Human group formation in online guild and offline gang driven by common team dynamic arxiv:082.2299v2 [phyic.oc-ph] 8 Oct 2009 Neil F. Johnon, Chen Xu 2,3, Zhenyuan Zhao, Nicola Ducheneaut 4, Nichola Yee 4, George Tita 5, Pak Ming Hui 3 Phyic Department, Univerity of Miami, FL 3326, U.S.A. 2 Jiangu Key Laboratory of Thin Film, School of Phyical Science and Technology, Soochow Univerity, Suzhou 25006, China 3 Department of Phyic, The Chinee Univerity of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China 4 Palo Alto Reearch Center, Palo Alto, CA 94304, U.S.A. 5 Department of Criminology, Law and Society, Univerity of California, Irvine, CA 92697, U.S.A. (Dated: October 8, 2009) Quantifying human group dynamic repreent a unique challenge. Unlike animal and other biological ytem, human form group in both real (offline) and virtual (online) pace from potentially dangerou treet gang populated motly by diaffected male youth, through to the maive global guild in online role-playing game for which memberhip currently exceed ten of million of people from all poible background, age-group and gender. We have compiled and analyzed data for thee two eemingly unrelated offline and online human activitie, and have uncovered an unexpected quantitative link between them. Although their overall dynamic differ viibly, we find that a common team-baed model can accurately reproduce the quantitative feature of each imply by adjuting the average tolerance level and attribute range for each population. By contrat, we find no evidence to upport a verion of the model baed on like-eeking-like (i.e. kinhip or homophily ). PACS number: 89.75.Fb, 89.75.Hc, 89.65.Gh I. INTRODUCTION Quantifying the group dynamic of living object i a fundamental challenge acro the cience [, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,,, 2]. Human repreent a particularly difficult cae to analyze, ince their group can be formed in both real (offline) and virtual (online) pace. Such facinating ociological challenge have attracted the attention of many phyicit in recent year under the heading of Econophyic and Sociophyic [8, 9,,, 2, 3]. Indeed, the Econophyic webite provide a rapidly increaing repertoire of uch invetigation [4]. Maively multiplayer online game typically allow individual to pontaneouly form, join or leave a formal group called a guild [5, 6]. The deign of the game encourage player to form uch group by making the mot rewarding quet (i.e., miion) too difficult to accomplih alone. Million of people worldwide log on to the world larget online game (World of Warcraft (WoW)) for the equivalent of everal day every week. Indeed, online game are one of the larget collective human activitie on the planet and hence of interet from the perpective of global commerce [7], ecurity [8] and even epidemiology [9]. A eemingly unrelated ocial phenomenon which i alo of great concern, i urban gang. Urban gang have been gaining in popularity among young people both nationally and internationally [20, 2, 22]. There are obviou difference in the etting and hitory of online guild and offline gang, however the empirical dataet that we have compiled enable u to perform a unique comparative tudy of their repective grouping dynamic [5, 6, 22]. Studie of the formation and evolution of group have long occupied a central poition within the ociological and organizational theory literature, particularly in term of undertanding how individual level characteritic (e.g., demographic, kill et) hape group dynamic [, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,,, 2, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. Proponent of homophily tend to argue that individual chooe to participate in group that minimize within-group heterogeniety, ince amene facilitate communication and reduce potential conflict [4, 28, 29, 30, 3]. With repect to tability, previou reearch ha uggeted that member of group that are mot unlike the other member of the group are alo more likely to exit the group [32]. By contrat, ome reearcher uggeted that rather than minimize diverity among member, member might intead join group that maximize the diverity of kill in the group (team) [33, 34] ince a wider kill et might be more efficient in meeting particular goal [, 33, 34]. In thi paper, we analyze data obtained from treet gang in the offline, real world [20, 2, 22] and Internet guild in virtual online world within maively multiplayer online role-playing game [5, 6, 7]. We develop and employ a phyically motivated model to analyze thee two high profile, yet eemingly unrelated, human activitie. The underlying dataet were obtained from online WoW guild [5, 6] and urban treet gang in Long Beach, California [22]. They have been eparately compiled by member of our team over the pat few year through a combination of field-work and data compilation, and are believed to be tate-of-the-art dataet
for each repective ytem. A a reult of our analyi, we uncover evidence of a quantitative link between the collective dynamic in thee two ytem. Although the obervable group-ize ditribution are very different, we find that a common microcopic mechanim can reproduce the oberved grouping data for each, imply by adjuting the population average attribute property. In particular, we find that the evolution of gang-like group in the real and virtual world can be explained uing the ame team-baed group formation mechanim. In contrat to the quantitative ucce of our team-baed model, we find that a homophilic verion of the model fail. Our finding thu provide quantitative evidence that online guild and offline gang are both driven by team-formation conideration, rather than like-eekinglike. Interetingly, each erver Internet Protocol (IP) addre eem to play an equivalent role to a gang ethnicity. Given the current public concern regarding the ocial conequence of intenive Internet game-playing, and eparately the current rie in treet gang [20, 2, 22], we hope that the preent finding help contribute to the debate by etting thee ytem on a common footing. The plan of the paper i a follow: Sec. II give the main empirical reult that are to be modelled. Section III give the key idea and a detailed decription of our elf-organized team formation model. The main reult comparing the cumulative group ize ditribution from our model and real data for both WoW guild and LA gang are alo preented, in order to etablih the validity of our model. Section IV give further analyi of the non-cumulative WoW guild ize ditribution for eparate erver, a well a the group ize ditribution for LA gang of different ethnic group. Thee reult repreent a more tringent tet of our model. Section V define the kinhip model and demontrate it inadequacy. Finally, Sec. VI provide the concluion and dicue the implication. Note that our philoophy throughout thi work wa to ee if we could identify a minimal model which i conitent with the empirical obervation from two very different human grouping activitie one offline and one online. More complex model can of coure be built, and may even agree better with particular portion of the empirical data. Likewie, we cannot prove that the model that we propoe i trictly the minimal model. However, we have explored many imilar model, and the one that we preent eem the mot reaonable, leat complicated and provide the bet empirical fit. II. MAIN EMPIRICAL RESULTS A explained in Ref. [5], World of Warcraft (WoW) i a maively multiplayer online role-playing game, where player control a character avatar within a virtual world, exploring the landcape, completing quet and interacting with other player. To enter the game, the player N() N('>) N('>) 00 0 00 0 200 0 0 0 250 500 0 C N() 0 3 2 World of warcraft All guild in all erver World of warcraft LA gang -0.25 lope -0.78 lope -.7 -.92 All gang 0 00 0 00-0.55 All guild in all erver (c) -.06 FIG. : (Color Online) Internet guild and treet gang. Empirical data from World of Warcraft on all erver. Cumulative ditribution differ ignificantly from a power-law. Inet how the averaged churn C of the guild. (c) Cumulative ditribution for Long Beach (i.e. LA ) gang. Inet how the underlying dicrete ditribution. 2
3 mut elect a particular realm (or erver), each of which act a an individual copy of the game world [5]. Within the game itelf, player can group themelve into guild which may offer an advantage when tackling certain challenge within the game. Guild are elf-organized group whoe ize, compoition and lifetime are not fixed or pre-determined. Intead, the population tend to elforganize itelf into an evolving ecology of uch guild group and their exact ize and compoition can be acceed at any time from the electronic record tored on all the participating erver. By contrat, mot tudie of ocial group behavior in the real world are plagued by a lack of dynamical information about group ize and memberhip, and the practical retriction to mall ample (a oppoed to everal million WoW player) and pecific geographical location (a oppoed to the global Internet). Thi explain the attraction of uch online game for tudying collective human behavior. Within the WoW game itelf, each player can be regarded a having certain attribute. While uch an attribute lit in practice may be an extended vector, we take the minimal model approach of expreing thi attribute in term of the meaure of a ingle variable (ee later). The deciion to leave or join a guild (i.e. group) doe not lie olely at the dicretion of the individual player involved intead, the player and guild in quetion mut find each other to be mutually acceptable. Figure and how the guild ize ditribution N() and cumulative guild ize ditribution N( > ) for a typical one-month period within the full WoW dataet. The full WoW dataet itelf wa collected from three different erver each repreenting a different game environment between June 2005 and December 2005, and i repreentative of the entire game recent hitory. There are 76686 agent involved in a total of 3992 guild pread acro three erver: S, S2, and S3. The cumulative ditribution for the eparate erver S, S2 and S3 will be hown later (ee Fig. 6). All three erver are baed in the US and were elected at random, with the erver identitie anonymized to preerve player privacy. The vertical axi N() i the number of guild of ize. Data i hown uing October 2005 a a repreentative month, however other month how imilar behavior a demontrated in a later ection. Interetingly, the ditribution i neither a Gauian nor a power-law. Figure confirm that if we were to init on power-law behavior, the uppoedly contant lope in N( > ) would vary unacceptably. The inet in Fig. how the quantity called the averaged churn C veru the guild ize, where C decribe the monthly guild dynamic a follow: The memberhip of a guild i recorded at the beginning and end of each month, with the churn being the number of player who were member at the beginning of the month but who then left during that month. For guild which have the ame ize at the beginning of the month, we then average over the churn value and call thi averaged N() N('>) 00 0 00 0 June Augut October December 0 June Augut October December 0 FIG. 2: (Color Online) WoW guild ize ditribution N() for the month June, Augut, October, and December 2005. The total number of player in thee month are 8083, 9327, 76686, and 93322, repectively. The cumulative guild ize ditribution N( > ) for each of the four month. quantity C. We have checked acro different month, and have alo looked at different meaure, in order to convince ourelve that the data in Fig. are typical of the WoW data. Figure (c) how our empirical data for the 524 member of treet gang in Long Beach, California jut outide of Lo Angele. The data are hown for June 2005, but again other month how imilar behavior. For convenience, we label thee a LA gang. All gang are included irrepective of their ethnicity (e.g. Latino). The number of real gang i much maller than the number of guild in WoW. N( > ) for gang i not mooth nor i it a power-law with a well-defined lope, a hown explicitly in Fig. (c). A. WoW: Monthly Guild Size Ditribution and Churn To demontrate that the form of the ditribution in October 2005 i typical of the WoW data, we alo analyzed the data for all the remaining month. For each month, we repeat the ame exercie of counting the guild
4 C 0 June Augut October December 0 FIG. 3: (Color Online) The average churn C (a defined in text) a a function of guild ize in the WoW dataet on a log-log plot, treating the data in all three erver collectively. Data are hown for the month June, Augut, October, and December 2005. Note the inet of Fig. how the ame data, but on a linear cale and for October only. and their ize for each erver. Here, we how the data for everal additional month (i.e. June, Augut and December 2005) a well a October 2005. The empirical data how that the number of player in each month wa 8083 (June), 9327 (Augut), 76686 (October), and 93322 (December). Figure 2 how N() and N( > ) for thee four month. The ditribution for different month behave in a imilar way. The reult indicate that the guild ize ditribution meaured at any time during the data collection proce, repreent a general property of the game during the entire data collection window. In the inet of Fig., we howed the value of C for all the guild in the three erver (S, S2, S3) for October 2005. Here, the data of C for June, Augut, and December 2005 are hown in Fig. 3. The data indicate that the behavior of C veru guild ize i almot the ame for every month. Thu, the behavior C i a general feature of the WoW data. We have alo analyzed the data for eparate erver, and the behavior i again nearly the ame. Note that there are necearily fewer data point for a ingle erver, hence it i more convenient to how the reult correponding to all erver bundled together. Later, we will compare reult of N() a obtained by our team-formation model with data of eparate erver (ee Fig. 7). B. LA gang: Different ethnic group Our dataet on LA gang collected in June 2005 conit of the ize and the ethnicity of the gang. Putting all the data together, there are a total of 524 member. The cumulative ditribution N( > ) wa hown in Fig. (c). The ditribution how a imilar hape a for the WoW cumulative guild ize ditribution. From the information on the ethnicity of the gang, there are three main ethnic group that one can identify. For privacy reaon, we label thee group a E, E2, and E3, with memberhip 608, 504, 2552, repectively. Figure 4 how the cumulative gang ize ditribution N( > ) for the three major ethnic group. For each of thee ethnic group, the number of gang i very mall (around ). For thi reaon, N( > ) how tep-like behavior. Comparing with WoW data, the total number of gang and the number of member in the LA gang data are both much maller than the correponding number in WoW. In a later ection, we will compare the reult for our team-formation model with thee data of different ethnicity group (ee Fig. 8). III. SELF-ORGANIZED TEAM FORMATION MODEL AND MAIN MODELLING RESULTS We now introduce the key idea within our model, decribe it detail, and how that it reproduce accurately the quantitative feature of the empirical data. A an overview, Fig. 5 how our generic model of elforganized group formation which act a the core etup for implementing pecific rule-et for joining and leaving a group for example, team-formation (ee Fig. 5) or homophilic kinhip. Our generic model (Fig. 5) create a heterogeneou population by aigning an attribute p i to each peron (i.e. agent) i. Since people may have a range of attribute, we aign each agent a pread p i around p i. With the goal of building a minimal model, we chooe each p i to be a ingle number choen randomly from a uniform ditribution between zero and one. More complicated model can of coure be built by aigning, for example, an array of number to decribe the attribute of a peron however we again tre that we are eeking a minimal model in the preent work. The value of p i are random number drawn from a ingle-peaked ditribution with mean p i and pread (i.e. tandard deviation) σ p. The p i value are hown in Fig. 5 a horizontal bar around the correponding color-coded p i value. We then aign a tolerance to every agent for implicity, we chooe the ame value τ for each agent. The tree on the right-hand ide of Fig. 5 applie to both team- formation and kinhip verion. In the teamformation verion, the group contain agent with complementary attribute (i.e. a team) while in the kinhip verion a group contain agent with imilar attribute (i.e. like with like). The model can be contructed without conidering a particular context. It could repreent player in WoW, member in gang, employee in companie, etc. Figure 5 decribe what happen in one timetep in
5 LA ethnic group: E LA ethnic group: E2 LA ethnic group: E3 N('>) 0 0 00 (c) 0 00 FIG. 4: (Color Online) The cumulative gang ize ditribution N( > ) for LA gang of three main ethnic group. Cumulative gang ize ditribution for gang with ethnicity E. The total memberhip i N = 608. Ethnicity E2 with total memberhip N = 504. (c) Ethnicity E3 with total memberhip N = 2552. the team-formation implementation of Fig. 5, both chematically and mathematically. The kinhip model, decribed later, eentially correpond to an oppoite et of add-on rule to the team-formation model. The team-formation model, a we hall ee, work better for the empirical data and we will focu on it in thi ection. We will ue the word team and group interchangeably in the following dicuion. However we emphaize that for the portion of the following dicuion concerning Fig. 5, the word team can be replaced by group ince the tatement apply equally to the team-formation model and the kinhip model. Parameter Conider a population of N agent or player. The attribute of an agent i are decribed by a et of number (p i, p i, τ i ), where p i decribe the ithagent mean attribute. p i decribe the i-th player range of attribute around p i, or equivalently a breadth of kill around the mean kill. The value of p i i independent of the value of p i. Here, τ i i a parameter that decribe the tolerance of an agent in deciding whether to leave a group, after he compare how cloe hi attribute are to the member of the group. In the preent model, we have not included the poible evolution of attribute, although thi i an intereting problem for future tudie. Initialization Initially, each agent i randomly aigned hi attribute parameter p i, the value of which i choen randomly from a uniform ditribution between 0 and. The agent p i are aumed to follow a Gauian ditribution characterized by a mean p i and tandard deviation σ p. Each agent i then aigned a value of p i from thi Gauian ditribution. With p i and p i, the agent i cover the attribute p i ± p i, for attribute characterized by the range between 0 and. The coverage of attribute i not allowed to go below 0 or above, i.e., when p i + p i >, the upper bound i et at and when p i p i < 0, the lower bound i et at 0. For implicity, the value of τ i are taken to be the ame for all agent, i.e., τ i = τ for all agent. The total number of agent in the ytem N can be eaily taken from the real data. Thu, the model i completely characterized by four phyically meaningful parameter: N, p i, σ p and τ. Key Idea and Model Implementation In each timetep, an agent i i randomly picked. The attachment of the agent i to a group then follow the rule below. For a ingle agent joining a team Thi tep i impoed when the agent i being picked i an iolated agent. In thi cae, another agent j i randomly picked. The agent j belong to a team labelled J with n J member. Note that n J = if j i an iolated agent. The key idea i that it i a twoway conideration when an agent i want to join a team J: the agent mut find a team to which hi attribute could contribute, and that team mut in turn find the agent attribute acceptable. Moreover, the agent can only ee the average attribute of the team to which he i applying. In other word, when joining a team, an agent will be guided by general information about the team (i.e. the average attribute of the team) rather than detailed information about all it member. Thi mimic the fact that an outider cannot be expected to be aware of all the detail of a team member before joining, ince uch knowledge can generally only be gained after being a member of that team. Once inide the team, thi information can then be gained either through direct acce to inider knowledge, or imply through omoi. An agent i therefore aee a team J which he conider joining, by looking at the average attribute P J of that team: P J = p k, () n J k J where the um i over all member of team J. The agent i will find the team uitable if hi attribute
6 Self-Organized Group Formation Model Key Component Model Implementation Agent with pecific range of attribute and tolerance Team formation Kinhip formation p i = 0. 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 p i = 0. 0.25 0 pectrum of attribute Team with member covering different attribute i th agent randomly aigned attribute parameter p i and p i i th agent aigned tolerance i i = for all agent Each time tep, randomly pick an agent i Happy with current group? No Ye leave join a better group J? next time tep No conider group merger next time tep Ye next time tep Group with member of imilar attribute Dynamic in Self-Organized Team Formation Model Key Component Model Implementation Agent joining a team ee average attribute of target team think hi attribute can complement exiting member acceptable to team P J join? i accept? team J team J f i,j p i - P J > p i, P J p j J i can contribute to team J ( p i - p j -p i ) J < fraction of member with attribute cloe to applicant i tolerance of team J Agent leaving a team ee attribute of every member unhappy with redundancy in attribute join a better team Team Merger P I + leave? i i team I witch team? team I PJ team I team J team J ( p i - p j -p i ) J(j i) > fraction of member with imilar attribute p i - P J > p i - P I i can contribute more in team J & f i,j < P I - P J > max{ p i I, p j J average attribute acceptable to merging team FIG. 5: (Color Online) Our generic model of group dynamic. The baic model etup, without yet pecifying the criterion that an agent ue when eeking to join or leave a group. Two poible extreme are the team-formation model hown in Fig. 5, where an agent eek a group with a uitable niche in p-pace, and the kinhip model (not hown) where an agent eek a group having member with a imilar p-value. Detail of the implementation and pecific rule-et are dicued in Sec.III.
7 complement thoe of the exiting member. Therefore, if hi attribute are too cloe to that of the exiting member of the team, he feel that he could not contribute much and he will not join the team. The condition that the agent i find the team J acceptable can thu be modelled by p i P J > p i. For the team J, it will conider whether to enroll agent i a a new member. A an applicant to the team J, the team will know the range of attribute that agent i could cover and then ae the potential contribution of agent i to the team. Thi can be meaured by counting the number of exiting member with attribute in the range of agent i, normalized by the team ize n J. Thu, we define f i,j a f i,j = θ( p i p j p i ), (2) n J j J where the um i over all member in team J and θ(x) i the Heaviide function, i.e., θ(x) = for x > 0 and θ(x) = 0 otherwie. In deciding whether to accept a new member, we define a team tolerance by averaging the individual tolerance of it member, i.e., τ J = τ j. (3) n J j J For τ j = τ for all agent, τ J = τ. Note that f i,j i a quantity le than unity. If f i,j i large, many exiting member in team J have attribute that are cloe to that of agent i and thu the team tend not to accept agent i a a new member due to redundance in attribute. Thu, the condition that the team J will accept agent i a a new member i f i,j < τ J. Conidering joining a team require two-way conideration, the criteria for an agent i joining a team J are: p i P J > p i and f i,j < τ J. For an agent leaving a group, finding a better group, or for group merging Thi tep i impoed when the agent i being picked belong to a group labelled I with n I (n I > ) member. The following attempt are implemented in equence. (i) Agent i decide whether he can tolerate the team After being a member of team I for a while, the agent i ha the chance to explore the microcopic detail (individual attribute) of the team member. The key idea i that if he find that there are many member with imilar attribute to hi, he will leave. To decide whether he can tolerate the team, he look at the fraction f i of member in the team with attribute within hi range of coverage, i.e., f i = n I k I(k i) θ( p i p k p i ), (4) where the um i over all the agent in the team I except the agent i himelf. Note that 0 f i. If f i i cloe to, then there are too many member with imilar attribute and the agent i will have a higher tendency to leave. If f i > τ i, the i-th agent cannot tolerate the team any more and he leave the group to become an iolated agent. If thi happen, the timetep end. (ii) Another key idea i team witching. If the agent i find that he can tolerate the team, it doe not necearily mean that he i very happy with the team. He will try to find a better (more uitable) team to join. An agent j, who belong to a group J, i randomly picked. The agent i will then compare whether the current team I or the team J i more uitable for him. He intend to join team J if p i P J > p i P I. Thi criterion implie that the agent i find that he can contribute more in team J than in team I. Whether team J would accept agent i a a new member i again determined by the criterion f i,j < τ J, a in tep. Thu, the criteria for agent i to witch from team I to team J uccefully are p i P J > p i P I and f i,j < τ J. If there i group witching, the timetep end. We remark that the tep (i) and (ii) are imilar to job hunting. If the job i too bad, then one will imply quit without finding a new job. Thi i reflected in (i). However, even if the job i acceptable, one trie to look for a better job. In job hunting, it i a two-way proce: The employer i looking for omeone who can cover the weaker apect or ervice in a company, and the employee i looking for a better place. Thi i reflected in (ii). (iii) The next key idea i to allow for team merger. If nothing actually happened in (i) and (ii), i.e., the i- th agent doe not leave the team I, either becaue he i happy or becaue team witching doe not work, we conider the poibility of allowing two team to merge. Team I to which agent i belong, merge with another team J under the criterion P I P J > P I, where P I = (/n I ) i I p i. Similarly, team J conider merging with team I under the criterion P J P I > P J. That i to ay, if P I P J > max( P I, P J ), then team I and J merge to form a bigger team. Note that there are two way to implement merger. The team J could be the ame team that the j-th agent belonged to in procedure (ii) above, or a new agent j can be picked
8 randomly when merger are conidered. Reult are nearly identical for the two way. To ummarize, the key ingredient in our teamformation model are: (i) Team tend to recruit member to cover a pectrum of attribute; (ii) agent join a team by aeing hi potential contribution to the team; (iii) agent joining a team only ee an average of the attribute of a team; (iv) team accept new member by aeing hi potential contribution; (v) agent leave a team when there are many member with imilar attribute; (vi) agent alway look for better team where he could contribute more; and (vii) team tend to expand by merger when it memberhip become table. Each of thee ingredient eem reaonable baed on our common knowledge of how people behave in team ituation. We remark that thi et of rule allowed u to produce reult that are imilar to the empirical obervation for both the WoW and gang data. If more data become available in order to put further contraint on the model, or if we only want to model a particular ubet of the behavior ariing in the full dataet, then the model rule may either require further elaboration or be further implified. For example, ingredient (vi) i needed to model the averaged churn C in WoW data while ingredient (vii) i needed to get at the proper ize of the bigger group. Figure 6 highlight the main modelling reult. Figure 6 how that excellent agreement i obtained acro the entire range of oberved group ize for N( > ), between the empirical WoW guild data from Fig. (dark blue) and the team-formation model (red) of Fig. 5. Throughout thi paper, the model() i implemented with the oberved number of agent a an input. Here τ = 0.69, p i = 0.6 and σ p = 0.022, but we tre that good agreement can be obtained acro a reaonably wide range of parameter choice. The remaining panel (Fig. 6-(d)) how the data eparated by erver. The parameter value ued are within % of thoe quoted above. To calculate C in the model, we record the memberhip for each guild in a run during 0.7 Monte Carlo timetep (after a tranient of 00 Monte Carlo tep). A Monte Carlo time tep i the duration over which each agent ha, on average, been choen once for carrying out the dynamic in the model, i.e. each agent ha been given a chance to join or leave a group. We have tried different time window o a to obtain the averaged churn C in WoW data and found that 0.7 Monte Carlo timetep happen to give particularly good agreement. One might interpret thi by claiming that the timecale over which 70% of agent have a chance to carry out a dynamical update proce, repreent the real-world timecale for the churn proce however, it i very hard to aociate timecale in imulation with pecific timecale in the real world. A imilar proce i followed for the LA gang in Fig. 6(e). In an analogou way to the breakdown by computer erver in Fig. 6-(d), one can break down the N('>) N('>) N('>) 00 0 00 0 0 C C 200 0 0 0 250 500 200 0 All guild in all erver Server: S2 (c) 0 0 250 500 0 All gang (e) 0 00 kinhip model C C 200 0 0 0 250 500 200 0 Server: S Server: S3 (d) 0 0 250 500 0 FIG. 6: (Color Online) Empirical data and model comparion for -(d) World of Warcraft and (e) LA gang. Empirical data are dark blue, and the team-formation model from Fig. 5 i in red. The kinhip model (light blue) produce a poor fit in both cae. LA gang data by ethnicity. The fit by gang ethnicity (ee Sec.IV later) i good even though the number are much maller than WoW and hence more prone to noie. Thi urpriing connection between ethnicity and erver i conitent with the fact that it i eentially impoible to change one real-world ethnicity or virtual-world erver (unle a large fee i paid to WoW in the latter cae, and even then it i an irreverible proce). It i alo intriguing that the bet-fit model parameter value are o imilar acro WoW erver, and acro gang ethnicitie. Thi ugget a quai-univeral behavior in term of the way in which people form gang-like group online and offline. The mall oberved erver-dependence (and ethnicity-dependence) can be explained by player on different erver (and gang member of different ethnicitie) perceiving their environment differently, and hence adopting lightly different tolerance. Our teamformation model thu manage to capture all the feature of the empirical gang and guild dynamic, including the approximately linear increae of the averaged churn C
9 with guild ize in WoW. By contrat, the kinhip (i.e. homophilic) verion (ee Sec.V later) of the model doe not reproduce the empirical reult of either WoW or the gang, even qualitatively, a demontrated by the light blue curve in Fig. 6. N() 00 0 All erver imulation 00 0 Server: S imulation IV. FURTHER ANALYSIS: N() WOW GUILD SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND N( > ) FOR LA GANGS OF DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROUPS The agreement of our model with WoW data in N( > ) for all and individual erver (Fig. 6-(d)) can be further illutrated by comparing the underlying, i.e., noncumulative, ditribution for the guild ize ditribution N(). Since N() i le mooth and thu more noiy than the cumulative ditribution N( > ), we are actually executing a more tringent tet of the model by carrying out the team-formation model comparion baed on N() intead of N( > ). From the WoW dataet, we count the number of player in all the guild in each erver, and alo the total number of player in all erver. In each cae, we take the number of player a input for N and run our teamformation model. By adjuting the parameter p i, σ p and τ in the model, we obtained the guild ize ditribution N() for each of the three eparate erver and for the three erver collectively. Figure 7 how the N() for our model obtained from one run in each of thee cae, together with the ditribution obtained from the data. The parameter are given in the figure caption. The reult from the team-formation model capture the eential feature in the WoW guild ize ditribution. From the parameter for each of the erver, it can be een that they are very imilar but not identical. Thi indicate that while the behavior of the player in different erver are not too different, there are light difference indicating ome kind of pecial characteritic of a erver or game environment. We will ee that imilar feature alo appear in the LA gang data, when treating ethnicity eparately. To the extent to which the erver identity mimic an ethnicity, thi eem to open up ome deeper ociological quetion which can be explored in future reearch on guild and gang. From our attempt in modelling the real data, we now make a few comment on the model a related to the key feature in real data: Step (ee Sec.III) that et the criteria for an agent to join a team and a team to accept a new member i the eence of the team-formation model. Thi i eential in getting the hape of N( > ). We oberved that the hape of N( > ), and thu N(), i more enitive to the parameter τ. In the WoW data, there i a quantity called C. In order to get reaonable value for C, a mechanim i required for agent to leave a team or to witch team readily. Step (i) and (ii) erve to provide uch a mechanim. In order to N() 0 0 (c) Server: S2 imulation 0 0 0 (d) Server: S3 imulation 0 FIG. 7: (Color Online) The WoW guild ize ditribution N() in October 2005. Guild ize ditribution treating all erver collectively. The parameter ued for team formation are N = 76686, p i = 0.60, σ p = 0.022, and τ = 0.69. Guild ize ditribution of erver S. The parameter ued for team formation imulation are N = 24033, p i = 0.60, σ p = 0.020, and τ = 0.67. (c) Guild ize ditribution of erver S2. The parameter ued for team formation imulation are N = 24477, p i = 0.60, σ p = 0.025, and τ = 0.75. (d) Guild ize ditribution of erver S3. The parameter ued for team formation imulation are N = 2876, p i = 0.6, σ p = 0.020, and τ = 0.70. Each imulation reult i obtained from one particular run of the team-formation model. Note that the parameter for different erver are very imilar. get at the larget ize of the guild in real data, we need a mechanim for guild to merge. Step (iii) erve thi purpoe. If we were to focu only on fitting the guild-ize or gang-ize ditribution, and hence decided not to care about imultaneouly fitting the churn C in the WoW data, we could contruct even impler verion of our model and yet till obtain group-ize ditribution imilar to the real data. For example, a model with lower team witching and more tatic group can be ued to get at N( > ) imilar to real data. However, with our preent team-formation model we have managed to fit thee ize ditribution and account for the churn. One implication of our work i therefore that previou grouping model which have been propoed to explain time-averaged group ize in real data without churn, hould be re-examined once uch churn data become available. Fitting churn a well a the group-ize ditribution preent a tringent challenge which relatively few candidate model will urvive. Performing tudie analogou to our preent one, would therefore be a very ueful way of reducing the number of competing model. Likewie our own extenive experimentation indicate that it
would be very hard to identify an alternative model to our team-formation one, in which equally high quantitative accuracy wa obtained and yet the tructure and/or et of microcopic rule were fundamentally different. Thi give u confidence that our analyi ha indeed identified a realitic group formation mechanim. We have teted our model againt the empirical data of N( > ) for LA gang data, treating all the gang collectively (Fig. 6(e)). Here, we further tet our model for the three major ethnic group a hown in Fig. 4. Treating the ethnicity a the analogy of erver in WoW, we counted the number of member in the gang in each of the ethnic group. For the three major ethnic group E, E2, and E3, there are 608, 504, and 2552 member, repectively. Thee number are ued a input to our model. We then adjut the parameter value in the model to give a ditribution N( > ) that reemble the empirical data, for each of the three cae. Figure 8 how the reult for the ethnic group E, E2, E3. It i very encouraging that our model manage to capture the main feature of the empirical data for the LA gang, even though the individual gang ize and number of gang in each ethnic group are much maller than for the cae of WoW. Note that the parameter (given in the caption) are quite imilar for different ethnic group. Interetingly, uing the value of N from the empirical data for each of the ethnic group, the reulting number of group in our team-formation model turn out to be imilar to that for the empirical data. From the reult of WoW guild and treet gang, we can ee that the role of erver in WoW ha a direct analogy with the role of ethnicity in treet gang. In ummary, our team-formation model reproduce the main quantitative feature of the empirical WoW guild ize ditribution and the cumulative ditribution (Fig., Fig., Fig. 2), in the cae when the erver are conidered collectively (Fig. 6-(d)) and in the cae when the erver are conidered individually (Fig. 7). The model alo reproduce the main feature in the group dynamic (Fig. 6-(d)) oberved in the empirical data on churn (Fig. and Fig. 3). Furthermore, the agreement between model and empirical data extent to reult in different time window (i.e. month). Our team-formation model alo reproduce the main quantitative feature of cumulative gang ize ditribution in empirical data (Fig. (c)), taking the ethnicity collectively (Fig. 6(e)) and eparately (Fig. 8). Thu, our elforganized team-formation model capture quantitatively the feature of the group dynamic reulting from cyberworld interaction, a in the cae of WoW guild, and real-world interaction a in the cae of treet gang. V. INADEQUACY OF THE ALTERNATIVE MODEL BASED ON KINSHIP There are line (in light blue) in Fig. 6 for WoW erver S and in Fig. 6(e) for treet gang that how the reult for a kinhip model. The kinhip model i in many way the oppoite of the team-formation model, and wa introduced to explore homophily a a poible alternative group-formation mechanim. In the team-formation model, the team tend to recruit member with attribute that pread over the whole pectrum of attribute, i.e., the attribute of the agent complement each other. By contrat in the kinhip model, group form around agent with imilar attribute. In hort, agent tend to dilike being in a group with agent having very different attribute. Here, we briefly dicu the mechanim in thi kinhip model. We can readily modify our team-formation model in order to create a kinhip formation model, a follow. The framework in Fig. 5 remain the ame, and o doe Fig. 5 in term of it tructure however we flip the inequalitie in Fig. 5 for the criteria for an agent joining a group and for a group accepting a member. A kinhip model can hence be defined which i diametrically oppoite to our team-formation model, and yet can be dicued on the ame footing. In tep (ee Sec.III), the criteria for an agent i joining a group J are: p i P J p i and f i,j τ J. Thee imply that an agent want to join a group with an average attribute cloe to hi own, and a group want to accept new member having attribute cloe to it exiting member. In tep (i), an agent i cannot tolerate a group I when he find the member are too different from him. Thu the agent leave if f i < τ i. In tep (ii), each agent i continually looking for a better group which ha a more imilar average attribute to him. So group witching happen if p i P J < p i P I and f i,j τ J. Finally, when memberhip become table, a group tend to expand by merging with group having imilar average attribute. Thu two group I and J merge if P I P J min( P I, P J ). In fact, for every team formation model that incorporate the idea of agent with different attribute tending to form a team, a correponding kinhip model can be identified, built around the oppoite idea of agent with imilar attribute forming group. However the cumulative ditribution function obtained from the kinhip model cannot capture even the baic qualitative hape of the empirical data. The detailed reaon i that the kinhip model tend to produce too many group of mall ize. VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The analyi in thi paper contribute to a growing movement within phyic which aim to build quantita-
LA gang ethnicity E imulation LA gang ethnicity E2 imulation LA gang ethnicity E3 imulation N('>) 0 0 00 (c) 0 00 FIG. 8: (Color Online) The cumulative gang ize ditribution N( > ) for LA gang of different ethnicity. N( > ) of memberhip of LA gang of ethnicity E. The parameter ued for the team formation model are N = 608, p i = 0.50, σ p = 0.06, and τ = 0.73. N( > ) of memberhip of LA gang of ethnicity E2. The parameter ued for the team formation model are N = 504, p i = 0.42, σ p = 0.04, and τ = 0.72. (c) N( > ) of memberhip of LA gang of ethnicity E3. The parameter ued for the team-formation model are N = 2552, p i = 0.4, σ p = 0.06, and τ = 0.72. Each model reult correpond to one run of the team-formation model imulation. Note that the parameter for different ethnic group are very imilar, a wa the cae for different erver in WoW. tive model of collective dynamic in ocial ytem uing the ame minimal-model thinking adopted within phyic [35]. We have hown that population of human, in two very different etting, can exhibit behavior which are conitent with a common underlying grouping mechanim. Thi ugget that many of the collective human behavior that we oberve, might be driven by common endogenou feature rather than etting-pecific exogenou detail. Specifically, we ued detailed empirical dataet to how that the oberved dynamic in two very ditinct form of human activity one offline activity which i widely conidered a a public threat, and one online activity which i by contrat conidered a relatively harmle can be reproduced uing the ame, imple model of individual eeking group with complementary attribute, i.e., they want to form a team, a oppoed to eeking group with imilar attribute (homophilic kinhip). Jut a different ethnicitie may have different type of gang in the ame city in term of their number, ize, and tability, the ame hold for the different computer erver on which online player play a given game. Our quantitative reult provide a novel addition to the group formation debate by being (i) able to reproduce the quantitative feature of both the dynamical and timeaveraged behavior oberved in the empirical dataet, (ii) plauible in term of the individual-baed rule that are ued to decribe group memberhip, (iii) robut in term of it inenitivity to mall perturbation in the model pecification and parameter value, (iv) minimal in that the number of free parameter in the model i kept to a minimum, given the available dataet to be modelled, and (v) able to hed light on what mechanitic rule drive people to join and leave uch group in offline and online ituation and provide the bai for further invetigation. Thi cloe relationhip that we have uncovered between gang and guild, might be le urpriing if it were true that both are populated by a imilar ector of ociety. However thi i not the cae. Online game are played equally by men and women acro all age group, location and background [5, 6, 7], while gang are motly populated by teenage urban male from particular background [20]. Intead, we believe that our reult demontrate a commonality in the way in which human form uch offline and online group. Interetingly thi echoe recent claim by international law enforcement agencie concerning the hybrid nature of trannational gang ( mara ), crime organization, inurgencie and terrorit group, whoe interaction and activitie are now beginning to blur the boundarie between real and virtual pace [20]. Finally we note that thi work throw up the intereting challenge of providing analytic olution to accompany the empirical finding and numerical imulation. Work i proceeding in thi direction, though the difficulty of including internal degree of freedom, i.e., the model attribute, in general coalecence-fragmentation problem i daunting. [] M. Meterton-Gibbon and E.S. Adam, Science 298, 246 (2002). [2] I.D. Couzin, J. Kraue, N.R. Frank, and S.A. Levin, Nature 433, 53 (2005). [3] S. Gueron and S. Levin, Math. Bioci. 28, 245 (995). [4] R. Durrett and S. Levin, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 57, 267 (2005). [5] J.M. Eptein and R. Axtell, Growing artificial ocietie: ocial cience from the bottom up (The Brooking Inti-
2 tute, Wahington, 996) [6] L.E. Cederman, American Political Science Review 97, 35 (2003). [7] M.C. Gonzalez, C.A. Hidalgo, and A.L. Barabai, Nature 453, 779 (2008). [8] J.M. Kumpula, J-P. Onnela, J. Saramaki, K. Kimmo, J. Kertz, Phy. Rev. Lett. 99, 22870 (2007). [9] R. Guimera, B. Uzzi, S. Jarrett, and L.A. Nune Amaral, Science 308, 697 (2005). [] A.L. Barabai, Nature 435, 207 (2005). [] S. Wuchty, B. Jone, B. and B. Uzzi, Science 36, 36 (2007). [2] G. Palla, A.L. Barabai, and T. Vicek, Nature 446, 664 (2007). [3] S. Galam, Int. J. Mod. Phy. C 9, 409 (2008) and reference therein. [4] See www.unifr.ch/econophyic for detail. [5] N. Ducheneaut, N. Yee, E. Nickell, and R.J. Moore, Game and Culture, 28 (2006). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/world of Warcraft for the detailed decription. [6] D. William, N. Ducheneaut, X. Li, Y. Zhang, N. Yee, and E. Nickell, Game and Culture, 338 (2006). [7] International Buine Machine tudy: Gaming a a Metaphor For 2t Century Leaderhip, available at www.ibm.com/gio (2007) [8] D. Their, Wired Magazine, 20 March 2008. [9] R.D. Balicer, Epidemiology 8, 260 (2007). [20] US Jutice Department Report: Hybrid and Other Modern Gang, Juvenile Jutice Bulletin, December 200. [2] http://new.bbc.co.uk//hi/world/america/7328967.tm [22] K. Nakamura, G.E. Tita and D. Krackhardt, Violence in the balance, ubmitted to journal Social Force (2009). [23] N. Katz, and D. Lazer, Small Group Reearch 35, 307 (2004). [24] P. Gongla, and C.R. Rizzuto, IBM Sytem Journal 40, 842 (200). [25] D. Krep, and R. Wilon, Journal of Economic Theory 27, 253 (982). [26] B. Mayhew, J. McPheron, T. Rotolo, Social Force 74, 5 (995). [27] M. Ruef, H.E. Aldrich, and N.M. Carter, American Sociological Review, 68, 95 (2003). [28] P. Lazarfeld, and R.K. Merton, Friendhip a a Social Proce: A Subtantive and Methodological Analyi, in Freedom and Control in Modern Society, ed. Berger, M., Abel, T. and Page, C.H. (New York, Van Notrand, 954) p. 8. [29] P.M. Blau, American Journal of Sociology, 83 26 (977). [30] J.M. McPheron, and L. Smith-Lovin, American Sociological Review, 52, 370 (987). [3] J.M. McPheron, L. Smith-Lovin, and J. Cook, J. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 45 (200). [32] P. Popielarz, and J.M. McPheron, American Journal of Sociology,, 698 (995). [33] J.W. Thibaut, and H.H. Kelley, The Social Pychology of Group, (New York, Wiley, 959) [34] P.J. Hind, K.M. Carley, D. Krackhardt, and D. Wholey, Organizational Behavior and Human Deciion Procee, 8, 226 (2000). [35] C. Catellano, S. Fortunato and V. Loreto, Rev. Mod. Phy. 8, 59 (2009).