UNCLASSIFIED
Measures in Social Measures in Social
Networks:Networks:
Description versus Description versus
PrescriptionPrescriptionJ. Todd Hamill, Major,
USAFDick Deckro
AFIT/ENS
The views expressed in this work are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the United States
Air Force, the Department of Defense or the United States Government
22nd ISMOR / August 2005
UNCLASSIFIED 2
Overview
Problem StatementPerspectivesSNA Assumptions & Measures Implications of Non-cooperative NetworksModels
►Network Flow: Gains, Losses, & Thresholds►Flow Typology►Extensions of the Key Player Problem
The Way Ahead
UNCLASSIFIED 3
Problem Statement
Overall goal - ‘shaping intentions’ through influence►… in the context of military psychological operations
that strive to influence an adversary’s “… emotions, motives, reasoning, and ultimately, their behavior…” in order to achieve a given political goal. (JP 3-13, 1998:II-4)
Extend previous social network analysis (SNA) and operations research (OR) methodologies to generate and analyze courses of action applied to networks of individuals
UNCLASSIFIED 4
Overview
Problem StatementPerspectivesSNA Assumptions & Measures Implications of Non-cooperative NetworksModels
►Network Flow: Gains, Losses, & Thresholds►Flow Typology►Extensions of the Key Player Problem
The Way Ahead
UNCLASSIFIED 5
Perspectives
Descriptive Models►A model that attempts
to describe the actual relationships and behavior of a system
►The “what is” question►For a decision problem,
such a model seeks to describe how individuals make decisions
Prescriptive Models►A model that attempts to
describe the best or optimal solution of a system
►The “what’s best” & “what if” questions
►For a decision problem, such a model is used as an aid in selecting the best alternative solution
Models never perform analysis. Analysts do analysis, aided by models where appropriate.
Provides insightPerhaps create requirements
Provides insightPerhaps create requirementsActionable Options Evaluations
UNCLASSIFIED 6
SNA vs. OR Analysis
SNA as conducted by the social scientists has, in general, been descriptive
OR has a history of both descriptive and prescriptive modeling►There is a wide array of network flow and
decision analysis models in OR
A key to utilizing this wealth of models is having good measures and metrics that are appropriate for the desired analyses AND appropriate for the mathematical models being used►GIGO remains a consideration for modeling
UNCLASSIFIED 7
Overview
Problem StatementPerspectivesSNA Assumptions & Measures Implications of Non-cooperative NetworksModels
►Network Flow: Gains, Losses, & Thresholds►Flow Typology►Extensions of the Key Player Problem
The Way Ahead
UNCLASSIFIED 8
SNA Assumptions
Actors and their actions are viewed as interdependent rather than independent, autonomous units
Relational ties between actors are channels for transfer of “flow” of resources (either material or nonmaterial)
Network models focusing on individuals view the network structural environment as providing opportunities for or constraints on individual actions
Network models conceptualize structure (social, economic, political, and so forth) as lasting patterns of relations among actors
(Wasserman and Faust, 1994:4)
UNCLASSIFIED 9
SNA MeasuresLinks
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
Path between two actors is mediated by one or more others
AttributeIndirect LinksFrequencyStabilityMultiplexityStrengthDirectionSymmetry
1 2 3
UNCLASSIFIED 10
SNA MeasuresLinks
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
How many times or how often the link occurs (e.g. telephone calls, meetings, etc.)
AttributeIndirect LinksFrequencyStabilityMultiplexityStrengthDirectionSymmetry
1 2 3
UNCLASSIFIED 11
SNA MeasuresLinks
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
Existence of link over time
AttributeIndirect LinksFrequencyStabilityMultiplexityStrengthDirectionSymmetry
UNCLASSIFIED 12
SNA MeasuresLinks
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
Extent to which two actors are linked together by more than one relationship (linkages between two given actors occur within several contexts)
AttributeIndirect LinksFrequencyStabilityMultiplexityStrengthDirectionSymmetry
1 2 3
1 2 3
Co-workers
Friends
1 2 3 Either or both
UNCLASSIFIED 13
SNA MeasuresLinks
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
Amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy, or reciprocal services (frequency or multiplexity often used as measure of strength of tie)
AttributeIndirect LinksFrequencyStabilityMultiplexityStrengthDirectionSymmetry
1 2 3
S(1,2) S(2,3) S(i, j) +
UNCLASSIFIED 14
SNA MeasuresLinks
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
Extent to which like is from one actor to another
AttributeIndirect LinksFrequencyStabilityMultiplexityStrengthDirectionSymmetry
1 2 3
1 2 3
UNCLASSIFIED 15
SNA MeasuresLinks
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
(Reciprocity) Extent to which relationship is bidirectional
AttributeIndirect LinksFrequencyStabilityMultiplexityStrengthDirectionSymmetry
1 2 3
1 2 3
UNCLASSIFIED 16
SNA MeasuresActors
(Brass, 1995:47)
AttributeCentralityPrestigeDegreeClosenessBetweenness
Definition
- Extent to which an actor is central to a network
- Various measures (including degree, closeness, and betweenness)
- Some measures of centrality weight an actor’s links to others by the centrality of those others
UNCLASSIFIED 17
SNA MeasuresActors
(Brass, 1995:47)
AttributeCentralityPrestigeDegreeClosenessBetweenness
Definition
- Based on asymmetric relationships, prestigious actors are the object rather than the source of relations
- Measures similar to centrality are calculated by accounting for the direction of the relationship (i.e., in-degree)
UNCLASSIFIED 18
SNA MeasuresActors
(Brass, 1995:47)
AttributeCentralityPrestigeDegreeClosenessBetweenness
Definition
Number of direct links with other actors- Undirected- In (to the actor)- Out (from the actor)
1 2 3
1 2 3
d2 = 2
di(2) = 2
do(2) = 0
UNCLASSIFIED 19
SNA MeasuresActors
(Brass, 1995:47)
AttributeCentralityPrestigeDegreeClosenessBetweenness
Definition
- Extent to which an actor is close to, or can easily reach all the other actors in the network
- Usually measured by averaging geodesic distances to all other actors
- Same equation for directed and undirected networks
1
1
,g
C i i jj
C n d n n
UNCLASSIFIED 20
SNA MeasuresActors
(Brass, 1995:47)
AttributeCentralityPrestigeDegreeClosenessBetweenness
Definition
- Extent to which an actor mediates, or falls between any other two actors on the shortest path between those two actors
- Usually averaged across all possible pairs in the network
- Same for directed/undirected networks
/B i jk i jkj k
C n g n g
number of geodesics between and jkg j k
UNCLASSIFIED 21
SNA MeasuresActor Roles
A B
Ego
AB
Ego
B
Ego
A
A B
Ego
B
Ego
A
A BEgo B
Ego
A
Ego
Liaison Representative Gatekeeper Coordinator
Itinerant Broker Bridge Isolate Star
(Degenne, 1999:129)
UNCLASSIFIED 22
SNA Measures Network
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
Number of actors in the network
AttributeSizeComponentConnectivityDensityCentralizationTransitivity
UNCLASSIFIED 23
SNA Measures Network
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
- Largest connected subset of network nodes and links
- All nodes in the component are connected (either direct or indirect links) and no nodes have links to nodes outside the component
AttributeSizeComponentConnectivityDensityCentralizationTransitivity
UNCLASSIFIED 24
SNA Measures Network
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
- (Reachability)- Extent to which actors in the network
are linked to one another by direct or indirect ties
- Sometimes measured by the maximum, or average, path distance between any two actors in the network
AttributeSizeComponentConnectivityDensityCentralizationTransitivity
UNCLASSIFIED 25
SNA Measures Network
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
- Ratio of the number of actual links to the number of possible links in the network
AttributeSizeComponentConnectivityDensityCentralizationTransitivity
UNCLASSIFIED 26
SNA Measures Network
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
- Difference between the centrality scores of the most central actor and those of other actors in a network is calculated, and used to form ratio of the actual sum of the differences to the maximum sum of the differences
AttributeSizeComponentConnectivityDensityCentralizationTransitivity
UNCLASSIFIED 27
SNA Measures Network
(Brass, 1995:47)
Definition
- Three actors (A, B, C) are transitive if whenever A is linked to B and B is linked to C, then C is linked to A
- Transitivity is the number of transitive triples divided by the number of potential transitive triples (number of paths of length 2)
AttributeSizeComponentConnectivityDensityCentralizationTransitivity
UNCLASSIFIED 28
Overview
Problem StatementPerspectivesSNA Assumptions & Measures Implications of Non-cooperative NetworksModels
►Network Flow: Gains, Losses, & Thresholds►Flow Typology►Extensions of the Key Player Problem
The Way Ahead
UNCLASSIFIED 29
Non-Cooperative Networks
Terrorists are generally non-cooperative ►Al-Qaeda Training Manual (Post, 2005)► Inside Al Qaeda: How I Infiltrated the World's Deadliest Terrorist
Organization (Sifaoui, 2004) Intelligence databases are biased, large, incomplete, have
ambiguous boundaries, and are dynamic (Sparrow, 1991) Analysis of 9-11 terrorist network (Krebs, 2002)
►“Deep trusted ties not easily visible to outsiders”►“Trade efficiency for secrecy”
In general…►Secrecy improves terrorists’ probability of mission success►Trade organizational efficiency of communication for secrecy►Reliance upon observational data may lead to improper
conclusions with some centrality measures►Potential paradigm shift in SNA from prosecution to prevention
UNCLASSIFIED 30
Overview
Problem StatementPerspectivesSNA Assumptions & Measures Implications of Non-cooperative NetworksModels
►Network Flow: Gains, Losses, & Thresholds►Flow Typology►Extensions of the Key Player Problem
The Way Ahead
UNCLASSIFIED 31
Social Closeness Terms Flow Model Properties
People or groupsNodes (sinks, sources, or transshipment)
Connectivity or affinityCapacitated arcs (or edges) between nodes
Social Closeness Capacity
Influence Commodity
Potential Influence Magnitude of flow
People or groups initiating influence in the network
Source(s)
Target people or groups to be influenced
Sink(s)
People or groups involved in influencing
Transshipment node(s)
Multi-Criteria within a shared contextMulti-Commodity, contexts share capacity
Multi-Context or Multi-Criteria in different contexts
Multiple independent single-commodity models for each context or criteria
Current Mappings
(Renfro, 2001:95)
UNCLASSIFIED 32
Gains, Losses, & Thresholds
Gains and losses represent predispositions, communication problems, and other similar factors based on the specific scenario under consideration.
Thresholds can also be set for cases where individuals or groups require a minimum level of influence before they take a specific course of action.
Requires Generalized Network Flow►Arcs may consume or generate flow►Seen in power networks, canals, transportation of
perishable commodities, and cash management (Ahuja, et al, 1993:8)
►Develop maximum flow and minimum cost, maximum flow approaches
UNCLASSIFIED 33
Gains, Losses, & Thresholds
Gains► Influence of significant others upon opinion shift (Friedkin
and Cook, 1990:130)► Interpersonal power (French, 1956:183-4)
Losses►Organizational structure and information flow (Lopez, et al,
2002) Thresholds
►Collective behavior and internal cost/benefit analysis; Number or proportion required at point where benefits exceed costs for that actor (Granovetter, 1978:1420)
►Applied to innovations, rumors and diseases, strikes, voting, educational attainment, leaving social occasions, migration, and experimental social psychology (Granovetter, 1978:1423-4)
►Recent model of innovation diffusion (Valente, 1996)
UNCLASSIFIED 34
Thresholds
Network Flow
“Outflow minus inflow must equal supply (or demand)”
Mass Balance Constraints (Three cases)Supply node: outflow > inflow outflow = inflow + bj
xjk – gijxij = bj
Demand node: outflow < inflow outflow = inflow – bj
xjk – gijxij = -bj
Transshipment node: outflow = inflow xjk – gijxij = 0
Amount of flow from node i to node j on arc (i, j) is xij
i j k
(Ahuja, Magnanti, and Orlin, 1993:5)
gij
UNCLASSIFIED 35
Network Flow
Given the following…►A network structure►Social closeness measures for all arcs (i, j)
The objectives…►Identify key actors that serve as ultimate
targets of influence►Identify actors that are accessible and likely
to propagate influence through the network►Identify the minimum amount of influence
required
UNCLASSIFIED 36
Underlying Assumptions
Amount of influence generated by COA is measurable► Interpretation of influence amount is inviolate among
individuals and their interactions Directed network mimics the anticipated operational
channels of communication►No discussion or interaction, as seen in traditional SNA
approaches, is modeled External Costs – Course of Action
►Represent risk friendly forces are subjected to when implementing the COA
Node “a” to all initial target nodes - execution Target nodes to “tgt” node - observation
Internal Costs – Propagation►Represent propagation risks perceived by individuals within
the network (Operational and Personal)
UNCLASSIFIED 37
Notional ExampleMinimum cost, maximum flow
atgt
{1}
{1}
{1}
1
4 52
37
6 11
10
9
8
2
½
4/3{1}
{1}
{1}
{2}
83
13
{1} 1
3
{1}
Solution (z* = 93.32)
jigij uij upper bound of flow on arc (i, j)
xij: amount of flow on arc (i, j)
Legend
{xij}
34
3
btgt = - 2ba = 3
b4 = - 1
UNCLASSIFIED 38
atgt
btgt = - tba = a (1
,6)
(1,8)
(1,7)
(1,9)
(1,10)
1
4 52
37
6 11
10
9
8
2
½
4/3
b4 = - 1
(2,8)
(3,6)
(1,2)
(7,9)(1
0,10
)
(5,6)(6,6)
(6,7
)
(6,5)(6,4)
(6,8)(6,4)
(6,9)
(6,20)
(6,24)
(6,15)
jigij
(uij, cij)
uij upper bound of flow on arc (i, j)cij: cost per unit flow on arc (i, j)gij: gain/loss factor for arc (i, j)
Legend
Post-Optimality Analysis
What if?...
gij
(uij, cij)
btgt = - tba = a
b4 = - 1
UNCLASSIFIED 39
Overview
Problem StatementPerspectivesSNA Assumptions & Measures Implications of Non-cooperative NetworksModels
►Network Flow: Gains, Losses, & Thresholds►Flow Typology►Extensions of the Key Player Problem
The Way Ahead
UNCLASSIFIED 40
Flow Typology
“Most commonly used centrality measures are not appropriate for most of the flows we are routinely interested in.” (Borgatti, 2005)► Implicit assumptions regarding traffic flow► Paths Trails Walks► Serial or Parallel► Replication or Transference
Impact on network flow modeling► Dependent upon how commodity of influence is interpreted► (Generalized) network flow cannot replicate all of these
processes Paths only
► Path with potentially serial and/or parallel process May imply transference (serial) or replication (parallel)
Implications for network flow – Side constraints
UNCLASSIFIED 41
Overview
Problem StatementPerspectivesSNA Assumptions & Measures Implications of Non-cooperative NetworksModels
►Network Flow: Gains, Losses, & Thresholds►Flow Typology►Extensions of the Key Player Problem
The Way Ahead
UNCLASSIFIED 42
Key Player Problem (KPP)
(KPP-1 or KPP-neg) Given a social network, find a set of k nodes (called a kp-set of order k) which, if removed, would maximally disrupt communication among the remaining nodes.► Would allow target selection in the classical sense► “Given a network of terrorists who must coordinate in order to
mount effective attacks, and given that only a small number can be intervened (e.g., by arresting or discrediting), which ones should be chosen in order to maximally disrupt the network?”
(KPP-2 or KPP-pos) Given a social network, find a kp-set of order k that is maximally connected to all other nodes.► The underlying premise is to find a set of actors that would
facilitate “the diffusion of practices or attitudes….”► “Translates to locating an efficient set of enemies to surveil,
turn (into double-agents), or feed misinformation to.”
(Borgatti, 2003:241)
UNCLASSIFIED 43
Key Player Problem
Rationale► Underlying motivation for current measures► Question of interest in sociological and military
Current Approach► New measures of “goodness”► Developed greedy heuristic
Alternative Approaches (OR techniques)► KPP-1 (Leinart, Deckro, and Kloeber, 2000)► KPP-2 (Set covering, and others…)
UNCLASSIFIED 44
KPP-2
The transpose of a modified version of the m-step reachability matrix is equivalent to the constraint matrix for both set covering and set partitioning approaches to KPP-2►Accounts for directional relationships►Math program guarantees optimal solution►Extensions of set partitioning can increase analytic
options►Measures of distance and ‘goodness’ developed by
Borgatti may serve as objective function coefficients►Small example…
UNCLASSIFIED 45
Notional ExampleKPP-2
1 1
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
R
X X I I 2 2
1 1 0 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 0
0 1 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 1 1 1
R
X X
(xi_m) Choose node i as initial target, relying upon reach of m steps or less
1 2
2
_1 1
11_1 2_1 _1 1_ 2 2 _ 2 _ 2
_
1
0,1
n
i mi m
nR Rn n
i m
Min x
ST x x x x x x
x
X X
1 3
2
4 5 61 3
2
4 5 6
UNCLASSIFIED 46
Overview
Problem StatementPerspectivesSNA Assumptions & Measures Implications of Non-cooperative NetworksModels
►Network Flow: Gains, Losses, & Thresholds►Flow Typology►Extensions of the Key Player Problem
The Way Ahead
UNCLASSIFIED 47
Future Paradigm
Relationship
UniqueActor Affiliation
InfluenceAction
UNCLASSIFIED 48
Conclusions
Prescriptive approach to SNA SNA Assumptions & Measures Implications of Non-cooperative Networks Models
►Gains, Losses, & Thresholds►Flow Typology and Network Flow►Potential Extensions of the Key Player Problem
Attractive option to analyze, better understand, and predict behavior of non-cooperative networks in response to external influence
UNCLASSIFIED 49
Contact Information
J. Todd Hamill, Major, USAFCommercial:(937) 305-1662Email: [email protected]
Dr. Dick DeckroDSN: 785-6565 x 4325Commercial:(937) 255-6565 X4325DSN: 785-6565 x 4325Email: [email protected]
UNCLASSIFIED 50
Works Cited
Ahuja, R. K., Magnangti, T. L., & Orlin, J. B. (1993). Network flows: Theory, algorithms, and applications. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Amblard, F., & Deffuant, G. (2004). The role of network topology on extremism propagation with the relative agreement opinion dynamics. Physica A, 343, 725-738.
Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27, 55-71. Borgatti, S. P. (Ed.). (2003). Identifying sets of key players in a network. international conference integration of
knowledge intensive multi-agent systems Brass, D. J. (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 13, 39-79. Degenne, A., & Forsé, M. (Eds.). (1999). Introducing social networks (1st ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. French, J. R. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63, 181-184. Friedkin, N. E., & Cook, K. S. (1990). Peer group influence. Sociological Methods & Research, 19(1), 122-143. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Krebs, V. E. (2002). Mapping networks of terrorist cells. Connections, 24(3), 43-52. Leenders, R. Th. A. J. (2002). Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: Constructing the weight
matrix. Social Networks, 24, 21-47.James A. Leinart, Richard F. Deckro, Jack M. Kloeber, Jr. and Jack A. Jackson (2002). “A Network Disruption Modeling
Tool”, Military Operations Research, 7(1) 69- 77. Lopez, L., & Sanjuan, M. A. F. (2002). Relation between structure and size in social networks. Physical Review E, 65,
np. Post, J. M. (Ed.). (2005). Military studies in the jihad against the tyrants: The al-qaeda training manual. Maxwell Air
Force Base: USAF Counterproliferation Center. Renfro, R. S. (2001). Modeling and analysis of social networks. (Doctoral dissertation, Air Force Institute of
Technology).Sifaoui, M. (2004). Inside Al Qaeda: How I infiltrated the world’s deadliest terrorist orgainzation. New York:
Thunder’s Mouth Press. Sparrow, M. K. (1991). The application of network analysis to criminal intelligence: An assessment of the prospects.
Social Networks, 13, 251-274. U.S. Department of Defense (1998). Joint Publication 3-13: Joint Doctrine for Information Operations. Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, 18, 69-89. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applicationsCambridge University Press.