© 2017, IJCERT All Rights Reserved Page | 400
Impact Factor Value: 4.029 ISSN: 2349-7084 International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends Volume 4, Issue 10, October-2017, pp. 400-406 www.ijcert.org
Cross Stage Identification of Unknown Clients
in Numerous Online Networking Systems 1 Ms. Tamreen Fatima, 2 Dr. G.S.S Rao
1Pursuing MTech(CSE),
2Professor & HOD
1,2,Nawab Shah Alam Khan College of Engineering and Technology, Hyd
Email: [email protected],[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
Abstract: A previous couple of years have witnessed the emergence and evolution of a vivacious analysis
stream on an oversized sort of online Social Media Network (SMN) platforms. Recognizing anonymous,
nonetheless, same users among multiple SMNs continues to be AN intractable downside. Cross-platform
exploration could facilitate solve several issues in social computing in each theory and applications. Since
public profiles are often duplicated and impersonated merely by users with entirely different functions, most
current user identification resolutions, which principally specialize in text mining of users’ public profiles, are
fragile. Some studies have tried to match users supported the placement and temporal order of user content
also as a genre. However, the locations are distributed within the majority of SMNs, and genre is tough to pick
out from the short sentences of leading SMNs like Sina Microblog and Twitter. Moreover, since on-line SMNs
are quite regular, existing user identification schemes supported network structure don't seem to be effective.
The real-world friend cycle is extremely individual, and just about no 2 users share a congruent friend cycle.
Therefore, it's additional correct to use a relationship structure to investigate cross-platform SMNs. Since
same users tend to line up partial similar relationship structures in many SMNs, we tend to project the Friend
Relationship-Based User Identification (FRUI) algorithmic rule. FRUI calculates an equal degree for all
candidate User Matched Pairs (UMPs), and solely UMPs with high ranks are thought of as equal users. We
tend to conjointly develop 2 propositions to enhance the potency of the algorithmic rule. Results of intensive
experiments demonstrate that FRUI performs far better than current network structure-based algorithms.
Keywords: Cross-Platform, Social Media Network, Anonymous Identical Users, Friend Relationship, User
Identification
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---
© 2017, IJCERT All Rights Reserved Page | 400
1. Introduction
In the last decade, many sorts of social networking
sites have emerged and contributed vastly to large volumes
of real-world information on social behaviors. Twitter 1, the
most critical microblog service, has quite 600 million users
and produces upwards of 340 million tweets per day [1].
Sina Microblog, a pair of, the first Twitter-style Chinese
microblog website, has quite five hundred million accounts
and generates run over one hundred million tweets per day
[2]. As a result of this diversity of online social media
networks (SMNs), folks tend to use entirely different SMNs
for various functions. For example, Ren Ren 3, a Facebook-
style however autonomous SMN, is employed in China for
blogs, whereas Sina Microblog is used to share statuses
(Fig. 1). In alternative words, each existent SMN satisfies
some user wants. Regarding SMN management, matching
anonymous users across entirely different SMN platforms
will offer integrated details on every user and inform similar
laws, like targeting services provisions. In theory, the cross-
platform explorations enable a bird’s-eye read of SMN user
behaviors. However, nearly all recent SMN-based studies
specialize in one SMN platform, yielding incomplete
information. Therefore, this study investigates the strategy
of crossing multiple SMN platforms to color a full image of
those behaviors.
Nonetheless, cross-platform analysis faces different
challenges. As shown in Fig. 1, with the expansion of SMN
platforms on the web, the cross-platform approach has
incorporated numerous SMN platforms to form richer
information and an entire SMNs for social computing tasks.
SMN user’s kind the natural bridges for these SMN
platforms. The first topic for cross-platform SMN analysis is
user identification for various SMNs. Exploration of this
subject lays a foundation for more cross-platform SMN
analysis.
User identification is additionally known as user
recognition, user identity resolution, user matching, and
anchor linking. Though no resolution will determine all
same anonymous SMN users, some SMN parts are also
wont to determine some of the users across multiple SMNs.
Several studies have addressed the user identification
downside by examining public user profile attributes, as
well as screen name, birthday, location, gender, profile
photograph, etc. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11],
[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Since these attributes don't
need exclusivity and are simply faked by users for various
functions (including malicious users), these schemes are
quite fragile. Some researchers have leveraged public user
activities to acknowledge user’s mistreatment post time,
location and genre [18], [19], [20], [21]. Since location
information is tough to get and genre is tough to extract
from short sentences, these techniques are full of limitations.
Though connections are often collected and are tough to
impersonate in nearly all SMNs, our literature review
discovered solely a couple of studies that explored using
user friends to spot users [22], [23], [24]. Regarding
knowledge security and privacy, Narayanan and Shmatikov
(NS for short) [22] de-anonymized a social network graph
by correlating it with famous identities. NS was the primary
effort to acknowledge users strictly by mistreatment
connections and with success matched half-hour of the
accounts with a twelve-tone music error rate. Bartunov et al.
[23] projected a Joint Link-attribute algorithmic rule (JLA)
to match 2 social networks and obtained some of the
identified users. Korula and Lattanzi [24] used the degrees
of chartless users, also because the range of common
neighbors, to reconcile SMNs.
SMN connections make up 2 categories: single-
following connections and mutual-following connections.
Single following connections are known as following
relationships or following links. If user A follows user B,
then user A and user B have the following relationship
Tamreen Fatima et.al ,“ Cross Stage Identification of Unknown Clients in Numerous Online Networking Systems .”,
International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends, 4(10):pp:400-406,October-2017.
© 2017, IJCERT All Rights Reserved Page | 401
(single-way fans of which one is aware of the opposite,
however not vice versa). Following associations are
common in microblogging SMNs, like Twitter and Sina
Microblog. Likewise, mutual-following connections are
known as friend relationships. In microblogging SMNs, a
loving relationship refers to the following mutual
relationships between 2 users. In most alternative SMNs,
like Facebook, RenRen, and Wechat, a lover relationship
forms on condition that one user ships a lover request and
confirmed by the different user. Friend relationships are
desperate to pretend by malicious users, and thus mirror
real-world connections far better. as a result of their
responsibility and consistency, friend relationships are
additional strong in user identification tasks. Moreover,
since unified friend relationships are shaped, our algorithmic
rule may be applied to SMNs with a heterogeneous network
structure, like Twitter and Facebook.
2. Existing Systems
Existing algorithms FRUI chooses candidate
matching pairs from presently famous identical users instead
of chartless ones. This operation reduces procedure quality
since solely a tiny portion of chartless users are concerned in
every iteration. Moreover, since exclusively mapped users
are exploited, our resolution is climbable and may be
extended merely to on-line user identification applications.
In distinction with current algorithms, FRUI needs no
management parameters. The most question within the on
top of the situation is that the overlap of the users’ friends.
To deal with this issue, we tend to discuss the overlap of
SMNs, as well as node and edge overlap, below. Node
overlap. Several studies have verified that varied users are
overlapped in numerous SMNs. Nearly all cross-platform
user identification studies mention node overlap as a result
of it's the basic assumption to unravel this issue. Early in
2007, sixty-fourth of Facebook users had MySpace
accounts.
3.Proposed Systems
Proposing a completely unique Friend
Relationship-based User Identification (FRUI) algorithmic
rule. In our analysis of cross-platform SMNs, we tend to
deeply strip-mine friend relationships and network
structures. Within the universe, folks tend to own largely a
similar friend in numerous SMNs, or the friend cycle is
extremely individual. The additional matches in 2 chartless
users’ famous friends, the upper the likelihood that they
belong to a similar individual within the universe. Supported
this truth, we tend to project the FRUI algorithmic rule. A
preprocessor is intended to accumulate as several Priori
UMPs as doable. Currently, there's no common approach on
the market to get UMPs between 2 SMNs. Mere ways
should be developed in line with given SMNs. Though no
unified method is appropriate for the Preprocessor, some
algorithms are often adopted in line with the appliance, e.g.,
email address, screen name, URL, etc. Edge overlap. Till
terribly recently, no applied mathematics studies quantified
relationship overlap in 2 SMNs. However, some studies
noted that these relationships overlap to a precise extent. NS
that identifies users strictly through networks in ground-
truth datasets proved that users have similar associations in
Twitter and Flickr. Paridhi conjointly found that users tend
to attach with a section of similar folks across SMNs, and
introduced network structure to enhance the accuracy of
user identification between Twitter and Facebook.
ADVANTAGES: Advances in SMN services,
additional SMNs enable users to bind their accounts with
major alternative SMNs. During this case, previous
information is often obtained with sure data. For instance,
begetter and ChangBa, 2 major mobile applications (apps)
in China, encourage users to link their Sina Microblog
accounts for business interests, bridging their websites with
an essential microblog service in China. Twitter provides
Tamreen Fatima et.al ,“ Cross Stage Identification of Unknown Clients in Numerous Online Networking Systems .”,
International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends, 4(10):pp:400-406,October-2017.
© 2017, IJCERT All Rights Reserved Page | 402
AN attribute, known as a uniform resource locator, for user
self-identification. Preprocessors will directly use URLs to
match a Twitter account to Facebook or alternative SMN
accounts. Once no additional data except the network
structure are often utilized, the seed identification approach
in NS and also the de-anonymization attacks in are
alternatives for the Preprocessor.
4. Implementation
Implementation is that the stage of the project once
the theoretical style is clad into an operating system. so it is
often thought of to be the foremost vital stage in achieving a
prospering new system and in giving the user, confidence
that the new system can work and be effective.
The implementation stage involves careful coming up
with, investigation of the present system and its constraints
on implementation, coming up with of ways to realize
transmutation and analysis of transmutation ways.
Cross-Platform:
Cross-platform software package (multi-platform,
or platform freelance software package) is pc software
package that's enforced on multiple computing platforms
Cross-platform software is also divided into 2 types; one
needs individual building or compilation for every platform
that it supports, and also the alternative one is often directly
run on any platform while not special preparation, e.g.,
software package is written in AN understood language or
pre-compiled transportable bytecode that the interpreters or
run-time packages are common or commonplace parts of all
platforms.
Fig 4.1 Cross stage research to merge variety of
SMN’s
5. Modules
I). Cross-Platform SMN’s
ii). Anonymous Identical User
iii). Friends and Relation
Cross-PlatforminSMN’s: -
SMN connections make up 2 categories: single-following
connections and mutual-following connections. Singles
following contacts are known as following relationships or
following links. If user A follows user B, then user A and
user B have the following relationship (single-way fans of
which one is aware of the opposite, however not vice versa).
Following associations are common in microblogging
SMNs, like Twitter and Sina Microblog. Likewise, mutual-
following connections are known as friend relationships. In
Tamreen Fatima et.al ,“ Cross Stage Identification of Unknown Clients in Numerous Online Networking Systems .”,
International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends, 4(10):pp:400-406,October-2017.
© 2017, IJCERT All Rights Reserved Page | 403
microblogging SMNs, a loving relationship refers to the
following mutual relationships between 2 users. In our
analysis of cross-platform SMNs, we tend to deeply strip-
mine friend relationships and network structures. Within the
universe, folks tend to own largely a similar friend in
numerous SMNs, or the friend cycle is extremely individual.
The additional matches in 2 chartless users’ famous friends,
the upper the likelihood that they belong to a similar
individual within the universe. Supported this truth, we tend
to project the FRUI algorithmic rule.
Fig 5.1 Uniform solution framework. The network structure-
based user identification first obtains Priori UMPs through a
Preprocessor and then identifies more UMPs through the
Identifier in an iteration process.
Anonymous Identical User: -
Anonymous could be a loosely associated international
network of activist and hacktivist entities. a website
nominally related to the cluster describes it as "a net
gathering" with "a loose and suburbanized command
structure that operates on concepts instead of directives”.
The cluster became famous for a series of well-publicized
message stunts and distributed denial-of-service attacks on
government, religious, and company websites. Though no
unified method is appropriate for the Preprocessor, some
algorithms are often adopted in line with the appliance, e.g.,
email address, screen name, URL, etc. AN email address
seems to be a novel feature for every account and may be
wont to collect Priori UMPs. Node overlap. Several studies
have verified that varied users are overlapped in many
SMNs. Nearly all cross-platform user identification studies
mention node overlap as a result of it's the basic assumption
to unravel this issue. The symbol finds UMPs mistreatment
connections among users and Priori UMPs. As noted on top
of, an identical degree for every candidate umpire ought to
be calculated before. NS formulates the matching degree
mistreatment in- and out-degrees in directed networks.
Friends and Relation
The friend relationship needs confirmation by the 2 users
and is way additional reliable and consistent in SMNs. Thus,
it will cut back the noise introduced by a discretionary
single-following relationship. Creating use of the friend
relationship in purposeless networks, JLA defines the
matching degree as, for any 2 SMNs, SMNA and SMNB are
often thought of as mirrors of the $64000 world. Suppose
that individuals discovered random relationships within the
real world; then the likelihood of a friendship between any 2
persons is p (0 < p < 1), and for any relationship, Storm
Troops (0 < Storm Troops < 1) and sb (0 < sb <
1) are possibilities that it exists in SMNA and SMNB,
severally. Therefore, the chances that a relationship exists in
SMNA and SMNB are protein and psb, severally. We tend
to use ground truth datasets to gauge the user identification
resolution. So as to verify FRUI in numerous kinds of
SMNs, we tend to collect information from 2 heterogeneous
Tamreen Fatima et.al ,“ Cross Stage Identification of Unknown Clients in Numerous Online Networking Systems .”,
International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends, 4(10):pp:400-406,October-2017.
© 2017, IJCERT All Rights Reserved Page | 404
SMNs: Sina Microblog and RenRen. The Sina Microblog
dataset was captured from the Sina Microblog search page,
whereas the Ren Ren dataset was directly obtained from its
Open API. As shown in, the Sina Microblog dataset
consisted of one.17 million users and one.9 million friend
relationships, and every user had a mean of three.2 friends.
The Ren Ren dataset was comprised of five.5million nodes
and fourteen.6 million edges, and every user had a mean of
five.3friends. Therefore, the Ren Ren dataset was abundant
denser than Sina Microblogs.
Algorithms: -
FRUI (Friends and Relation User Identifier)
In the implementation, the symbol 1st calculates matrix
dashing Proposition one and initializes the matching degree.
Then it iterates, and identifiesUMPs mistreatment operates
till no umpire are often known. In every iteration, once the
UMPs are known, the things are off from the Candidate
umpire list, and RI’s recalculated supported proposition a
pair of. The method is summarized in algorithmic rule one.
Suppose that there are valid Priori UMPs in any iteration.
Lines 4-11in algorithmic rule 1remove the known UMPs
and update the most match degree, and also the time quality
prices O(s) + O(min(vA, vB))=O(min(vA, vB)), wherever
vAandvBdenote the numbers of the users in SMNAand
SMNB, severally.Lines 12-19update the Candidate umpire
list and also the most match degree mistreatment Proposi-
tions1 and a pair of.
FRUIalgorithm: -
Input: SMNA, SMNB, Priori UMPs: PUMPs
Output: Identified UMPs: UMPs
1: functionFRUI (SMNA, SMNB, PUMPs)
2: T = {}, R = dict (), S = PUMPs, L = [], max = 0, FA = [],
FB = []
3: while S is not empty do
4: Add S to T
5: if max > 0 do
6: Remove S from L[max]
7: while L[max] is empty
8: max = max – 1
9: if max == 0 do
10: return UMPs
11: Remove UMPs with mapped UE from L[max]
12: foreachUMPA~B (i, j) in S do
13: foreach UEAa in the unmapped neighbors of UEAi do
14: FA[i] = FA[i] + 1
15: foreach UEAb in the unmapped neighbors of UEAj do
16: R[UMPA~B(a, b)] += 1, FB[j] = FB[j] + 1
17: Add UMPA~B(a, b) to L[R[UMPA~B(a, b)]]
18: if R[UMPA~B(a, b)] > max do
19: max = R[UMPA~B(a, b)]
20: m = max, S = {}
21: while S is empty do
22: Remove UMPs with mapped UE from L[max]
23: C = L[m], m = m - 1, n = 0
24: S = {un-Controversial UMPs in C }
25: while S is empty do
26: n = n + 1, I = {UMPs with top n Mij in C using (5)}
27: S = {un-Controversial UMPs in I}
28: if I == C do
29: break;
Clustering:
Cluster analysis or bunch is that the task of clustering a
group of objects in such how that objects within the same
group (called a cluster) are additional similar (in some sense
or another) to every aside from to those in alternative teams
(clusters). Cluster analysis itself isn't one specific
algorithmic rule, however, the final task to be solved. It is
often achieved by numerous algorithms that disagree
considerably with their notion of what constitutes a cluster
and the way to with efficiency notice them. in style notions
of clusters embody teams with tiny distances among the
Tamreen Fatima et.al ,“ Cross Stage Identification of Unknown Clients in Numerous Online Networking Systems .”,
International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends, 4(10):pp:400-406,October-2017.
© 2017, IJCERT All Rights Reserved Page | 405
cluster members, dense areas of the info house, intervals or
explicitly applied mathematics distributions. bunch will,
therefore, be developed as a multi-objective improvement
downside.
6. Conclusion
This study addressed the matter of user
identification across SMN platforms and offered an
innovative resolution. As a key facet of SMN, the network
structure is of predominant importance and helps resolve de-
anonymization user identification tasks. Therefore, we tend
to project a regular net-work structure-based user
identification resolution. We tend to conjointly develop a
completely unique friend relationship-based algorithmic rule
known as FRUI. To enhance the potency of FRUI, we tend
to represent 2 propositions and addressed the quality.
Finally, we tend to verify our algorithmic rule in each
artificial networks and ground-truth networks. Results of our
empirical experiments reveal that network structure will
accomplish vital user identification work. Our FRUI
algorithmic rule is easy, nonetheless economical, and
performed far better than NS, the present state-of-art
network structure-based user identification resolution. In
situations, once raw text information is distributed,
incomplete, or arduous to get as a result of privacy settings,
FRUI is very appropriate for cross-platform tasks. Results
of our empirical experiments reveal that network structure
will accomplish vital user identification work. Our FRUI
algorithmic rule is easy, nonetheless economical, and
performed far better than NS, the present state-of-art
network structure-based user identification resolution. In
situations, once raw text information is distributed,
incomplete, or arduous to get as a result of privacy settings,
FRUI is very appropriate for cross-platform tasks.
References
[1]Wikipedia,"Twitter, "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter. 2014.
[2] Xinhuanet, "Sina Microblog Achieves over 500
MillionUsers,"
http://news.xinhuanet.com/tech/2012-02/29/c_122769084.htm. 2014.
[3] J. Liu, F. Zhang, X. Song, Y.I. Song, C.Y. Lin, and
H.W. Hon, "What's in a name?: an unsupervised
approach to link users across communities," Proc. of
the 6th ACM international conference on Web search
and data mining(WDM’13), pp. 495-504, 2013.
[4] O. Goga, D. Perito, H. Lei, R. Teixeira, and R.
Sommer, "Large-scale Correlation of Accounts across
Social Networks," Tech- nical report, 2013.
[5] K. Cortis, S. Scerri, I. Rivera, and S. Handschuh,
"An ontology-based technique for online profile
resolution," Social Informatics, Berlin: Springer, pp.
284-298, 2013.
[6] F. Abel, E. Herder, G.J. Houben, N. Henze, and D.
Krause, "Cross-system user modeling and
personalization on the social web," User Modeling and
User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 23, pp. 169-209, 2013.
[7] N. Korula and S. Lattanzi, "An efficient
reconciliation algorithm for social networks," arXiv
preprint arXiv:1307.1690, 2013.
[8] P. Jain, P. Kumaraguru, and A. Joshi, "@ i seek 'fb.
me': identify- ing users across multiple online social
networks," Proc. of the 22nd International Conference
on World Wide Web Companion, pp. 1259-1268,
2013.
[9] X. Kong, J. Zhang, and P.S. Yu, "inferring anchor
links across multiple heterogeneous social networks,"
Proc. of the 22nd ACM International Conf. on
Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’13),
pp. 179-188, 2013.
[10] O. Goga, H. Lei, S.H.K. Parthasarathi, G.
Friedland, R. Sommer, and R. Teixeira, "Exploiting
innocuous activity for correlating us- ers across sites,"
Proc. 22nd international conference on World Wide
Web (WWW’13),pp. 447-458, 2013.
[11] R. Zafarani and H. Liu, "Connecting users across
social media sites: a behavioral-modeling approach, "
Proc. of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International
Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
(KDD’13), pp.41-49, 2013.
[12] S. Bartunov, A. Korshunov, S. Park, W. Ryu, and
H. Lee, "Joint link-attribute user identity resolution in
online social net- works," The 6th SNA-KDD
Workshop ’12, 2012.
[13] P. Jain and P. Kumaraguru, "Finding Nemo:
searching and re-solving identities of users across
Tamreen Fatima et.al ,“ Cross Stage Identification of Unknown Clients in Numerous Online Networking Systems .”,
International Journal of Computer Engineering In Research Trends, 4(10):pp:400-406,October-2017.
© 2017, IJCERT All Rights Reserved Page | 406
online social networks," arXiv preprint
arXiv:1212.6147, 2012.
[14] M. Almishari and G. Tsudik, "Exploring
linkability of user re- views," Computer Security–
ESORICS 2012 (ESORICS’12), pp. 307- 324, 2012.
[15] D. Perito, C. Castelluccia, M.A. Kaafar, and P.
Manils, "How unique and traceable are usernames?,"
Privacy Enhancing Technol- ogies (PETS’11), pp. 1-
17, 2011.
[16] A. Acquisti, R. Gross and F. Stutzman, "Privacy
in the age of aug- mented reality," Proc. National
Academy of Sciences, 2011.
[17] T. Iofciu, P. Fankhauser, F. Abel, and K. Bischoff,
"Identifying users across social tagging systems,” Proc.
of the 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs
and Social Media, pp. 522-525, 2011.
[18] B. Zhou and J. Pei, "The k-anonymity and l-
diversity approaches for privacy preservation in social
networks against neighborhood attacks," Knowl. Inf.
Syst, vol. 28, no. 1,pp. 47-77, 2011.
[19] E. Raad, R. Chbeir, and A. Dipanda, "User profile
matching in social networks," Proc. Of the 13th
International Conference on Network-Based
Information Systems (NBiS’10), pp.297-304, 2010.
[20] P. Erdős and A. Rényi, "On random graphs I,"
Publ. Math. De- brecen, vol. 6, pp. 290-297, 2010.
[21] R. Zafarani and H. Liu, "Connecting
corresponding identities across communities," Proc. of
the 3rd International ICWSM Con- ference, pp. 354-
357, 2009.
[22] M. Motoyama and G. Varghese, "I seek you:
searching and matching individuals in social
networks," Proc. of the 11th inter- national workshop
on Web Information and Data Management
(WIDM’09), pp. 67-75, 2009.
[23] J. Vosecky, D. Hong, and V.Y. Shen, "User
identification across multiple social networks," Proc.
Of the 1st International Confer- ence on Networked
Digital Technologies, pp.360-365, 2009.
[24] A. Narayanan and V. Shmatikov, "De-
anonymizing social net- works," Proc. Of the 30th
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SSP’09),
pp. 173-187, 2009.
[25] B. Zhou and J. Pei, "Preserving privacy in social
networks against neighborhood attacks," Proc. Of the
24th IEEE International Conference on Data
Engineering (ICDE’08), pp. 506–515, 2008.
[26] L. Backstrom, C. Dwork, and J. Kleinberg,
"Wherefore art thou r3579x?: anonymized social
networks, hidden patterns, and structural
steganography," Proc. of the 16th international con-
ference on World Wide Web(WWW’07), pp. 181-190,
2007.
[27] R. Zheng, J. Li, H. Chen, and Z. Huang, "A
framework for au- thorship identification of online
messages: writing‐ style fea‐ tures and classification
techniques," J. of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, vol. 57, no. 3,
pp. 378-393, 2006.
[28] O. De Vel, A. Anderson, M. Corney, and G.
Mohay, "Mining e-mail content for author
identification forensics,” ACM Sigmod Record, vol.
30, no. 4, pp. 55-64, 2001.
[29] A. L. Barabasi and R. Albert, "Emergence of
scaling in random networks," Science, vol. 286, no.
5439, pp. 509-512, 1999.
[30] D.J. Watts, and S.H. Strogatz, "Collective
dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks," Nature, vol.393,
no.6684, pp. 440-442, 1998.
[31].K.Arun ,A.SrinageshandM.Ramesh,”Twitter
Sentiment Analysis on Demonetization tweets in India
Using R language.”International Journal of Computer
Engineering in Research Trends., vol.4, no.6, pp. 252-
258, 2017.
[32]TekurVijetha, M.SriLakshmi
andDr.S.PremKumar,”Survey on Collaborative
Filtering and content-Based
Recommending.”International Journal of Computer
Engineering in Research Trends., vol.2, no.9, pp. 594-
599, 2015.
[33]N.Satish Kumar, SujanBabuVadde,”Typicality
Based Content-BoostedCollaborative Filtering
RecommendationFramework.”International Journal of
Computer Engineering in Research Trends., vol.2,
no.11, pp. 809-813, 2015.
[34]D.Ramanjaneyulu,U.Usha Rani,”In Service-
Oriented MSN ProvidingTrustworthy Service
Evaluation.”International Journal of Computer
Engineering in Research Trends., vol.2, no.12, pp.
1192-1197, 2015.
[35]B.Kundan,N.Poorna Chandra Rao and
DrS.PremKumar,”Investigation on Privacy and Secure
content of location based Queries.”International
Journal of Computer Engineering in Research Trends.,
vol.2, no.9, pp. 543-546, 2015.