Paper detail

Multi-skill Collaborative Teams based on Densest Subgraphs

We consider the problem of identifying a team of skilled individuals for collaboration, in the presence of a social network. Each node in the social network may be an expert in one or more skills. Edge weights specify affinity or collaborative compatibility between respective nodes. Given a project that requires a set of specified number of skilled individuals in each area of expertise, the goal is to identify a team that maximizes the collaborative compatibility. For example, the requirement may be to form a team that has at least three databases experts and at least two theory experts. We explore team formation where the collaborative compatibility objective is measured as the density of the induced subgraph on selected nodes. The problem of maximizing density is NP-hard even when the team requires individuals of only one skill. We present a 3-approximation algorithm that improves upon a naive extension of the previously known algorithm for densest at least $k$ subgraph problem. We further show how the same approximation can be extended to a special case of multiple skills. Our problem generalizes the formulation studied by Lappas et al. [KDD '09] who measure team compatibility in terms of diameter or spanning tree costs. Experiments are performed on a crawl of the DBLP graph where individuals can be skilled in at most four areas - theory, databases, data mining, and artificial intelligence. In addition to our main algorithm, we also present heuristic extensions to trade off between the size of the solution and its induced density. These density-based algorithms outperform the diameter-based objective on several metrics for assessing the collaborative compatibility of teams. The solutions suggested are also intuitively meaningful and scale well with the increase in the number of skilled individuals required.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.