Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Social Influence & Popularity

337 views

Published on

Presentation at the University of Amsterdam, March 26, 2009.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Social Influence & Popularity

  1. 1. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Social Influence & Popularity V.A. Traag March 26, 2009
  2. 2. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Outline 1 Experiment of Salganik et al. 2 Models 3 Results 4 Conclusions
  3. 3. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Introduction • What items (e.g. movies, books) become popular? • Quality leads to popularity? (Harry Potter, Da Vinci code, Pirandello) • Idea emerged from web based experiment of Salganik et al. (Science, 2006)
  4. 4. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Experiment of Salganik et al. • Study inequality and unpredictability experimentally. • Set up a website with various songs which could be downloaded. • Vary some conditions to study the effect of social influence. • Use multiple realisations to study unpredictability.
  5. 5. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Experimental design More social influence 1 ... More social influence 8 Social influence 1 ... Social influence 8 No social influence 1 ... No social influence 8 User arrival
  6. 6. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Screenshots of website
  7. 7. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Screenshots of website
  8. 8. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Main conclusions • Inequality rises with social influence. • Unpredictability rises with social influence. • Unpredictability also rises with ’quality’. • Result of a rich-get-richer effect?
  9. 9. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions BA-model • Model for links from websites to websites. • Start out with some small number of websites. • At each time step add a new website, and add some links. • Web sites (items) attract links (votes) proportional to the number of links (votes) (rich-get-richer effect).
  10. 10. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions BA-model 0 1 2
  11. 11. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions BA-model 0 1 2 3
  12. 12. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions BA-model 0 1 2 3 4
  13. 13. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions BA-model 0 1 2 3 4 5
  14. 14. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions BA-model 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
  15. 15. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions BA-model 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  16. 16. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions BA-model
  17. 17. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions BA-model 5 10 20 50 0.0050.0200.0500.2000.500 k Pr(X>k)
  18. 18. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions BA-model • We can formalise this process with mathematics. • Web sites (items) attract links (votes) proportional to the number of links (votes). ˙ki = m ki j kj • Yields stationary power law degree distribution. Pr(X = k) = 2m2 k−3
  19. 19. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Social influence • Add a base-line effect of quality. • Introduce quality φ ≥ 0 with mean quality µ and variance σ. • Balance quality and popularity through parameter 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1. • Additional good-get-richer effect. • New differential equation ˙ki = m (1 − λ) φi j φj + λ ki j kj .
  20. 20. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Theoretical results 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 100 200 300 400 500 Low Quality High Quality High Social Influence k t Time dependent results: • Votes increase with time • Older items obtain more votes • Better items obtain more votes • Changing social influence changes growth pattern
  21. 21. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Theoretical results Results for items with a given quality • Mean popularity and variance E(X|φ) = mφ µ and Var(X|φ) = E(X|φ)2 1 − 2λ . • Expected number of votes rise with quality • Uncertainty rises with quality and with social influence • In congruence with experiment from Salganik et al.
  22. 22. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Theoretical results Results for items • Quality distribution is ρ(φ) with mean µ and variance σ. • In general, mean popularity and variance is E(X) = m and Var(X) = m2(2σ(1 − λ) + µ2) µ2(1 − 2λ). • Inequality in popularity increases with inequality in quality • Inequality rises with social influence • Again in congruence with experiment from Salganik et al.
  23. 23. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Theoretical results 10-30 10-25 10-20 10-15 10-10 10-5 100 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 k Pr(X=k) λ = 0 λ = 0.1 λ = 0.5 λ = 0.99
  24. 24. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Empirical results • Quality usually a problem, how to estimate it? • Workaround: assume a quality distribution (e.g. Dirac, Exponential). • Compare empirical popularity distribution (#views, #sales) to theoretical distribution. • Estimate social influence parameter λ using MLE.
  25. 25. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 Hollywood YouTube Fit (Hollywood) Fit (YouTube) k Pr(X>k) YouTube1 λ ≈ 0.878 Hollywood1 λ ≈ 0.663 (0.843 for Dirac) 1 Assuming an exponential distribution
  26. 26. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Conclusions Empirical conclusions. • YouTube shows higher social influence. • Perhaps a broader distinction (traditional/online)? • Suggests popular thesis that the Internet individualises is incorrect. • With massive choices, following others not a bad heuristic?
  27. 27. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Conclusions Conclusions for model • Qualitatively congruent with experiment from Salganik. • Quantitatively not supported by data. • First rough approximation for modelling the amount of social influence. • Might be used for getting rough estimates of social influence.
  28. 28. Experiment of Salganik et al. Models Results Conclusions Questions?

×