Image Processing Reference
In-Depth Information
Social Network users locaon connecvity behaviour
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Loc 4
Loc 3
Loc 2
Loc 1
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Loc 4
0
0
0
0
0
150
350
0
0
300
Loc 3
0
0
0
100
0
150
350
0
0
300
Loc 2
100
0
300
200
750
200
400
0
300
300
Loc 1
1400
1500
1200
1200
750
1000
400
1500
1200
600
Social Network Users
Fig. 12.5 Number of connections (login) via various nodes/locations
Locaon Conecvity Variaon
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Users
LCV
0,087
0,000
0,243
0,259
0,423
0,444
0,962
0,000
0,243
0,800
Fig. 12.6 Users
location connectivity
'
represent various mobility patterns. Of course the connectivity location 1 of User
1 may be different from the connectivity location 1 of User 2. Besides User 1, who
is our reference user, we have split the remaining users into two groups. In the first
group (Users 2-7) that shows different patterns of location connectivity behaviour
and the second group (Users 8-10) that shows three users with radically different
location connectivity behaviour to be used for the overall comparison of the
Location Dependent Interaction (LDI) graphs.
In Fig.
12.6
, we show the users
location connectivity variation calculated based
on Eqs. (12.5) and (12.6). We notice that user 2 and user 8 have zero mobility, while
user 7 that may connect from any of the 4 locations with equal probability has a
mobility that is approaching 1.
User 3 has slightly smaller mobility than user 4, as s/he connects with the same
probability from location 1, but besides that, user 3 connects only from location
'
