Kosuke Shinoda
ABSTRACT
Recent studies have shown that various models can explain the emergence of complex networks, such as scale-free and small-world networks. This paper presents a different model to generate complex networks using a multi-agent approach. Each node is considered as an agent. Based on voting by all agents, edges are added repeatedly. We use four different kinds of centrality measures as a utility functions for agents. Depending on the centrality measure, the resultant networks differ considerably: typically, closeness centrality generates a scale-free network, degree centrality produces a random graph, betweenness centrality favors a regular graph, and eigenvector centrality brings a complete subgraph. The importance of the network structure among agents is widely noted in the multi-agent research literature. This paper contributes new insights into the connection between agents' local behavior and the global property of the network structure. We describe a detailed analysis on why these structures emerge, and present a discussion of the possible expansion and application of the model.
- R. Ashri, S. Ramchurn, J. Sabater, M. Luck, and N. Jennings. Trust evaluation through relationship analysis. In Proc. AAMAS 2006, 2006. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- R. Axtell. Effects of Interaction Topology and Activation Regime in Several Multi-Agent Systems, pages 33--48. Springer, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A.-L. Barabási. LINKED: The New Science of Networks. Perseus Publishing, Cambride, MA, 2002.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Birukou, E. Blanzieri, and P. Giorgini. Multi-agent system that facilitates scientific publications search. In Proc. AAMAS 2006, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- U. Brandes. A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2):163--177, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Brin and L. Page. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. In Proc. 7th WWW Conf., 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. C. Freeman. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1:215--239, 1979.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. G. Gaston. Agent-organized networks for dynamic team formation. In Proc. AAMAS 2005, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Hope, M. Hamasaki, Y. Matsuo, and T. Nishimura. Strengthening community with embodied social networks. In Proc. HCI2006, 2006.Google Scholar
- M. Jackson and A. Watts. The evolution of social and economic networks. Journal of Economic Theory, 106:265--295, 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Matsuo, J. Mori, M. Hamasaki, H. Takeda, T. Nishimura, K. Hasida, and M. Ishizuka. POLYPHONET: An advanced social network extraction system. In Proc. WWW 2006, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Mori, M. Ishizuka, T. Sugiyama, and Y. Matsuo. Real-world oriented information sharing using social networks. In Proc. ACM GROUP'05, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Nejdl, S. Ghita, and R. Paiu. Semantically rich recommendations in social networks for sharing, exchanging and ranking semantic context. In Proc. ISWC 2005, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. S. Pentland. Socially aware computation and communication. IEEE Computer, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Pujol, R. Sangüesa, and J. Delgado. Extracting reputation in multi agent systems by means of social network topology. In Proc. AAMAS 2002, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Sabater and C. Sierra. Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In Proc. AAMAS 2002, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Staab, P. Domingos, P. Mika, J. Golbeck, L. Ding, T. Finin, A. Joshi, A. Nowak, and R. Vallacher. Social networks applied. IEEE Intelligent Systems, pages 80--93, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Wang, B. Hu, T. Zhou, B. Wang, and Y. Xie. Mutual selection model for weighted networks. Physical Review E, 72, 2005.Google Scholar
- S. Wasserman and K. Faust. Social network analysis. Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Watts. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. W. W. Norton & Company, 2003.Google Scholar
- B. Wellman. The global village: Internet and community. The Arts & Science Review, University of Toronto, 1(1):26--30, 2006.Google Scholar
- J. Weng, C. Miao, and A. Goh. Trust-based agent community for collaborative recommendation. In Proc. AAMAS 2006, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Emergence of global network property based on multi-agent voting model
Recommendations
Distributed Assessment of Network Centralities in Complex Social Networks
ASONAM '12: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2012)We present our ongoing work towards a framework for the Distributed Assessment of Network Centralities (DANCE) in complex networks. DANCE targets the efficient evaluation of the network centrality based only on localized information, restricted to a ...
Modeling and measuring graph similarity: the case for centrality distance
FOMC '14: Proceedings of the 10th ACM international workshop on Foundations of mobile computingThe study of the topological structure of complex networks has fascinated researchers for several decades, and today we have a fairly good understanding of the types and reoccurring characteristics of many different complex networks. However, ...
Key Author Analysis in Research Professionals' Collaboration Network based on MST using Centrality Measures
ICTCS '16: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Competitive StrategiesThe importance of an actor in the network is measured by the different type of centrality metrics of Social Network Analysis (SNA). In the research community, who are the most prominent author or key on the network is the major discussion or research ...
Comments