skip to main content
research-article

Will Triadic Closure Strengthen Ties in Social Networks?

Published:23 January 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The social triad—a group of three people—is one of the simplest and most fundamental social groups. Extensive network and social theories have been developed to understand its structure, such as triadic closure and social balance. Over the course of a triadic closure—the transition from two ties to three among three users, the strength dynamics of its social ties, however, are much less well understood. Using two dynamic networks from social media and mobile communication, we examine how the formation of the third tie in a triad affects the strength of the existing two ties. Surprisingly, we find that in about 80% social triads, the strength of the first two ties is weakened although averagely the tie strength in the two networks maintains an increasing or stable trend. We discover that (1) the decrease in tie strength among three males is more sharply than that among females, and (2) the tie strength between celebrities is more likely to be weakened as the closure of a triad than those between ordinary people. Furthermore, we formalize a triadic tie strength dynamics prediction problem to infer whether social ties of a triad will become weakened after its closure. We propose a TRIST method—a kernel density estimation (KDE)-based graphical model—to solve the problem by incorporating user demographics, temporal effects, and structural information. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TRIST offers a greater than 82% potential predictability for inferring triadic tie strength dynamics in both networks. The leveraging of the KDE and structural correlations enables TRIST to outperform baselines by up to 30% in terms of F1-score.

References

  1. Francis R. Bach. 2008. Graph kernels between point clouds. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, 25--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Luca Becchetti, Paolo Boldi, Carlos Castillo, and Aristides Gionis. 2008. Efficient semi-streaming algorithms for local triangle counting in massive graphs. In Proceedings of KDD’08. 16--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Moira Burke and Robert E. Kraut. 2014. Growing closer on Facebook: Changes in tie strength through social network site use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4187--4196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Theodore Caplow. 1968. Two against one: Coalitions in triads. Prentice-Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. James A. Davis and Samuel Leinhardt. 1972. The structure of positive interpersonal relations in small groups. In Sociological Theories in Progress, J. Berger (Ed.), Vol. 2. Houghton Mifflin, 218--251.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Yuxiao Dong, Reid A. Johnson, Jian Xu, and Nitesh V. Chawla. 2017. Structural diversity and homophily: A study across more than one hundred big networks. In Proceedings of KDD’17. ACM, 807--816. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Yuxiao Dong, Jie Tang, Sen Wu, Jilei Tian, Nitesh V. Chawla, Jinghai Rao, and Huanhuan Cao. 2012. Link prediction and recommendation across heterogeneous social networks. In Proceedings of IEEE ICDM’12. 181--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Yuxiao Dong, Yang Yang, Jie Tang, Yang Yang, and Nitesh V. Chawla. 2014. Inferring user demographics and social strategies in mobile social networks. In Proceedings of KDD’14. ACM, 15--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Zhanpeng Fang and Jie Tang. 2015. Uncovering the formation of triadic closure in social networks. In Proceedings of IJCAI. 2062--2068. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Matthew S. Gerber. 2014. Predicting crime using twitter and kernel density estimation. Decision Support Systems 61 (2014), 115--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Zoubin Ghahramani and Michael I. Jordan. 1997. Factorial hidden Markov models. Machine Learning 29, 2--3 (1997), 245--273. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Eric Gilbert. 2012. Predicting tie strength in a new medium. In Proceedings of CSCW’12. ACM, 1047--1056. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Eric Gilbert and Karrie Karahalios. 2009. Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 211--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mark S. Granovetter. 1995. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. M. Hammersley and P. Clifford. 1971. Markov field on finite graphs and lattices. Unpublished Manuscript (1971). http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/∼grg/books/hammfest/hamm-cliff.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Simon S. Haykin, Simon S. Haykin, and Simon S. Haykin. 2001. Kalman Filtering and Neural Networks. Wiley Online Library. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. F. Heider. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hong Huang, Jie Tang, Lu Liu, JarDer Luo, and Xiaoming Fu. 2015. Triadic closure pattern analysis and prediction in social networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 27, 12 (2015), 3374--3389. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hong Huang, Jie Tang, Sen Wu, Lu Liu, and others. 2014. Mining triadic closure patterns in social networks. In Proceedings of WWW’14. 499--504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Jason J. Jones, Jaime E. Settle, Robert M. Bond, Christopher J. Fariss, Cameron Marlow, and James H. Fowler. 2013. Inferring tie strength from online directed behavior. PloS One 8, 1 (2013), e52168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Peter Klimek and Stefan Thurner. 2013. Triadic closure dynamics drives scaling laws in social multiplex networks. New Journal of Physics 15, 6 (2013), 063008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Gueorgi Kossinets and Duncan J. Watts. 2006. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311, 5757 (2006), 88--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. David Krackhardt. 1999. The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 16, 1 (1999), 183--210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Frank R. Kschischang, Brendan J. Frey, and Hans A. Loeliger. 2001. Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 47 (2001), 498--519. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Haewoon Kwak, Changhyun Lee, Hosung Park, and Sue Moon. 2010. What is Twitter, A social network or a news media? In Proceedings of WWW’10. 591--600. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Jure Leskovec, Lars Backstrom, Ravi Kumar, and Andrew Tomkins. 2008. Microscopic evolution of social networks. In Proceedings of KDD’08. 462--470. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Jure Leskovec and Eric Horvitz. 2008. Planetary-scale views on a large instant-messaging network. In Proceedings of WWW’08. ACM, 915--924. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Jure Leskovec, Daniel Huttenlocher, and Jon Kleinberg. 2010. Signed networks in social media. In Proceedings of CHI’10. ACM, 1361--1370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Linna Li, Michael F. Goodchild, and Bo Xu. 2013a. Spatial, temporal, and socioeconomic patterns in the use of twitter and flickr. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 40, 2 (2013), 61--77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Menghui Li, Hailin Zou, Shuguang Guan, Xiaofeng Gong, Kun Li, Zengru Di, and Choy-Heng Lai. 2013b. A coevolving model based on preferential triadic closure for social media networks. Scientific Reports 3, 2512 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Tiancheng Lou, Jie Tang, John Hopcroft, Zhanpeng Fang, and Xiaowen Ding. 2013. Learning to predict reciprocity and triadic closure in social networks. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 7, 2 (2013), 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Peter V. Marsden and Karen E. Campbell. 1984. Measuring tie strength. Social Forces 63, 2 (1984), 482--501.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27, 1 (2001), 415--444.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. J. P. Onnela, J. Saramäki, J. Hyvönen, G. Szabó, D. Lazer, K. Kaski, J. Kertész, and A.-L. Barabási. 2007. Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. PNAS 104, 18 (2007), 7332--7336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Akshay Patil, Juan Liu, and Jie Gao. 2013. Predicting group stability in online social networks. In Proceedings of WWW’13. 1021--1030. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Daniel M. Romero and Jon Kleinberg. 2010. The directed closure process in hybrid social-information networks, with an analysis of link formation on Twitter. In Proceedings of ICWSM’10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Jari Saramäki, E. A. Leicht, Eduardo López, Sam G. B. Roberts, Felix Reed-Tsochas, and Robin I. M. Dunbar. 2014. Persistence of social signatures in human communication. PNAS 111, 3 (2014), 942--947.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Catherine Schaefer, James C. Coyne, and Richard S. Lazarus. 1981. The health-related functions of social support. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 4, 4 (1981), 381--406.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Nino Shervashidze, Tobias Petri, Kurt Mehlhorn, Karsten M. Borgwardt, and Svn Vishwanathan. 2009. Efficient graphlet kernels for large graph comparison. In Proceedings of e International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. 488--495.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Georg Simmel. 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Vol. 92892. Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Stavros Sintos and Panayiotis Tsaparas. 2014. Using strong triadic closure to characterize ties in social networks. In Proceedings of KDD’14. 1466--1475. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. S. Vichy N. Vishwanathan, Nicol N. Schraudolph, Risi Kondor, and Karsten M. Borgwardt. 2010. Graph kernels. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 11 (2010), 1201--1242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Larry Wasserman. 2004. All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Rongjing Xiang, Jennifer Neville, and Monica Rogati. 2010. Modeling relationship strength in online social networks. In Proceedings of the WWW’10. 981--990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Jing Zhang, Zhanpeng Fang, Wei Chen, and Jie Tang. 2015. Diffusion of following links in microblogging networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 27, 8 (2015), 2093--2106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Jing Zhang, Jie Tang, Yuanyi Zhong, Yuchen Mo, Juanzi Li, Guojie Song, Wendy Hall, and Jimeng Sun. 2017. StructInf: Mining structural influence from social streams. In Proceedings of AAAI. 73--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Jia-Dong Zhang and Chi-Yin Chow. 2013. iGSLR: Personalized geo-social location recommendation: A kernel density estimation approach. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. ACM, 334--343. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Matteo Zignani, Sabrina Gaito, Gian Paolo Rossi, Xiaohan Zhao, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y. Zhao. 2014. Link and triadic closure delay: Temporal metrics for social network dynamics. In Proceedings of ICWSM’14. 564--573.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Will Triadic Closure Strengthen Ties in Social Networks?

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data
          ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data  Volume 12, Issue 3
          June 2018
          360 pages
          ISSN:1556-4681
          EISSN:1556-472X
          DOI:10.1145/3178546
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 23 January 2018
          • Accepted: 1 October 2017
          • Revised: 1 May 2017
          • Received: 1 September 2016
          Published in tkdd Volume 12, Issue 3

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader