network levels for various characteristics, including the number of coauthors, the number of citations, and the number of publications. The origin of the GFP is shown to be rooted in positive correlations between degree and characteristics. As a fruitful application of the GFP, we suggest effective and efficient sampling methods for identifying high characteristic nodes in large-scale networks. Our study on the GFP can shed lights on understanding the interplay between network structure and node characteristics in complex networks.

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

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

[3]  Lars Backstrom,et al.  The Anatomy of the Facebook Social Graph , 2011, ArXiv.

[4]  William H. Press,et al.  The Art of Scientific Computing Second Edition , 1998 .

[5]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[6]  Arun Sundararajan,et al.  Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[8]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Virality Prediction and Community Structure in Social Networks , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[9]  N. Christakis,et al.  The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network Over 32 Years , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  N. Christakis,et al.  A Model of Genetic Variation in Human Social Networks , 2010 .

[11]  M E J Newman.  Assortative mixing in networks. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[12]  Hawoong Jeong,et al.  Statistical properties of sampled networks. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  Dianne P. O'Leary,et al.  Why Do Hubs in the Yeast Protein Interaction Network Tend To Be Essential: Reexamining the Connection between the Network Topology and Essentiality , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[14]  N. Christakis,et al.  Social Network Sensors for Early Detection of Contagious Outbreaks , 2010, PloS one.

[15]  Michael Szell,et al.  Multirelational organization of large-scale social networks in an online world , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Nima Sarshar,et al.  Experience versus talent shapes the structure of the Web , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Reuven Cohen,et al.  Efficient immunization strategies for computer networks and populations. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[18]  Alessandro Vespignani.  Modelling dynamical processes in complex socio-technical systems , 2011, Nature Physics.

[19]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The small-world effect is a modern phenomenon , 2013, ArXiv.

[20]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Distribution of node characteristics in complex networks , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  John T. Jost,et al.  What makes you think you're so popular? Self-evaluation maintenance and the subjective side of the "friendship paradox" , 2001 .

[22]  J. Jonides,et al.  Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults , 2013, PloS one.

[23]  Cesar Ducruet,et al.  Inter-similarity between coupled networks , 2010, ArXiv.

[24]  Marián Boguñá,et al.  Approximating PageRank from In-Degree , 2007, WAW.

[25]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Friendship Paradox Redux: Your Friends Are More Interesting Than You , 2013, ICWSM.

[26]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Lethality and centrality in protein networks , 2001, Nature.

[27]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Statistical physics of social dynamics , 2007, 0710.3256.

[28]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Characterizing and Modeling Citation Dynamics , 2011, PloS one.

[29]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Computational Social Science , 2009, Science.

[30]  A. Vespignani,et al.  The architecture of complex weighted networks. , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN - The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd Edition , 1987 .

[32]  David F. Gleich,et al.  Algorithms and Models for the Web Graph , 2014, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[33]  Hang-Hyun Jo,et al.  Immunization dynamics on a two-layer network model , 2003, cond-mat/0310372.

[34]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Analysis of a large-scale weighted network of one-to-one human communication , 2007, physics/0702158.

[35]  Damon Centola,et al.  The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment , 2010, Science.

[36]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The role of social networks in information diffusion , 2012, WWW.

[37]  Mason A. Porter,et al.  Multilayer networks , 2013, J. Complex Networks.

[38]  S. Feld.  Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do , 1991, American Journal of Sociology.

[39]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[40]  Manuel Cebrián,et al.  Using Friends as Sensors to Detect Global-Scale Contagious Outbreaks , 2012, PloS one.

[41]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Evolutionary Rate in the Protein Interaction Network , 2002, Science.