The Hyperedge Event Model

We introduce the hyperedge event model (HEM)---a generative model for events that can be represented as directed edges with one sender and one or more receivers or one receiver and one or more senders. We integrate a dynamic version of the exponential random graph model (ERGM) of edge structure with a survival model for event timing to jointly understand who interacts with whom, and when. The HEM offers three innovations with respect to the literature---first, it extends a growing class of dynamic network models to model hyperedges. The current state-of-the-art approach to dealing with hyperedges is to inappropriately break them into separate edges/events. Second, our model involves a novel receiver selection distribution that is based on established edge formation models, but assures non-empty receiver lists. Third, the HEM integrates separate, but interacting, equations governing edge formation and event timing. We use the HEM to analyze emails sent among department managers in Montgomery County government in North Carolina. Our application demonstrates that the model is effective at predicting and explaining time-stamped network data involving edges with multiple receivers. We present an out-of-sample prediction experiment to illustrate how researchers can select between different specifications of the model.

[1]  P. V. Rao,et al.  Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modeling of Time to Event Data , 2000 .

[2]  T. Snijders,et al.  Modeling the Coevolution of Networks and Behavior , 2007 .

[3]  Stephanie Forrest,et al.  Email networks and the spread of computer viruses. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[4]  Carter T. Butts,et al.  4. A Relational Event Framework for Social Action , 2008 .

[5]  James H. Fowler,et al.  Legislative cosponsorship networks in the US House and Senate , 2006, Soc. Networks.

[6]  Padhraic Smyth,et al.  Continuous-Time Regression Models for Longitudinal Networks , 2011, NIPS.

[7]  Hanna M. Wallach,et al.  Transparency by Conformity: A Field Experiment Evaluating Openness in Local Governments , 2016 .

[8]  Nando de Freitas,et al.  Bayesian Analysis of Continuous Time Markov Chains with Application to Phylogenetic Modelling , 2016 .

[9]  Patrick J. Wolfe,et al.  Point process modelling for directed interaction networks , 2010, ArXiv.

[10]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1984 .

[11]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Random hypergraphs and their applications , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[12]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Hypergraph topological quantities for tagged social networks , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  Shashi Shekhar,et al.  Multilevel hypergraph partitioning: applications in VLSI domain , 1999, IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst..

[14]  Yu Fan,et al.  Learning Continuous-Time Social Network Dynamics , 2009, UAI.

[15]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 2002, Technometrics.

[16]  René Schüffny,et al.  Developing structural constraints on connectivity for biologically embedded neural networks , 2012, Biological Cybernetics.

[17]  Dimitris Rizopoulos,et al.  Joint Models for Longitudinal and Time-to-Event Data: With Applications in R , 2012 .

[18]  G. Wahba,et al.  Multivariate Bernoulli distribution , 2012, 1206.1874.

[19]  T. Snijders Stochastic actor-oriented models for network change , 1996 .

[20]  D. Rubin Bayesianly Justifiable and Relevant Frequency Calculations for the Applied Statistician , 1984 .

[21]  J. Geweke,et al.  Getting It Right , 2004 .

[22]  Ian Fellows,et al.  Removing Phase Transitions from Gibbs Measures , 2017, AISTATS.

[23]  Micah Altman,et al.  Numerical Issues in Statistical Computing for the Social Scientist , 2003 .

[24]  Padhraic Smyth,et al.  Dynamic Egocentric Models for Citation Networks , 2011, ICML.

[25]  Bruce A. Desmarais,et al.  Reciprocity and the structural determinants of the international sanctions network , 2014, Soc. Networks.

[26]  John Geweke,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments , 1991 .

[27]  Theodore Kypraios,et al.  Exact Bayesian inference via data augmentation , 2015, Stat. Comput..

[28]  W. Wong,et al.  The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation , 1987 .

[29]  Chuang Liu,et al.  A hypergraph model of social tagging networks , 2010, ArXiv.

[30]  Bruce D. McCullough,et al.  The Accuracy of Econometric Software , 2009 .