4.4 Article

Efficient community discovery with user engagement and similarity

期刊

VLDB JOURNAL
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 987-1012

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00778-019-00579-4

关键词

Community detection; User engagement; User similarity; Diversification

资金

  1. ARC [DP170101628, DP180103096, FT170100128, DP160101513]
  2. [2018YFB1003504]
  3. [NSFC61232006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we investigate the problem of (k,r)-corewhich intends to find cohesive subgraphs on social networks considering both user engagement and similarity perspectives. In particular, we adopt the popular concept of k-core to guarantee the engagement of the users (vertices) in a group (subgraph) where each vertex in a (k,r)-core connects to at least k other vertices. Meanwhile, we consider the pairwise similarity among users based on their attributes. Efficient algorithms are proposed to enumerate all maximal (k,r)-cores and find the maximum (k,r)-core, where both problems are shown to be NP-hard. Effective pruning techniques substantially reduce the search space of two algorithms. A novel (k,k )-core based (k,r)-core size upper bound enhances the performance of the maximum (k,r)-core computation. We also devise effective search orders for two algorithms with different search priorities for vertices. Besides, we study the diversified (k,r)-core search problem to find l maximal (k,r)-cores which cover the most vertices in total. Thesemaximal (k,r)-cores are distinctive and informationally rich. An efficient algorithm is proposed with a guaranteed approximation ratio. We design a tight upper bound to prune unpromising partial (k,r)-cores. A new search order is designed to speed up the search. Initial candidates with large size are generated to further enhance the pruning power. Comprehensive experiments on real-life data demonstrate that the maximal (k,r)-cores enable us to find interesting cohesive subgraphs, and performance of three mining algorithms is effectively improved by all the proposed techniques.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据