Network constraints on the mixing patterns of binary node metadata

We consider the network constraints on the bounds of the assortativity coefficient, which aims to quantify the tendency of nodes with the same attribute values to be connected. The assortativity coefficient can be considered as the Pearson's correlation coefficient of node metadata values across network edges and lies in the interval [-1,1]. However, properties of the network, such as degree distribution and the distribution of node metadata values, place constraints upon the attainable values of the assortativity coefficient. This is important as a particular value of assortativity may say as much about the network topology as about how the metadata are distributed over the network-a fact often overlooked in literature where the interpretation tends to focus simply on the propensity of similar nodes to link to each other, without any regard on the constraints posed by the topology. In this paper we quantify the effect that the topology has on the assortativity coefficient in the case of binary node metadata. Specifically, we look at the effect that the degree distribution, or the full topology, and the proportion of each metadata value has on the extremal values of the assortativity coefficient. We provide the means for obtaining bounds on the extremal values of assortativity for different settings and demonstrate that under certain conditions the maximum and minimum values of assortativity are severely limited, which may present issues in interpretation when these bounds are not considered.

[1]  Leto Peel,et al.  The ground truth about metadata and community detection in networks , 2016, Science Advances.

[2]  Tao Zhou,et al.  Lower bound of assortativity coefficient in scale-free networks. , 2016, Chaos.

[3]  Ernesto Estrada,et al.  Combinatorial study of degree assortativity in networks. , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[4]  Matteo Cinelli,et al.  Evaluating relevance and redundancy to quantify how binary node metadata interplay with the network structure , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[5]  M. Newman,et al.  Mixing patterns in networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[6]  Markus Strohmaier,et al.  Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks , 2019, Nature Human Behaviour.

[7]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[8]  Aaron Clauset,et al.  Assembling thefacebook: Using Heterogeneity to Understand Online Social Network Assembly , 2015, WebSci.

[9]  M. Fréchet,et al.  Sur les tableaux dont les marges et des bornes sont données , 1960 .

[10]  Piet Van Mieghem,et al.  Assortativity in complex networks , 2015, J. Complex Networks.

[11]  R. Schenkel,et al.  Submission: Its Features and Function in the Wolf and Dog , 1967 .

[12]  Mohsen Jadidi,et al.  Gender Disparities in Science? Dropout, Productivity, Collaborations and Success of Male and Female Computer Scientists , 2017, Adv. Complex Syst..

[13]  Christopher Rao,et al.  Graphs in Statistical Analysis , 2010 .

[14]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  The "Majority Illusion" in Social Networks , 2015, PloS one.

[15]  A. Giuliani,et al.  Protein contact networks: an emerging paradigm in chemistry. , 2013, Chemical reviews.

[16]  Matteo Cinelli,et al.  Structural Bounds on the Dyadic Effect , 2017, J. Complex Networks.

[17]  Jean-Charles Delvenne,et al.  Multiscale mixing patterns in networks , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Karolin Kappler,et al.  Gender homophily in online dyadic and triadic relationships , 2016, EPJ Data Science.

[19]  G. Yule On the Methods of Measuring Association between Two Attributes , 1912 .

[20]  Edward E. Cureton,et al.  Note on φ/φmax , 1959 .

[21]  Damon Centola An Experimental Study of Homophily in the Adoption of Health Behavior , 2011, Science.

[22]  M. Newman,et al.  Identifying the role that animals play in their social networks , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  J. Murabito,et al.  The Spread of Alcohol Consumption Behavior in a Large Social Network , 2010, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[24]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Distribution of node characteristics in complex networks , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  L. Freeman Segregation in Social Networks , 1978 .

[26]  J. Guilford The Minimal Phi Coefficient and the Maximal Phi , 1965 .

[27]  Lars Backstrom,et al.  The Anatomy of the Facebook Social Graph , 2011, ArXiv.

[28]  P. Pin,et al.  Assessing the relevance of node features for network structure , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  K. Narayan,et al.  Is there evidence that friends influence body weight? A systematic review of empirical research. , 2012, Social science & medicine.

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

[31]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[32]  Kristen M. Altenburger,et al.  Monophily in social networks introduces similarity among friends-of-friends , 2018, Nature Human Behaviour.

[33]  Joel Nishimura,et al.  Configuring Random Graph Models with Fixed Degree Sequences , 2016, SIAM Rev..