July 24, 2009 by sean.

Drew Conway has a review of the July 2009 issue of Science dedicated to Network Science [via Zero Intelligence Agents]:

The currently issue of Science magazine is entirely dedicated to networks and network science. The issue is packed with interesting articles, and is certain must-read for anyone studying or working with networks. The editors of Science have done well in capturing the breadth of disciplines and interests studying networks. One article that I will not cover in detail but recommend to all readers is Carter Butt’s “Revisiting the Foundation of Network Analysis,” where he discusses what is, and more appropriately, what is not network analysis, and how the science got here.

The article discussing network analysis and national security, in fact, is an excellent example of the wide audience for this topic; however, the thesis of the piece was rather disappointing. In “Counterterrorism’s New Tool: ‘Metanetwork’ Analysis“, we we hear from a veritable who’s-who in the national security/network analysis space. Starting with those on the technology front at Palantir Technologies (the same software we used from Project Grey Goose), to well respected practitioners in academia, business and government such as Marc Sageman, Valdis Krebs and Kathleen Carley, among many others. The article discusses where networks have helped, but also possibly hurt U.S. couterterrorism efforts, which made its focus on so called metanetwork analysis confusing.

In short, metanetworks are simple multiple layers of networks; that is, in any given space there will be a layer of social structure as well as physical (roads and waterways), infrastructure (power and communication), exchange (financial), etc. Metanetwork analysis attempts to examine this complex system as a whole in order to examine how activity on one layer can affect the others, and vice a versa. In theory, this is very appealing, however, in practice this method fails in two major ways.

Careers and research in Network Science are also increasing to the point where physicist Albert-László Barabási says, “I’m unable to keep up” [via sciencecareers.com]:

What unites the sociologists, physicists, biologists, and other scientists studying networks is the recognition that “whether they’re networks of people, computers, genes, [or] neurons, they often obey similar mathematical rules and have similar properties,” says Nicholas Christakis, a professor of sociology and of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School in Boston….

The National Science Foundation, too, has been increasing its support for network science, especially within the divisions dedicated to computer science and human social dynamics. There is also growing military support for network research, Barabási says, pointing to research programs funded by the Army, Air Force, Office of Naval Research, and Defense Threat Reduction Agency. “There’s never enough money, of course,” he says. “But we’re seeing that many agencies are discovering that this is important, and they’re putting their money where their mouth is.”

Posted in mathematics, social networks | No Comments »

July 24, 2009 by sean.

Drew Conway has a review of the July 2009 issue of Science dedicated to Network Science [via Zero Intelligence Agents]:

The currently issue of Science magazine is entirely dedicated to networks and network science. The issue is packed with interesting articles, and is certain must-read for anyone studying or working with networks. The editors of Science have done well in capturing the breadth of disciplines and interests studying networks. One article that I will not cover in detail but recommend to all readers is Carter Butt’s “Revisiting the Foundation of Network Analysis,” where he discusses what is, and more appropriately, what is not network analysis, and how the science got here.

The article discussing network analysis and national security, in fact, is an excellent example of the wide audience for this topic; however, the thesis of the piece was rather disappointing. In “Counterterrorism’s New Tool: ‘Metanetwork’ Analysis“, we we hear from a veritable who’s-who in the national security/network analysis space. Starting with those on the technology front at Palantir Technologies (the same software we used from Project Grey Goose), to well respected practitioners in academia, business and government such as Marc Sageman, Valdis Krebs and Kathleen Carley, among many others. The article discusses where networks have helped, but also possibly hurt U.S. couterterrorism efforts, which made its focus on so called metanetwork analysis confusing.

In short, metanetworks are simple multiple layers of networks; that is, in any given space there will be a layer of social structure as well as physical (roads and waterways), infrastructure (power and communication), exchange (financial), etc. Metanetwork analysis attempts to examine this complex system as a whole in order to examine how activity on one layer can affect the others, and vice a versa. In theory, this is very appealing, however, in practice this method fails in two major ways.

Careers and research in Network Science are also increasing to the point where physicist Albert-László Barabási says, “I’m unable to keep up” [via sciencecareers.com]:

What unites the sociologists, physicists, biologists, and other scientists studying networks is the recognition that “whether they’re networks of people, computers, genes, [or] neurons, they often obey similar mathematical rules and have similar properties,” says Nicholas Christakis, a professor of sociology and of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The National Science Foundation, too, has been increasing its support for network science, especially within the divisions dedicated to computer science and human social dynamics. There is also growing military support for network research, Barabási says, pointing to research programs funded by the Army, Air Force, Office of Naval Research, and Defense Threat Reduction Agency. “There’s never enough money, of course,” he says. “But we’re seeing that many agencies are discovering that this is important, and they’re putting their money where their mouth is.”

Posted in mathematics, social networks | No Comments »

April 21, 2009 by sean.

Posted in mathematics | No Comments »

April 21, 2009 by sean.

Posted in mathematics, science | No Comments »

March 17, 2009 by sean.

Posted in mathematics | No Comments »

February 18, 2009 by sean.

Could transparency of government data itself [see Recovery.gov] help boost the private Numerati [via Wired]?

[A]ccessible government information—particularly databases released in machine-readable formats, like RSS, XML, and KML—spawn new business and grease the wheels of the economy. “The data is the infrastructure,” in the words of Sean Gorman, the CEO of FortiusOne, a company that builds layered maps around open-source geographic information. For every spreadsheet squirreled away on a federal agency server, there are entrepreneurs like Gorman ready to turn a profit by reorganizing, parsing, and displaying it…

[O]bvious economic benefits, however, will come from innovations that pop up around freely available data itself. Robinson and three Princeton colleagues argue in a recent Yale Journal of Law and Technology article that the federal government should focus on making as much data available as RSS feeds and XML data dumps, in lieu of spending resources to display the data themselves. “Private actors,” they write, “are better suited to deliver government information to citizens and can constantly create and reshape the tools individuals use to find and leverage public data.”

Posted in mathematics, innovation, pervasive computing | No Comments »