Emergence of clustering in an acquaintance model without homophily

We introduce an agent-based acquaintance model in which social links are created by processes in which there is no explicit homophily. In spite of the homogeneous nature of the social interactions, highly-clustered social networks can arise. The crucial feature of our model is that of variable transitive interactions. Namely, when an agent introduces two unconnected friends, the rate at which a connection actually occurs between them depends on the number of their mutual acquaintances. As this transitive interaction rate is varied, the social network undergoes a dramatic clustering transition. Close to the transition, the network consists of a collection of well-defined communities. As a function of time, the network can also undergo an \emph{incomplete} gelation transition, in which the gel, or giant cluster, does not constitute the entire network, even at infinite time. Some of the clustering properties of our model also arise, but in a more gradual manner, in Facebook networks. Finally, we discuss a more realistic variant of our original model in which there is a soft cutoff in the rate of transitive interactions. With this variant, one can construct network realizations that quantitatively match Facebook networks.

[1]  A. Arenas,et al.  Community analysis in social networks , 2004 .

[2]  Robin I. M. Dunbar Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates , 1992 .

[3]  A. Arenas,et al.  Models of social networks based on social distance attachment. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[4]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[5]  R. Lambiotte,et al.  Majority model on a network with communities. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[6]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Resolution limit in community detection , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Uttam Bhat,et al.  Emergence of clustering in an acquaintance model without homophily , 2014, ArXiv.

[9]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Community Structure in Large Networks: Natural Cluster Sizes and the Absence of Large Well-Defined Clusters , 2008, Internet Math..

[10]  Brian W. Rogers,et al.  Meeting Strangers and Friends of Friends: How Random are Social Networks? , 2007 .

[11]  Mason A. Porter,et al.  Social Structure of Facebook Networks , 2011, ArXiv.

[12]  T. Vicsek,et al.  Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society , 2005, Nature.

[13]  Chunguang Li,et al.  An evolving network model with community structure , 2005, physics/0510239.

[14]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Limits of modularity maximization in community detection , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  M E J Newman,et al.  Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[16]  G. Caldarelli,et al.  Detecting communities in large networks , 2004, cond-mat/0402499.

[17]  Matthew O. Jackson,et al.  Identifying Community Structures from Network Data via Maximum Likelihood Methods , 2009 .

[18]  B. Golub,et al.  How Homophily Affects the Speed of Learning and Best Response Dynamics , 2012 .

[19]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  R. Rosenfeld Nature , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[21]  Matteo Marsili,et al.  The rise and fall of a networked society: a formal model. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Defining and identifying communities in networks. , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  B. Weitz Hosted By , 2003 .

[25]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[26]  S. Redner,et al.  A Kinetic View of Statistical Physics , 2010 .

[27]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in very large networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[28]  M. Ausloos,et al.  Coexistence of opposite opinions in a network with communities , 2007, physics/0703266.

[29]  K. Kaski,et al.  A Model For Social Networks , 2006, physics/0601114.

[30]  F. Leyvraz,et al.  Scaling theory and exactly solved models in the kinetics of irreversible aggregation , 2003, cond-mat/0305670.

[31]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[32]  Stefan Thurner,et al.  Triadic closure dynamics drives scaling laws in social multiplex networks , 2013, 1301.0259.

[33]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Emergence of a small world from local interactions: modeling acquaintance networks. , 2002, Physical review letters.