Community deception is about hiding a target community that wants to remain below the radar of community detection algorithms. The goal is to devise algorithms that, given a maximum number of updates (e.g., edge additions and removal), strive to find the best way to perform such updates in order to hide the target community inside the community structure found by a detection algorithm. So far, community deception has only been studied for undirected networks, although many real-world networks (e.g., Twitter) are directed. One way to overcome this problem would be to treat the network as undirected. However, this approach discards potentially helpful information in the edge directions (e.g., A follows B does not imply that B follows A). The aim of this paper is threefold. First, to give an account of the state-of-the-art community deception techniques in undirected networks underlying their peculiarities. Second, to investigate the community deception problem in directed networks and to show how deception techniques proposed for undirected networks should be modified and adapted to work on directed networks. Third, to evaluate deception techniques both in undirected and directed networks. Our experimental evaluation on a variety of (large) directed networks shows that techniques that work well for undirected networks fail short when directly applied to directed networks, thus underlying the need for specific approaches.

Community deception: from undirected to directed networks

Fionda V.;Pirro G.
2022-01-01

Abstract

Community deception is about hiding a target community that wants to remain below the radar of community detection algorithms. The goal is to devise algorithms that, given a maximum number of updates (e.g., edge additions and removal), strive to find the best way to perform such updates in order to hide the target community inside the community structure found by a detection algorithm. So far, community deception has only been studied for undirected networks, although many real-world networks (e.g., Twitter) are directed. One way to overcome this problem would be to treat the network as undirected. However, this approach discards potentially helpful information in the edge directions (e.g., A follows B does not imply that B follows A). The aim of this paper is threefold. First, to give an account of the state-of-the-art community deception techniques in undirected networks underlying their peculiarities. Second, to investigate the community deception problem in directed networks and to show how deception techniques proposed for undirected networks should be modified and adapted to work on directed networks. Third, to evaluate deception techniques both in undirected and directed networks. Our experimental evaluation on a variety of (large) directed networks shows that techniques that work well for undirected networks fail short when directly applied to directed networks, thus underlying the need for specific approaches.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11770/336823
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact